People v. Stapleton CA4/1

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 the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to correct the error in Stapleton’s credits while the case is on appeal on an unrelated issue; and 2. Whether the trial court erred by denying Stapleton a full resentencing when it recalculated his credits. Neither issue identified by counsel has arguable merit. As to the first, the trial court retained jurisdiction to correct the clerical error in Stapleton’s credits while an appeal was pending on the court’s December 2023 order denying Stapleton’s section 1172.75 resentencing. (People v. Millsap (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 368, 376 [section 1237.1 “vest[s] jurisdiction in trial courts to correct custody credits . . . pending appeal”]; People v. Scarbrough (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 916, 923 [“Corrections to errors in the calculation of presentence custody credits may . . . be ordered by the…