P. v. Perkins
Filed 8/4/06 P. v. Perkins 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFF MICHAEL PERKINS, Defendant and Appellant. | C051264
(Super. Ct. No. 03F06324)
|
In case No. 03F06324, defendant Jeff Michael Perkins pleaded no contest to driving under the influence (Veh. Code,
§ 23152, subd. (a); unspecified section references that follow are to the Vehicle Code) and admitted a prior conviction of driving under the influence within the preceding 10 years
(§ 23550.5). He was sentenced to state prison for 16 months, awarded 217 days of custody credit and 108 days of conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $750 fine plus penalty assessment, a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and booking and classification fees.
In case No. 02TR147233, defendant admitted driving while his privilege was suspended. (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to county jail for 10 days concurrent and ordered to pay a $100 restitution fine.
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 elapsed, and we 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.
HULL , J.
We concur:
DAVIS , Acting P.J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Real Estate Attorney.
