P. v. Baltimore
Filed 5/7/08 P. v. Baltimore CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JULIAN TODD BALTIMORE, Defendant and Appellant. | C056236 (Super. Ct. No. 06F04807) |
Defendant Julian Todd Baltimore possessed a useable amount of cocaine base and drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
Defendant was charged in an amended information with possessing cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)); misdemeanor driving under the influence (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a)); and misdemeanor driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher (id., 23152, subd. (b)). It was further alleged that defendant had one prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12)[1]and had served four prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)).
Defendant pleaded no contest to possessing cocaine base and misdemeanor driving under the influence and admitted the prior strike allegation in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and prior prison term allegations.[2]
The trial court sentenced defendant to 32 months in state prison for possessing cocaine base (the lower term of 16 months doubled for the strike prior), with credit for 290 days (194 actual days and 96 good conduct); imposed a $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $200 parole revocation fine, suspended unless parole is revoked ( 1202.45), a $50 lab fee (Health & Saf. Code, 11372.5, subd. (a)), and a $150 drug program fee (id., 11372.7, subd. (a)); and ordered that he provide samples ( 296.1, subd. (a)(1)(A)).[3]
Defendant appeals, having obtained a certificate of probable cause.[4]
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 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, Acting P.J.
We concur:
HULL, J.
ROBIE , J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Hereafter, undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
[2] Defendant requested substitute counsel prior to entering his plea. After conducting a Marsden hearing (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), the court denied defendants request.
[3] Defendant was sentenced to 30 days in jail for the misdemeanor, to be served concurrently with his sentence for possession of cocaine base. The fines and fees imposed for the misdemeanor violation were converted to an additional 20 days in jail at defendants request, to run concurrently with his prison sentence.
[4] Defendants motion for relief from untimely filing of notice of appeal was granted on July 26, 2007, and the notice was deemed a timely notice of appeal for all purposes of appellate review.
