 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Delatorre5/9/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
On March 22, 2002, defendant, Louie Mark Delatorre, was charged by information with driving under the influence of alcohol with a felony prior, driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent with a felony prior, and driving when his license was suspended for a prior driving under the influence case, the last offense being a misdemeanor (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a) & (b); 23550.5, subd. (a); 14602.5, subd. (a)). The information also alleged that defendant had two "strike" priors and six "prison" priors (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b) - (i); 1170.12; 667.5, subd. (b)).
On March 25, 2002, defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied the priors.
On May 14, 2002, the parties reached an agreement. Defendant would plead guilty to driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit with a felony prior and would admit the six prison priors, and would have a court trial on the truth of the alleged strike priors. Defendant was advised that if both strike sentences were found true, he could be sentenced to 31 years to life. Defendant then decided he preferred "option two" which was to plead guilty to driving with an alcohol level above the legal limit with a prior conviction, admit one strike prior and the six prison priors, and be sentenced to 10 years in state prison. Before he pleaded, defendant was advised of, and waived, his constitutional rights to a jury trial, to present a defense, to confrontation and to self-incrimination.
Following an unsuccessful attempt to withdraw his plea on September 17, 2002, the court sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of 10 years in state prison. He filed a timely notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent the defendant in this court.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
Premo, Acting P.J.
Bamattre-Manoukian, J.
|