 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Kruletz6/30/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 negotiated plea agreement, defendant Larry Kruletz pleaded guilty to driving a car without permission (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and admitted a 1998 prior serious felony conviction for residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 1170.12). Defendant agreed to a 32-month prison sentence (the low term of 16 months, doubled), and the prosecution dismissed misdemeanor charges of driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), and a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). On December 4, 2002, defendant was sentenced to 32 months in prison, plus a restitution fine of $600 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), and a suspended parole revocation restitution fine of $600 (Pen. Code, § 1202.45).
On January 10, 2002, defendant filed an application for a certificate of probable cause that was denied by the trial court on January 13, 2002. On January 31, 2002, defendant filed a notice of appeal from his sentence.
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.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
NICHOLSON, J.
MORRISON, J.
|