P. v. Apodaca
Filed 10/3/06 P. v. Apodaca CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAWRENCE JAVIER APODACA, Defendant and Appellant. |
C051919
(Super. Ct. No. 05F8031)
|
Defendant Lawrence Javier Apodaca pled guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a); undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code; count two), admitted having suffered three prior convictions of driving under the influence (§ 191.5, subd. (d)), and waived his presentence custody credits. He was sentenced to state prison for 15 years to life and was ordered to pay a $3,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $3,000 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8).
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Our review of the record has not disclosed any formal disposition of counts one (second degree murder; § 187, subd. (a)), three (driving while privilege suspended; Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)), and four (failure to provide evidence of financial responsibility; Veh. Code, § 16028, subd. (a)). We shall order those counts dismissed in light of defendant’s plea.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Counts one, three and four are dismissed.
SIMS , J.
We concur:
BLEASE , Acting P.J.
BUTZ , J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.
