P. v. Chaney
Filed 6/14/06 P. v. Chaney CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Amador)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CLIFFORD CHANEY, Defendant and Appellant. | C051501
(Super. Ct. No. 05CR8104)
|
Defendant Clifford Chaney pleaded guilty to driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or above. (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b).) He admitted two prior convictions of driving under the influence with injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subds. (a) & (b)), one prior conviction of driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), and six strike convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). In exchange, counts of driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), driving while privilege is suspended for prior driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)), and driving while privilege is suspended or revoked (Veh. Code, § 14601.5, subd. (a)), were dismissed. Two burglary strike allegations were dismissed with a Harvey waiver. (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.) Defendant's motion to dismiss the strike allegations pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 was denied.
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for 25 years to life, awarded 192 days of custody credit and 96 days of conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $10,000 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8).
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
DAVIS , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P.J.
NICHOLSON , J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Apartment Manager Lawyers.
