P. v. Antunez
Filed 3/22/07 CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUCINO ANTUNEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Crim. No. B192364 (Super. Ct. No. 2005019561) (Ventura County) |
Lucino Antunez appeals from the judgment entered after a court trial convicting him of one felony count of driving under the influence (DUI) with prior DUI convictions (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a); 23550) and one felony count of DUI with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or more with prior DUI convictions (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (b), 23550).
Imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on formal probation including 270 days to be served in county jail with credit for three days served. The court also imposed a number of fees, fines and penalties.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In the early morning hours of June 13, 2005, two CHP officers observed a pickup truck make a right turn northbound on Perkins Road in Oxnard. As the truck made the turn, one of the officers observed the truck cross over the double yellow line before correction. As the truck passed the officers' vehicle, one of the officers observed that the truck was missing its rear license plate light. The officers pulled the truck over on Pleasant Valley Road.
When Antunez stepped out of the truck, he had to put his hands on the hood of the truck to maintain his balance. The officers noticed that Antunez's eyes were red and watery, that his speech was slurred, and that there was a smell of alcohol. Antunez admitted to drinking four beers.
Antunez registered 0.155 and 0.166 when tested with a preliminary alcohol screening device. After his arrest, Antunez registered 0.13 and 0.14 on the Intoxilyzer 5000 EN. Defense counsel presented no rebuttal evidence but argued that the officers did not have good cause to stop Antunez and that, contrary to expert testimony, the breath tests did not accurately measure blood alcohol level.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently examine the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On January 23, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit a written brief or letter stating any contentions or arguments he wished us to consider. Appellant failed to respond. We have reviewed 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.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
Frederick H. Bysshe, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Dushkes Law Corporation, Larry S. Dushkes for Defendant and Appellant
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
