Filed 8/6/25 P. v. Ayala CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B338185 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA482081) v. KING AYALA, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark Hanasono, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________ I On October 23, 2019, the People filed a felony complaint charging defendant King Ayala with one count of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)).1 According to the probation report, the victim, J.A., told police officers that he encountered Ayala on a Metro train platform. With no apparent provocation, Ayala swung a metal crutch at J.A., who blocked it with his forearms and ran away. J.A. fell to the ground, and Ayala struck him on the back with his crutch.

Proceedings in the case were suspended for most of the following four years because of doubts as to Ayala’s competence to stand trial. In February 2024, the mental health court found Ayala competent, and proceedings resumed. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Ayala pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon, and the court imposed the low-term sentence of two years, to be served concurrently with another sentence in a separate case.

Ayala filed a timely notice of appeal, and this court issued an order limiting the scope of the appeal to issues appealable without a certificate of probable cause.

II The attorney appointed to represent Ayala on appeal filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 raising no issues. When an attorney files such a brief, we are required to allow the defendant an opportunity to file a supplemental brief

1 Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

(id. at p. 439), and we must “conduct a review of the entire record” (id. at p. 441).

Ayala submitted a supplemental brief addressing a wide range of concerns, only one of which is cognizable in an appeal following a plea of no contest: Ayala claims his “custody credits were discounted grotesquely” because section “4019 specifically gives you [five] days for [two] days of actual credit.” This is incorrect. Under section 4019, “for every four-day period an inmate is confined in or committed to an enumerated facility or other listed setting, one day will be deducted from the inmate’s sentence for satisfactory performance of assigned labor and one day will be deducted for good behavior. (§ 4019, subds. (b)-(c).) ‘[I]f all days are earned under this section, a term of four days will be deemed to have been served for every two days spent in actual custody.’ (Id., subd. (f).)” (People v. Yang (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 120, 125.) Thus, under the statute, a defendant who complies with relevant rules will receive “approximately one-half off their sentence.” (Couzens et al., Sentencing Cal. Crimes (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 15:4.) The abstract of judgment accurately reflects this rule, and we find no error in the calculation of Ayala’s custody credits.

The remaining issues Ayala raises are not cognizable in this appeal. These include claims regarding Ayala’s identity and fingerprints (he claims to be “jurisdictional king of Spain” and “substantive US President” (capitalization omitted)), the verification of unspecified assets, and the procedures surrounding the determination of his competency.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist, and that Ayala’s attorney has complied with the responsibilities of counsel. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40

3 Cal.4th 106, 125-126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)

DISPOSITION The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

WEINGART, J.

We concur:

BENDIX, Acting P. J.

M. KIM, J.