1
Filed 5/2/17 P. v. Frazier CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JAMES ALLAN FRAZIER,
Defendant and Appellant.
E067060
(Super.Ct.No. SWF1402242)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kelly L. Hansen, Judge.
Affirmed.
Robert V. Vallandigham, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 28, 2015, an information charged defendant and appellant James
Frazier with murder under Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a) (count 1); vehicular
2
manslaughter while driving under the influence and fleeing the scene under Penal Code
section 191.5, subdivision (a), and Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (c) (count 2);
causing great bodily injury to another while driving under the influence under Vehicle
Code sections 23153, subdivision (a), and 12022.7, subdivision (a) (count 3); and failure
to provide required identifying information to the victim and law enforcement and
perform the duties required under Vehicle Code sections 20001, subdivision (a), 20003,
and 20004 (count 4). Defendant denied the charges and entered pleas of not guilty.
On July 27, 2016, the court made interrelations on the information that were
intended to reflect the addition of two enhancements for misdemeanor driving under the
influence under Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a). Without the acquiescence
of defense counsel and pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant waived his right to
trial, withdrew his prior not guilty pleas to counts 2 and 3, and changed his pleas to guilty
on counts 2 and 3. Defendant also admitted the allegation in count 2 that he fled the
scene in violation of Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (c). Defendant further
admitted the great bodily injury allegation in count 3, and the prior conviction
allegations. The court found a factual basis for the pleas, accepted the new pleas, found
defendant guilty on counts 2 and 3, and found the enhancement allegations to be true.
Defendant waived preparation of a full probation report. A violation of probation petition
on a prior conviction was withdrawn by the People.
At the sentencing hearing on August 19, 2016, pursuant to the negotiated
disposition, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to 17 years in state
prison as follows: the upper term of 10 years for vehicular manslaughter, five years for
3
fleeing the scene of an accident, one year on the subordinate term for driving under the
influence and causing injury, and one year on the two prior misdemeanor enhancements.
The court awarded defendant 750 days of presentence credit based on 653 days of actual
time and 97 days of credit. The court denied defendant’s oral motion to waive fines and
fees, and ordered fees and fines. Thereafter, the court granted the People’s motion to
dismiss the remaining charges in the information.
On October 14, 2016, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal with a request for
certificate of probable cause. On October 19, 2016, the trial court granted defendant’s
request for certificate of probable cause.
B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On November 2, 2013, defendant caused the death of Jane Doe1 as a result of
driving under the influence. On the same day, defendant caused great bodily injury to
Jane Doe2. Defendant fled the scene of the accident without performing the duties
required under Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (c).
Defendant suffered two prior convictions for driving under the influence of
alcohol, one on January 11, 2008, and the second on November 29, 2012.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of
the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court
to undertake a review of the entire record.
4
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he
has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we
have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
FIELDS
J.