No. D071469.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTEL JAMES PORTER, Defendant and Appellant.

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Sheila O'Connor , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

In 2004, Martel James Porter pleaded guilty to three counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459). Also found true was one serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and two strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Porter was sentenced to a determinate term of 18 years four months in prison. At that time the court awarded presentence credits of 247 days.

In 2016 an error in the calculation of custody credits was discovered. Thereafter, the court issued an order amending the award of credits to 321 days. An amended minute order was prepared.

In September 2016, Porter filed an ex parte request for an amended abstract of judgment and an order directing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to comply with the amended abstract. The trial court denied the request, indicating an amended abstract was not required for a correction of custody credits.

In October 2016, Porter again requested an amended abstract of judgment. The trial court again denied the request and advised Porter he must direct his contentions to the CDCR and seek the appropriate administrative remedies.

Porter filed a notice of appeal from the order denying the request for an amended abstract of judgment.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating she has not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Porter the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.2


As we have noted, appellate counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible, but not arguable issues for our consideration:

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the request for an amended abstract of judgment, ruling that a minute order was adequate. 2. Whether the court properly referred Porter to the CDCR for correction of any perceived miscalculation of his release date.

We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738. We have not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Porter on this appeal.


The order denying Porter's request for an amended abstract of judgment is affirmed.

HALLER, J. and AARON, J., concurs.


1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
2. The facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to the validity of the order at issue on this appeal. Accordingly, we will omit the traditional statement of facts.


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases