P. v. Estupinan
Filed 7/18/07 P. v. Estupinan CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEONEL ESTUPINAN, Defendant and Appellant. | B193089 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA093134) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael A. Cowell, Judge. Affirmed.
Linda Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________
Appellant Leonel Estupinan was charged with one count of violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivison (a), driving under the influence of alcohol, and one count of violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivison (b), driving with a blood alcohol of .08% or higher. As to each count, it was further alleged that appellant's blood alcohol was .15% or higher within the meaning of Vehicle Code section 23578; that he had suffered three prior convictions for violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivisons (a) or (b) within the meaning of Vehicle Code sections 23550 and 23550.5; and that he had suffered four prior convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). Appellant pled guilty to the charges and admitted each of the prior convictions. He was sentenced to a total of four years in state prison.
We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On or before November 20, 2006, counsel informed appellant that he intended to file such a brief and advised appellant that he could submit a supplemental brief in his own behalf, within 30 days. We directed counsel to send the record on appeal and a copy of appellant's opening brief to appellant immediately, and advised appellant that he had 30 days in which to submit by brief or letter any argument or contention he wished this court to consider. The 30 days expired on May 19, 2007. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ARMSTRONG, J.
We concur:
TURNER, P.J. KRIEGLER, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.
