Field

Field 6/26/13 P. v. Omara CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G047500

v. (Super. Ct. No. 05WF3313)

MICHAEL ARMOND OMARA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, M. Marc Kelly, Judge. Affirmed. Sharon M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

1. Introduction In a prior appeal, we concluded the trial court has discretion under Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (a) to strike a prior serious or violent felony conviction in order to award additional presentence custody credit under an amended version of Penal Code section 4019 in effect between January 25 and September 28, 2010 (Amended Section 4019). (People v. Omara (Apr. 5, 2012, G044820) [nonpub. opn.] (Omara I).) As a consequence, we reversed an order denying Michael Armond Omara’s motion to strike priors and remanded for the trial court to determine whether to exercise that discretion in reconsidering Omara’s motion. After remand, the trial court reconsidered the motion and denied it. By this appeal, Omara challenges the trial court’s order declining to strike one or more prior convictions following remand from Omara I. The appeal is authorized because Omara first presented his claim for additional presentence custody credit to the trial court (Pen. Code, § 1237.1) and because the trial court’s order affected his substantial rights (id., § 1237, subd. (b); People v. Gainer (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 636, 642). Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), appointed counsel suggested we consider one issue, which we address in section 3. Omara was granted 30 days to file written arguments in his own behalf, but did not file anything. We have examined the entire record and counsel’s Wende/Anders brief. We looked for issues other than those raised by counsel, but after considering the entire record, we have found no reasonably arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.