Filed 6/22/22 P. v. Dunn 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Teman Takoa Dunn appeals from the judgment after his no contest plea to felony violations of driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or higher, with three prior offenses (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subds. (a) & (b), 23550), and a misdemeanor violation of driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)). He admitted an allegation that his blood alcohol level was .15 percent or more (Veh. Code, § 23578), and that he suffered two prior “strike” convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d) & (e), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)). The appeal is based on the sentence and does not affect the validity of the plea. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(2)(B).)

In July 2021, Dunn drove the wrong way on a one-way street. His blood alcohol level was .269 percent. The prior strikes were based on a 1994 conviction for robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and a 2013 conviction for criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422).

The trial court denied a motion to dismiss the strikes. (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.) The court sentenced Dunn to the lower term of 16 months in state prison for driving under the influence, doubled for a prior strike for a total of two years, eight months. The court imposed a concurrent prison sentence of two years for violating probation in case 20F-00015.[1]

We appointed counsel to represent Dunn in this appeal. After counsel examined the record, he filed an opening brief that raises no arguable issues. On May 10, 2022, appointed counsel advised Dunn by mail that he had 30 days within which to file a supplemental brief. We have not received a response.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Dunn’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-443.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

TANGEMAN, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.

Jesse J. Marino, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

[1] We affirm the judgment in the probation violation case in a separate opinion (People v. Teman Takoa Dunn, B318043).