Filed 12/13/17 P. v. Jackson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Butte)
----



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SCOTT RAYMOND JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.
C083854

(Super. Ct. No. 16CF03822)




Appointed counsel for defendant Scott Raymond Jackson asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
I. BACKGROUND
In August 2016, defendant was involved in a traffic collision with another vehicle. The other driver was at fault, but defendant had been driving under the influence of alcohol.
At the scene, officers could smell a strong odor of alcohol on defendant. His blood—drawn four hours after the accident—tested at 0.15 percent blood-alcohol concentration.
A jury subsequently found defendant guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)—count 1) and driving with a 0.08 blood-alcohol concentration (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)—count 2). As to both counts, it found defendant’s blood-alcohol concentration to be 0.15 percent or greater. (Veh. Code, § 23578.) The trial court found, under Vehicle Code section 23550, that defendant had suffered three prior convictions.
The trial court imposed the upper term of three years in county prison for both counts. It stayed imposition of sentence on count 2, under Penal Code section 654. It then split the sentence, ordering defendant to serve 365 days in custody with 731 days of mandatory supervision. The court awarded 233 days of credit (117 actual, 116 conduct) and imposed various fines and fees.
II. DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his 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 examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


/S/

RENNER, J.



We concur:


/S/

ROBIE, Acting P. J.


/S/

HOCH, J.