Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA239524. Judith L. Champagne, Judge. Affirmed.
Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MALLANO, P. J.
Defendant Kenneth Rodriguez entered a negotiated plea of no contest to second degree robbery and admitted allegations pleaded under the “Three Strikes” law and Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1) that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction. In conformity with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to nine years in prison. Defendant’s plea was based on an October 27, 2002 incident in which he pretended to be a police officer, stopped and pretended to arrest a motorist, and then demanded the motorist’s keys and wallet. After the motorist handed over his keys and wallet, defendant attempted to punch him, and the motorist ran away. Judgment was entered on April 9, 2003.
On August 26, 2005, defendant filed an ex parte motion, requesting that the trial court award him additional presentence custody credits that had been credited against a jail term he was required to serve as a condition of continuing his probation in an unrelated case (Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. BA195103) before the present case was filed. The court promptly denied that motion. On January 6, 2009, defendant filed a second motion, seeking the same additional presentence custody credits. The trial court again denied defendant’s motion, and he filed an appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. On July 31, 2009, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. To date, we have received no response.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: ROTHSCHILD, J., JOHNSON, J.