P. v. Dahlquist
Filed 5/3/06 P. v. Dahlquist CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.D. DAHLQUIST, Defendant and Appellant. | D046987 (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD190712, SCD191253) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, George W. Clarke, Judge. Affirmed.
In superior court case No. SCD190712, J.D. Dahlquist entered negotiated guilty pleas to reckless driving to evade an officer and misdemeanor hit and run (Veh. Code, §§ 2800.2, subd. (a), 20002, subd. (a)). He waived his right to a jury trial on the sentence. (Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296.) The court sentenced him to prison for the three-year upper term for reckless driving to evade an officer and to the 110 days already served on the misdemeanor conviction.
In superior court case No. SCD191253, Dahlquist entered negotiated guilty pleas to reckless driving to evade an officer and misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Veh. Code, §§ 2800.2, subd. (a), 23152, subd. (a)). The court sentenced him to prison for the two-year middle term concurrent to the sentence in case No. SCD190712 for reckless driving to evade an officer and the 61 days already served on the misdemeanor conviction. The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether Dahlquist's pleas were constitutionally valid; (2) whether the sentence was in accord with the guilty pleas; (3) whether the sentence was in accord with Blakely v. Washington, supra, 542 U.S. 296, and whether Dahlquist waived his Blakely rights; and whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation in both cases and imposing the upper term in case No. SCD190712.[1]
We granted Dahlquist permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Dahlquist on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
AARON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Apartment Manager Lawyers.
[1] Because Dahlquist entered a guilty plea, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts.
