People v. Hasley CA4/1

Filed 5/20/26 P. v. Hasley CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085925 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD172774) v. JOSEPH A. HASLEY, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County.

David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.

Joseph A. Hasley, in pro. per., and David L. Polsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2004, a jury convicted Joseph A. Hasley of 17 counts of robbery (Pen.

Code,1 § 211). The court found Hasley had six strike prior convictions.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i).) The court sentenced Hasley to a total indeterminate term of 430 years to life in prison. (People v. Hasley (May 12, 2005, D044315).)

In 2023, Hasley filed a request for resentencing under section 1172.

The trial court conducted a resentencing hearing. The court struck all the strikes except one. The court ultimately reduced the sentence to a determinate term of 36 years in prison.

Hasley filed another request for resentencing seeking to further reduce his prison term. The request was denied.

Hasley filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating appellate counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error as we would do if this case was governed by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We advised Hasley that he could file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a letter brief.

In his response to our notice, Hasley has filed a copy of a letter issued by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation dealing with a change in the method of calculating custody credits. Hasley does not identify any errors in the latest resentencing hearing. This appeal is from the order denying further resentencing. This appeal is focused on the court’s actions and is not a procedure to access possible benefits prisoners might achieve by future credit calculations. Hasley has not identified any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.

We have independently reviewed the record for error. Our review has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Hasley in this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

RUBIN, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.