People v. Hemphill CA6

Filed 5/6/15 P. v. Hemphill CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H040140 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS091035A)

v.

CURTIS ALLEN HEMPHILL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Curtis Allen Hemphill is an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison. In November 2007, his cellmate, Louis Singleton, was found lying prone on the cell floor that he shared with defendant. Singleton was pronounced dead and an autopsy showed strangulation as the cause. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a))1 and was sentenced to a term of 33 years in prison. On appeal, his counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared defendant was notified an independent review under Wende was being requested. We advised defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. Defendant has submitted a letter brief requesting appointment of counsel and raising numerous issues.

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Pursuant to Wende, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues. We will provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.) Pursuant to Kelly, we will consider defendant’s letter brief and will explain why we reject his contentions. (Id. at p. 113.) FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Procedural History On March 26, 2009, the Monterey County district attorney’s office filed a complaint charging defendant with first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)). It was also alleged that defendant had a prior serious or violent felony conviction under section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). Defendant’s trial counsel filed a motion to exclude evidence of uncharged bad acts under Evidence Code sections 1101 and 352. He also filed a motion to bifurcate the trial of the sentencing enhancement from the substantive charge and a motion to strike all of defendant’s prior convictions. Later, defendant waived his right to a jury trial on his prior convictions. On September 28, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on defendant’s motion to strike all of his prior convictions. Defendant’s counsel argued the motion should be granted, because defendant did not validly waive his right to counsel in his prior case, the prior court failed to provide defendant with legal representation, and that defendant’s guilty plea was obtained through fraud or coercion. The court denied the motion. Trial began on February 27, 2012. The court granted defendant’s motion to bifurcate the jury trial on his prior convictions. The court also granted defendant’s motion in limine to prohibit the prosecution from introducing evidence of his alleged priors. However, the prosecution would be able to use the alleged priors for impeachment purposes if defendant testified. 2