People v. Calderon CA4/1 ( 2023 )

Filed 3/30/23 P. v. Calderon 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D081213
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD127067)
ROGELIO CALDERON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Affirmed.
Sheila O’Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2009, a jury convicted Rogelio Calderon of first degree murder (Pen.
Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). He was sentenced in 2012 to an indeterminate term
of 25 years to life, plus 10 years for the use of a firearm. The court awarded
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Calderon 2067 days of actual days of custody credits for the period of January
25, 2007 to September 21, 2012.
In August 2022, Calderon filed a motion to award additional custody
credits for the same time period pursuant to section 1170.03. The trial court
denied the motion by written order.
Calderon filed a 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 this court to review the
record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Calderon the opportunity
to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.2
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 two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the
potential merits of this appeal.
1. Whether the trial court erred in calculating Calderon’s custody
credits.
2. Whether Calderon’s case was final for purposes of obtaining relief
under section 1170.03.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders.
We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Calderon on this appeal.
2 The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to this appeal. We
will omit a statement of facts.
2
DISPOSITION
The order denying Calderon’s motion to recalculate custody credits is
affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, J.
DO, J.
3