P. v. Hendricks

Filed 5/19/06  P. v. Hendricks CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter C. Deddeh, Howard H. Shore, and David M. Szumowski, Judges.  Affirmed.

            On March 23, 2001, Melvin Hendricks entered a negotiated guilty plea to selling a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, §  11352, subd. (a)), and admitted serving three prior prison terms.  The court imposed the sentence indicated in a plea agreement, a total of five years in prison (the four-year middle term for selling a controlled substance, enhanced one year for a prior prison term enhancement), execution of sentence stayed, committed Hendricks to the California Rehabilitation Center, and struck the remaining two prior prison term enhancements.  On December 27, 2005, Hendricks returned to court, and the court executed the stayed prison sentence.  It awarded Hendricks 1,365 days credit for time served:  1,247 actual days and 118 days Penal Code section 4019 credit.  The court denied a certificate of probable cause.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)  Because Hendricks entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the conviction.  (Pen. Code, §  1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.)  We need not recite the facts.

DISCUSSION

            Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court.  Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.  Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues:  (1) whether Hendricks's guilty plea was constitutionally valid; (2) whether Hendricks was adequately advised of the prison credit consequences of his guilty plea; (3) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the certificate of probable cause; (4) whether credits were calculated correctly; and (5) whether Hendricks's trial counsel provided effective assistance.

            We granted Hendricks permission to file a brief on his own behalf.  He has responded.  Hendricks contends the trial court erred in not awarding him noncustody parole and drug treatment credits.  The record does not reflect that Hendricks raised this issue in the trial court.  The Court of Appeal will not entertain a challenge to credit for time served absent the defendant first raising the issue in the trial court.  (People v. Salazar (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.)

            A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and the issues raised by Hendricks, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.  Competent counsel has represented Hendricks on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

            The judgment is affirmed.

McINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

        BENKE, Acting P. J.

   AARON, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Apartment Manager Lawyers.