P.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Tomlin on appeal. Appointed counsel filed an appellate brief raising no issue, but asking this court to independently review the entire record on appeal for arguable issues, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 1 441–442. Tomlin was advised that she had 30 days within which to submit by brief or

1 Appointed counsel notes that she filed a motion with the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment regarding presentence credits, but it was not heard because Tomlin had already been released from custody. Counsel states that more presentence credit would not benefit Tomlin because she is not subject to parole or other post-release supervision. We decline to address the issue as Tomlin’s custody status is not in the record before us. 3 letter any contentions or arguments she wished this court to consider. No response has been received. We have independently reviewed the record in accordance with People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441–442, and find no arguable issues that could aid Tomlin.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EPSTEIN, P. J.

We concur:

MANELLA,…