Filed 3/18/14 P. v. Montalvo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D064314
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD245566)
ARDEN AGUILERA MONTALVO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F.
Fraser, Judge. Affirmed.
Steve J. Carroll, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for the Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Arden Aguilera Montalvo pleaded guilty to assault with force likely to produce
great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). The court sentenced him to a
negotiated term of two years in prison. The court awarded him 81 days of presentence
custody credit, consisting of 41 days of actual custody credit and 40 days of conduct
credit.
Montalvo appeals. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief requesting we
independently review the record for error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,
441-442.) Having done so and having identified no reasonably arguable appellate issues,
we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Montalvo and two accomplices beat up a man. All of the parties were incarcerated
at the time. Montalvo was incarcerated because he was serving a sentence in another,
unrelated case. His sentence in the other case ended two days after he pleaded guilty in
this case. Following In re Rojas (1979) 23 Cal.3d 152, 154, which held a criminal
defendant may not receive presentence custody credit for time spent simultaneously
serving a sentence in a prior unrelated case, the court limited its award of presentence
custody credit to the time Montalvo spent in custody after he completed his sentence in
the other case.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings
below. Counsel presented no argument for reversal and instead requested we review the
record for error as mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442.
Consistent with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744, counsel identified the
2
following possible, but not reasonably arguable issue: Whether Montalvo was entitled to
additional presentence custody credit?
We granted Montalvo permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf.
He did not do so.
As requested by counsel, we reviewed the record for error and did not find any
reasonably arguable appellate issues. Montalvo has been competently represented by
counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
3