P. v. Kobrofsky
Filed 9/12/07 P. v. Kobrofsky CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GARY KOBROFSKY, Defendant and Appellant. | A117015 (Sonoma Super. Ct. No. SCR462987) |
Appellant admitted that he had violated his probation by consuming alcohol and the trial court executed the previously suspended term of three years in state prison.
Appellants counsel has filed an opening brief in which he does not raise any issues on appeal, and requests that we conduct a review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, in order to determine whether there are any arguable issues. Appellant was notified of his right to file a supplementary brief and he has not done so. We find no arguable issues and affirm the judgment of conviction.
BACKGROUND
In 2005 appellant Gary Kobrofsky was convicted, pursuant to his plea of guilty, on one count of driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 or more, in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b). Appellant was sentenced to the upper term of three years in state prison, but the trial court suspended execution of the sentence and granted appellant probation.
Subsequently in 2006, appellant admitted that he had violated a condition of his probation by failing to abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages. The trial court ordered appellant committed to the Department of Corrections for the previously suspended prison sentence.
DISCUSSION
This appeal arises from an incident in which appellant drove while intoxicated. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 or more, and admitted three prior convictions, waiving his rights on the record when he did so. The trial court imposed the upper or aggravated term of three years, based upon appellants history of recidivism, and the fact that his prior convictions were numerous and of increasing seriousness. The trial court suspended execution of the sentence, and placed appellant on probation, with one of the conditions of his probation being that he abstain from consumption of alcohol. Subsequently, appellant admitted that he had violated his probation by consuming alcohol, and he waived his rights on the record when he made this admission.
Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the upper term, based upon appellants recidivism. Appellant properly waived his rights when entering his plea of guilty and admitting the probation violation. Appellant received due process and a fair sentencing hearing.
Appellant was advised by appellate counsel of his right to file a supplementary brief in this court and he has chosen not to do so.
We find no issues that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
GEMELLO, J.
We concur.
JONES, P.J.
SIMONS, J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
