Filed 1/23/18 P. v. Dickinson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

BENNIE EDWARD DICKINSON,

Defendant and Appellant.


C085422

(Super. Ct. No. 17CF01607)


Appointed counsel for defendant Bennie Edward Dickinson 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.)
On April 2, 2017, around 10:30 p.m., a police officer saw defendant driving a vehicle without the headlights on. The officer also saw defendant fail to properly stop at a stop sign. The officer activated his patrol car’s red lights but appellant sped away, in excess of the posted speed limit. Defendant drove through another stop sign and the officer then activated the car’s siren. Defendant continued to evade the officer. He drove in the opposing lane of traffic, through a third stop sign, and over garden pots and rocks on someone’s property.
Eventually, defendant slowed down to five miles per hour, opened the driver’s side door, and fled on foot into a dark wooded area. The pursuing officer exited his vehicle and pulled out his firearm; he did not have time to engage his car in parking gear, so it rolled into defendant’s car. The officer yelled for defendant to get on the ground and show his hands but defendant continued to flee. The officer pursued defendant over a pile of logs to a stream embankment where defendant fell and the officer was close enough to take him into custody.
Defendant admitted to having “ ‘a little bit of crank’ ” in his pocket. He admitted the baggie containing 0.4 gram of methamphetamine the officer found on the ground had just fallen from defendant’s shirt pocket. And he admitted having used methamphetamine daily for the prior 19 days, including 5 to 6 hours prior to the chase.
The People charged defendant with recklessly evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2) and several misdemeanors, including one count of “wet and reckless driving, drug related” (Veh. Code, §§ 23103, 23103.5). The People initially alleged defendant had served four prior prison terms but later struck two of the allegations. Defendant pleaded no contest to the felony charge and the wet and reckless conviction and admitted to serving a prior prison term. In exchange for defendant’s plea, the People moved to dismiss the remaining charges and allegations with a Harvey waiver. The court granted the People’s motion.
The trial court sentenced defendant to serve the upper term of three years in state prison on his conviction for recklessly evading a police officer, with an additional year for the prior prison term. The court also sentenced defendant to serve 90 days in county jail for the wet and reckless conviction, ordering that term to be served concurrent to defendant’s prison term. The court awarded defendant 273 days of custody credit, ordered him to pay various fines and fees, and reserved the issue of victim restitution.
Defendant appeals from the judgment without a certificate of probable cause.
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.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



/s/
HOCH, J.


We concur:


/s/
HULL, Acting P. J.


/s/
MAURO, J.