 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Tuerlings2/19/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Pursuant to a bargain, defendant Paul Maurice Tuerlings pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol with a prior felony conviction for driving under the influence with injury (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a), § 23153, subd. (a), § 23550.5) and he admitted an enhancement for service of a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to state prison for three years on the underlying offense with an additional year for the enhancement. Fines of $800 each were imposed in accordance with Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45, and a fine of $1,772, which included penalty assessments, was imposed pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23550.5.
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.
We concur:
SIMS, Acting P.J.
NICHOLSON, J.
|