NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
In 2004, Martel James Porter pleaded guilty to three counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code,
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.
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:
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.