P. v. Rogers

Filed 1/17/07  P. v. Rogers CA3

Opinion following rehearing

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

(Placer)

----

     Early on the morning of April 30, 2005, a Rocklin police officer saw defendant Jonathan Christopher Rogers's car make an unlawful turn.  The officer tried to make a traffic stop for driving on the wrong side of the road, but defendant's car fled onto Interstate 80 and then onto Highway 65 at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour.  Eventually, defendant yielded to police at a gas station in Olivehurst.  His car contained four female passengers. 

     A jury convicted defendant of driving in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property while eluding a pursuing peace officer.  (Veh. Code, §  2800.2, subd. (a).)  Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for three years on the condition, among others, that he serve 365 days of incarceration with credit for eight days and with eligibility for education furlough during the second half of the jail term.  Defendant was ordered to pay $670 in fines, penalty assessments and surcharges, plus $1,160 in costs to be paid separate from the fines, plus a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, §  1202.4) and a $200 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked (Pen. Code, §  1202.44).

     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.

     Defendant filed a supplemental brief contending his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate several issues in his case.  Defendant argues that â€