People v. Hasley CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085925 · 2026-05-20 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD172774
Trial judge: David J. Danielsen
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:23Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Hasley's second request for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172 after having previously reduced his sentence to 36 years. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no arguable issues for reversal after an independent review of the record.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of the second request for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172. “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.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the denial, stating that its independent review of the record did not identify any arguable issues for reversal. The court distinguished the appeal from a procedure to access future credit calculation benefits, which was the primary subject of Hasley's letter brief.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appellate counsel to file a brief indicating no arguable issues exist, requesting the court to review the record independently.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate courts to conduct an independent review of the record when counsel identifies no arguable issues on appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Delgadillo/Wende framework for reviewing appeals where counsel identifies no issues. It appropriately limits the scope of review to the order denying resentencing rather than the underlying credit calculation dispute raised in the pro per letter.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:18Z · confidence low

After a 2023 resentencing under Penal Code section 1172 reduced Hasley's 430-years-to-life sentence to a determinate 36-year term, the trial court denied his subsequent request for further resentencing. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Hasley submitted a letter brief raising only a CDCR custody-credit calculation letter, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Hasley's second request for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172 seeking further reduction of his 36-year determinate term “Hasley filed another request for resentencing seeking to further reduce his prison term. The request was denied.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not identify the subdivision of section 1172 invoked, the grounds for the second request, or the trial court's reasons for denying it; the court simply conducted a discretionary Delgadillo/Wende-type review and found no arguable issue. Hasley's only submission concerned a CDCR credit-calculation letter, which the court reasonably held is unrelated to any error in the resentencing order. Given the absence of any described facts about the ruling, the result appears defensible but cannot be independently verified from the opinion.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from a postconviction order where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal is not required to conduct an independent Wende review but must notify the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief and may exercise its discretion to review the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — On a first appeal of right, when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the appellate court must independently review the entire record for arguable error.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly follows the Delgadillo procedure for a no-issue brief in a postconviction appeal, notifying the defendant, considering his letter brief, and exercising discretion to review the record. It leaves gaps by not identifying the statutory basis of the second resentencing request, the trial court's grounds for denial, or whether the order was appealable at all, so the reader cannot assess the merits beyond the court's bare assurance.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

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.

2 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. 3

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12