P. v. Haley CA6

Filed 6/26/13 P. v. Haley CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H038928 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1113668)

v.

TODD MICHAEL HALEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

On May 24, 2012, Todd Haley (defendant) pleaded no contest to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211-212.5), admitted that he was on felony probation when he committed the crime (Pen. Code, § 1203. subd. (k)),1 and that he had a prior strike conviction within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b)-(i) and 1170.12. In exchange for his no contest plea, defendant was promised a six year prison term (top/bottom), the dismissal of a "Prop 8 prior" allegation and one count of giving a false name to a police officer. (Pen. Code, § 148.9.) On September 18, 2012, the court sentenced defendant pursuant to the terms of the plea bargain. The court awarded appellant custody credits of 403 actual days and 60 days conduct credit (limited to 15 percent pursuant to Penal Code section 2933.1).

1 Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (k) provides, "Probation shall not be granted to, nor shall the execution of, or imposition of sentence be suspended for, any person who is convicted of a violent felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, or a serious felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7, and who was on probation for a felony offense at the time of the commission of the new felony offense."

Subsequently, defendant filed two notices of appeal. In both notices he purports to appeal his sentence and the denial of a Marsden motion.2 Defendant's appointed 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 (Wende). Counsel has declared that defendant was notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal and that an independent review under Wende was being requested. On February 27, 2013, we notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. We have received two letters from defendant. In his first letter he details the history of his case. In addition, he appears to be raising several claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel related to his plea bargain, as well as arguing that he did not have a prior strike conviction and was not on felony probation when he committed the robbery. In his second letter received May 2, 2013, appellant provides us with an "urgent news update." In this letter, he informs this court that he is facing a "three strikes" case in Monterey County and asks us to "prioritize" his case. Attached to this letter are the transcripts from two hearings that occurred in 2008 related to his conviction for robbery in Riverside County, California. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded there is no arguable issue on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we provide "a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed." (Id. at p. 110.) In addition, we have described defendant's contentions. We will explain why we reject them. (Id. at p.113.)