People v. Hendrix CA3

Filed 9/12/24 P. v. Hendrix CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099889

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CF01104)

v.

JOSEPH ROBERT HENDRIX,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Joseph Robert Hendrix asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS On February 16, 2022, defendant was driving his car at about 80 miles per hour when he crashed into another car, killing the driver. A subsequent blood test revealed

1

methamphetamine in defendant’s blood. The People charged defendant with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)). The People alleged this was defendant’s third strike offense (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12), and alleged he had a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant pleaded no contest to the felony charge, admitted he was previously convicted of a strike offense, and agreed to be sentenced to the upper term of 10 years, doubled for the prior strike. In exchange for his plea, the People moved to strike the remaining allegations. The trial court struck the remaining allegations and sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of 20 years in state prison. The court ordered defendant to pay mandatory fines and fees, as well as restitution. The court also awarded defendant 1,249 days of custody credit. Defendant appeals from the judgment without a certificate of probable cause. While his appeal was pending, defendant submitted a letter to the trial court seeking a correction in the calculation of his custody credits pursuant to People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954. The trial court corrected the error and issued a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting a total of 1,261 days of custody credits.