P. v. Faux
Filed 2/22/13
P. v. Faux CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
>
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
BRUCE DAVID FAUX,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F063972
(Super.
Ct. No. MCR039584)
>OPINION
THE COURThref="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">*
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Madera County. Mitchell C. Rigby, Judge.
Deborah
Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of
the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
>STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 15, 2010, appellant, Bruce David
Faux, was charged in a first amended complaint with href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd.
(a), count 1),href="#_ftn2"
name="_ftnref2" title="">[1] gross
vehicular manslaughter while driving under the influence of alcohol (§ 191.5,
subd. (a), count 2), driving under the influence of alcohol with a prior
conviction for the same offense (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a), count 3), and
driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or greater with a prior
conviction for being under the influence of alcohol while driving (Veh. Code, §
23153, subd. (b), count 4). There were
also two great bodily injury enhancements alleged pursuant to section 12022.7,
subdivision (a) and a multiple victim bodily injury allegation pursuant to Vehicle
Code section 23558.
On August 19, 2011, appellant
entered into a plea agreement in which
he would admit counts 2 and 3, as well as one great bodily injury
allegation. In exchange for appellant’s
plea, he would receive a stipulated sentence of 13 years 8 months and the
remaining allegations would be dismissed.href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[2] The
court determined from appellant that he had initialed and executed a felony
advisement of rights and change of plea form, that he had discussed his rights
with his counsel, and that he understood his rights. The court advised appellant of, and appellant
waived, his Mirandahref="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title="">[3] rights.
The trial
court advised appellant of the consequences of his plea and the parties
stipulated to a factual basis for the plea based on the highway patrol
report. Appellant pled no contest to
counts 2 and 3 and admitted one great bodily href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">injury enhancement. On September 30, 2011, the trial court
sentenced appellant to prison for the previously stipulated term of 13 years 8
months. The court granted total custody
credits of 336 days and imposed various fines and fees. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal but
did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
FACTS
At 1:20
a.m. on December 12, 2010, California Highway Patrol Officer Omar Godinez was
dispatched to a traffic collision on Highway 41 at Avenue 15 in Madera
County. Appellant was driving a van and
attempted to pass slow moving traffic in the fog. Appellant was intoxicated with a blood
alcohol content of .11 percent.
Appellant hit a motorcycle, killing Eddie Johnson and injuring Darleen
Tucker. Tucker suffered an amputated
left leg, fractured left arm and hand, multiple spine fractures and her left
hip was removed. Appellant was granted
misdemeanor probation in 2008 and 2009 for separate convictions for driving a
vehicle while under the influence.
APPELLATE COURT REVIEW
Appellant’s
appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening
brief that summarizes the pertinent facts, raises no issues, and requests
this court to review the record independently.
(People v. >Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The opening brief also includes the
declaration of appellate counsel indicating that appellant was advised he could
file his own brief with this court. By
letter on April 11, 2012, we invited appellant to submit additional
briefing. To date, he has not done so.>
After
independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably
arguable legal or factual issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is
affirmed.
id=ftn1>
href="#_ftnref1"
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Franson,
J. and Peña, J.
id=ftn2>
href="#_ftnref2"
name="_ftn2" title="">[1] All
statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.