Filed 10/3/13 P. v. Foley CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. JAMES MICHAEL FOLEY, Defendant and Appellant. F065508 (Super. Ct. No. F11902428)



### OPINION

THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of Fresno County. Brant K. Bramer, Commissioner. Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-

* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J ., Levy, J. and Franson, J.2 INTRODUCTION On June 21, 2011, appellant, James Mi chael Foley, waived his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin v

. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 and pled no contest to one count of po ssession of illegal substances in a jail facility (Pen. Code, § 4573.6). 1 Appellant also admitted a prio r serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three stri kes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i ) & 1170.12) and multiple prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On July 22, 2011, th e trial court struck the prior se rious felony conviction pursuant
to section 1385 and People v

. Superior Court ( Romero ) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The court struck the prior prison term enhancements and imposed a sentence of three years for possession of illegal substances in a jail facilit y. The court ordered appellant’s sentence to be served concurrently wi th his sentence for a conviction in an unrelated case. The court granted appellant 54 days of custody cr edits for time served in jail and conduct credits of 26 days for total custody cred its of 80 days. The court imposed a $200
restitution fine. On June 4, 2012, appellant filed a motion in the trial court requesting a recalculation of his presentence custody cred its seeking additional conduct credits. The trial court denied appellant’s motion on June 27, 2012. Appellant appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion. Appellate coun sel has filed a brief for independent review of the case by this court pursuant to People v

. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).
APPELLATE COURT REVIEW Appellant’s appointed appellate coun sel has filed an opening brief that summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issu es, and requests this court to review the record independently. ( Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.) The open ing brief also includes

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.3 the declaration of appellate c ounsel indicating that appellant was advised he could file his own brief with this court. By letter on Octo ber 29, 2012, we invited appellant to submit additional briefing. To date, he has not done so. After independent review of the r ecord, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.