Filed 9/4/18 P. v. Imbronone CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY JAMES IMBRONONE III, Defendant and Appellant.

H044188 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. F1555517)

Defendant Anthony James Imbronone III pleaded no contest to driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury in violation of Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a) and admitted four allegations that he personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a).[1] In exchange, the district attorney agreed to seek dismissal of four counts of gross vehicular manslaughter (§ 191.5, subd. (a)) and associated allegations that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of sections 667 and 1192.7. The trial court sentenced defendant to a 14-year prison term.

On appeal, defendant’s counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asked this court to independently review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We sent a letter to defendant notifying him of his right to submit a written argument on his own behalf on appeal. Instead, defendant, acting pro se, filed a writ of error coram vobis, which we resolve by separate order.

Based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal. As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, we will provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” We will further include information about aspects of the trial court proceedings that might become relevant in future proceedings. (Ibid.)

I. Factual and Procedural Background[2]

On May 12, 2015, defendant and some friends had a bonfire in Gilroy. One of the people who attended the bonfire later told police that defendant and others were drinking alcohol at the bonfire; some were smoking marijuana. At approximately 10:42 p.m. that night, a car carrying defendant and four of his friends slammed into a concrete wall, left the roadway, and came to rest at the bottom of a creek bed.

A responding California Highway Patrol officer reported smelling alcohol and burnt marijuana in the area of the crashed vehicle. The same officer smelled alcohol on defendant’s breath. Defendant’s blood was drawn at 12:45 a.m. on May 13, 2015 and his blood alcohol content, at that time, was 0.06 percent.

Defendant sustained serious injuries in the collision, including a concussion and three skull fractures. All four of his companions died of their injuries.

Officers determined that defendant was driving the vehicle at the time of the fatal crash because emergency responders reported that they had removed defendant from the driver’s seat. Also, surveillance video from a convenience store in Gilroy showed defendant getting into the driver’s seat of the vehicle and driving away shortly after 10:00 p.m. the night of the crash.

Defendant reported having no memory of the crash. He told police he thought one of the victims may have been driving.

Officers concluded the collision was a solo vehicle crash. While witnesses advised the investigating officer that defendant’s vehicle may have collided with another vehicle while racing, officers concluded there was insufficient physical evidence “to pursue additional charges or potential at fault parties.”

On June 6, 2016, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a first amended complaint charging defendant with driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 1) and four counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (§ 191.5, subd. (a); counts 2-5). The first amended complaint further alleged that, in violating Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a), defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) on each of the four passengers. And it alleged that, in the commission of each count of gross vehicular manslaughter, defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§§ 667, 1192.7).

Also on June 6, 2016, defendant pleaded no contest to count 1 and admitted the associated personal infliction of great bodily injury allegations. In exchange for defendant’s no contest plea to count 1, the prosecutor agreed to seek dismissal of the remaining counts. On the written plea agreement, defendant initialed next to the following statements: “I understand that the maximum sentence for the charge(s) to which I am pleading guilty or no contest to is a state prison term of 15 years and 0 months”; “I understand that there are no promises or agreements about what sentence the court will order”; “I understand the court is not required to follow any tentative, indicted sentence”; and “I agree there is a factual basis for my plea based on my discussions with my attorney(s) about the elements of the crime(s) and any defenses I may have.” During the change of plea proceeding, defense counsel noted that the court would “decide what the sentence is . . . .” And the court confirmed with petitioner that the initials and signature on the waiver form were his, he had gone over the form carefully with is attorney, and he did not have any questions.

At an October 3, 2016 sentencing hearing, the court denied probation and sentenced defendant to a total term of 14 years in prison: the middle term of two years on count 1 and consecutive three-year terms of each of the four personal infliction of great bodily injury enhancement allegations. The court dismissed counts 2 through 5. The court ordered defendant to pay $16,955.26 in restitution to California Victim Compensation & Government Claims Board. The court also imposed the following fines and fees: a $4,200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) with an additional $4,200 parole revocation fine, which was suspended pending successful completion of parole (§ 1202.45); a $40 court operations assessment fee (§ 1465.8); and a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).

Defendant timely appealed on November 30, 2016.

II. Discussion

Having examined the entire record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal.

III. Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.