P. v. Pierson
Filed 10/19/06 P. v. Pierson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
(Butte)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JULIAN WAYNE PIERSON, Defendant and Appellant. | C050432
(Super. Ct. Nos. CM022637, CM017420)
|
On October 9, 2002, in Butte County Superior Court No. CM017420, defendant Julian Wayne Pierson entered guilty pleas to single counts of willfully evading a pursuing peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) (§ 2800.2(a)) and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (id., § 23152, subd. (a)), based on an incident that occurred on June 9, 2002. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation, on condition that he serve 90 days in jail and pay various fines, fees, and penalty assessments.
On April 26, 2005, in Butte County Superior Court No. CM022637, defendant entered a no contest plea to violating section 2800.2(a) on February 20, 2005.
As a consequence of the plea in case No. CM022637, the court revoked and terminated probation in case No. CM017420. The court imposed a midterm sentence of two years for the section 2800.2(a) conviction in No. CM022637, and a consecutive sentence of eight months for the section 2800.2(a) conviction in case No. CM017420. (CT 155-156, 161; RT 41-42)
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief which sets forth the facts of the case and asks us 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.
SIMS , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
