Filed 10/13/17 P. v. Ventura CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Tehama)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ELIZABETH VENTURA,
Defendant and Appellant.
| C084926
(Super. Ct. No. 16CR000360)
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Elizabeth Ventura has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We find no errors that arguably would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and therefore affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Defendant was charged by information with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a); count I) and driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b); count II). As to both counts, it was alleged that defendant had suffered a prior DUI conviction (Veh. Code, § 23550.5), that her blood-alcohol concentration was 0.15 percent or higher (Veh. Code, § 23578), and that she refused to take a chemical test (Veh. Code, § 23577).
Defendant subsequently pleaded no contest to count II and admitted the prior conviction, with the understanding that the remaining charges would be dismissed and that her maximum exposure would be three years in state prison. There was no agreement as to sentence. The parties stipulated that the police report in the case provided the factual basis for the plea.
According to the police report, as summarized in the probation report, defendant was seen driving erratically, then was found by police standing outside her car, swaying slightly back and forth. Her breath smelled strongly of alcohol, her eyes were bloodshot and watery, and her speech was slurred. She could not successfully complete field sobriety tests and refused a breath test. She was arrested and transported to a hospital for a blood test, which showed that around three hours after the initial reports her blood-alcohol level was .201 percent. She ultimately admitted to drinking a shot of vodka and four beers before driving.
At sentencing, the trial court denied defendant’s request for probation and imposed the upper term of three years in state prison based on her prior record, which included five prior DUI convictions--two felonies and three misdemeanors. The court awarded one day of custody credit and various fines, fees, and assessments. The remaining count and allegations were dismissed.
DISCUSSION
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, supra, 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.
/s/
Duarte, J.
We concur:
/s/
Hull, Acting P. J.
/s/
Renner, J.
