THE PEOPLE v. RANDOLPH HISLOP (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

In 2003, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Randolph Hislop pled guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter (Pen.Code, § 192, subd. (a)), with use of a gun (Pen.Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)), and one count of possession of cocaine for sale.  (Health & Saf.Code, § 11351.5.) He was sentenced to state prison for a term of seventeen years, four months which included an 11–year upper term for manslaughter, enhanced by five years for the gun use, and a consecutive sentence of one year, four months for the narcotics offense.   Appellant was awarded 595 days of pre-sentence credits, which included 397 days for actual time in custody and 198 days for conduct credit.   Appellant had actually been in custody in a foreign jurisdiction since October 2000, or for more than three years, but he waived two years of custody credits when he pled guilty.

In 2004 and 2005, appellant filed motions regarding the pre-sentence custody credits, which the court denied, citing appellant's waiver.   In 2007, appellant filed a writ petition regarding the pre-sentence custody credits, which the court denied, again citing appellant's waiver.

In February of this year, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction, sentence and credits.   He also filed a motion challenging the pre-sentence custody credits.

The trial court denied the petition and motion, ruling that appellant failed to show a prima facie case for relief pursuant to In re Crow (1971) 4 Cal.3d 613, 624, and additionally, that the petition raised issues which were or should have been raised on appeal, and failed to allege facts to establish an exception to the rule barring habeas consideration of such claims pursuant to In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 825–826 and In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218, 225.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the post-plea ruling.   We appointed counsel to represent him on this appeal.

After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and requested this court to conduct an independent review of the entire appellate record to determine whether arguable issues exist.   On September 8, 2011, we advised defendant that he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider.   No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist.  (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

We concur:

MOSK, J. KRIEGLER, J.