Filed 9/5/18 P. v. Rosas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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. JUAN MANUEL ROSAS, Defendant and Appellant.

H045150 (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS141834A)

Defendant Juan Manuel Rosas pleaded no contest to evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2)[1] and driving while having a 0.08 percent or higher blood-alcohol level (§ 23152, subd. (b)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on three years’ probation. The court revoked probation after defendant was arrested and entered a plea for driving under the influence in a different case. After finding defendant violated his probation, the court reinstated probation with the addition of several terms.

On appeal, defendant’s counsel has filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel has declared that defendant was notified that an independent review under Wende was being requested. We advised defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. Thirty days have elapsed, and defendant has not submitted a letter brief.

Pursuant to Wende, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues. 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.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110.)

Background

On July 21, 2014, the Monterey County District Attorney’s Office filed a complaint charging defendant with evading an officer (§ 2800.2; count 1), driving under the influence of alcohol (§ 23152, subd. (a); count 2), driving while having a 0.08 percent or higher blood-alcohol level (§ 23152, subd. (b); count 3), and hit-and-run driving (§ 20002, subd. (a); count 4).

On August 14, 2014, defendant pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 3 on the condition that he be placed on probation. The remaining counts were to be dismissed with a People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 waiver.[2] According to his plea form, the factual basis of his plea was that he “willfully attempted to evade officers in a car chase, and he drove recklessly.”

On September 23, 2014, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence for counts 1 and 3 and placed defendant on three years’ probation subject to various terms and conditions. The signed minute order reflects all remaining charges were dismissed.

On August 7, 2017, a petition was filed alleging defendant had violated his probation following his arrest for driving under the influence in case No. 17CR001674. The following day, defendant denied the violation. The trial court revoked probation to retain jurisdiction. On August 31, 2017, the trial court found defendant had violated his probation based on his plea in case No. 17CR001674.

On September 28, 2017, the trial court reinstated defendant on probation. Defendant’s probation was modified as follows: (1) defendant will be subject to a term of up to 10 days of flash incarceration for any violation of probation, and if defendant does not agree or accept a period of flash incarceration the probation officer will be able to file a declaration or probation revocation request with the court, (2) probation will expire on September 23, 2019, as to both counts 1 and 3, and (3) defendant will be required to serve 166 days in county jail. Defendant was given a total of 140 days of custody credit, composed of 70 actual days and 70 days of conduct credit.

Defendant appealed.

Discussion

We have conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106. We conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.