NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

PERREN, J.

Rhonda Denise Bingham appeals the judgment entered after she pleaded no contest to two counts of grand theft (Pen. Code,1 § 484g) and one count of passing a check with insufficient funds (§ 476a, subd. (a)). In exchange for appellant's plea, it was agreed that she would be placed on probation if she paid $7,600 in restitution prior to sentencing. After she failed to pay that amount or appear for sentencing, a warrant was issued for her arrest. She was subsequently sentenced to three years eight months in state prison and awarded a total of 51 days presentence custody credits, consisting of 35 days actual custody credit and 16 days conduct credit. She was also ordered to pay $158,153.01 in restitution.

Because appellant pleaded no contest prior to the preliminary hearing, the relevant facts are derived from the probation report. While appellant was working as a secretary for JAG Construction, she forged several checks using the name of the business owner, John Gillis. She also fraudulently obtained a credit card in Gillis's name and opened several credit cards in her own name that were tied to the business account. As a result of appellant's fraud, Gillis suffered losses totaling $155,192.26. Appellant also wrote several checks on her personal account to various businesses totaling $2,960.75 that were returned for insufficient funds.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the validity of her plea, and the trial court granted her request for a certificate of probable cause. We subsequently appointed counsel to represent her on appeal. After appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we requested briefing on whether appellant is entitled to additional conduct credit under the recently enacted amendments to section 4019 that went into effect after she was sentenced.2 We now answer that question in the affirmative.

When appellant was sentenced on August 10, 2009, section 4019 provided that she was entitled to two days of presentence conduct credit for every four days she had been in actual custody. In accordance with this formula, appellant was awarded 35 days of actual custody credit and 16 days of conduct credit. Under the amended version of section 4019 that went into effect on January 25, 2010, appellant would be entitled to two days of presentence conduct credit for every two days spent in actual custody, i.e., 35 days of actual custody credit and 34 days of conduct credit. (Sen. Bill No. 18 (2009-2010 3d Ex. Sess.) § 50.)

Absent a saving clause, legislative enactments that mitigate punishment are traditionally deemed to operate retroactively. (See In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 748; People v. Hunter (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 389, 393 [applying Estrada to amendment allowing award of custody credits]; People v. Doganiere (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 237, 239-240 [applying Estrada to amendment involving conduct credits].)

The Supreme Court has granted review to resolve a split in authority over whether the January 2010 amendments to section 4019 are retroactive. (People v. Brown (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1354, review granted June 9, 2010, No. S181963 [holding amendments are retroactive]; contra, People v. Rodriguez (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1, review granted June 9, 2010, No. S181808.) A majority of published cases on the issue, none of which are yet final, agree that the section 4019 amendments are retroactive. (See People v. Keating (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 364, review granted Sept. 22, 2010, No. S184354; People v. Pelayo (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 481, review granted July 21, 2010, No. S183552; People v. Norton (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 408, review granted Aug. 11, 2010, No. S183260; People v. Landon (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1096, review granted June 23, 2010, No. S182808; People v. House (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1049, review granted June 23, 2010, No. S182813; contra, People v. Hopkins (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 615, review granted July 28, 2010, No. S183724; People v. Otubuah (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 422, review granted July 21, 2010, No. S184314; People v. Eusebio (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 990, review granted Sept. 22, 2010, No. S184957.)

Although the Supreme Court has granted review on the issue and will have the final say on the matter, we agree with the reasoning expressed by the courts in the majority and conclude that section 4019 as amended applies to cases pending on appeal. Accordingly, we shall order the judgment modified to award an additional 18 days of conduct credit, for a total of 34 days conduct credit.

DISPOSITION

Pursuant to section 4019, appellant's sentence is modified to award an additional 18 days presentence conduct credit, for a total of 34 days conduct credit. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting that appellant was awarded 69 days custody credit (35 days actual custody and 34 days conduct credit), and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As amended, the judgment is affirmed.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

COFFEE, J.