People v. Salceda CA4/1 ( 2023 )

Filed 3/17/23 P. v. Salceda CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D080648
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD289047)
LEOVARDO SALCEDA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Daniel B. Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed.
Leovardo Salceda, in pro. per.; and Thien Huong Tran, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This appeal is from a conviction following a guilty plea. Appellant’s
request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code,1 § 1237.5) was denied.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Leovardo Salceda pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192,
subd. (a)) and admitted personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (b)).
Salceda was sentenced to the middle term of six years for manslaughter plus
five years for the firearm enhancement.
The court imposed a restitution fine of $3,300 (§ 1202.4(b)). The court
also imposed a $40 court security fee and a $30 criminal conviction fee.
Salceda was awarded 471 actual days and 234 conduct days for a total of 705
days of custody credits.
Salceda filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the
record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Salceda the opportunity
to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a lengthy
supplemental brief. We will address Salceda’s brief later in this opinion.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and
in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel
has identified a possible issue which was considered in evaluating the
potential merits of this appeal: Whether Salceda’s presentence custody
credits were properly calculated.
Salceda’s supplemental brief is focused primarily on matters outside
the record of this appeal. As we discuss his brief, we first point out this
appeal is from the judgment imposed following his plea. Salceda does not
challenge his plea and does not want to challenge his conviction or sentence.
2
At base, Salceda wants the court to direct corrections officials to change
the calculation of his presentence custody credit. He also wants the court to
direct prison authorities to provide him with a parole hearing, neither of
which would be appropriate actions available to the court on this appeal.
Salceda’s only record based challenge is to the calculation of custody
credits. He claims he was entitled to credits under section 4019 since the
crime was committed in 1988, before more restrictive credits were applicable.
The difficulty with his claim is the trial court was aware of the
difference in custody credit calculation. Salceda was advised he received the
section 4019 credits to which he was entitled. He did not challenge the
calculation of credits in the trial court.
In short, Salceda’s written submission does not raise any arguable
issues for reversal on appeal.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders.
We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Salceda
was represented by competent counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
DO, J.
3