P. v. Foreman

















Filed 2/5/13 P. v. Foreman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

(Sutter)

----






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES RUSSELL FOREMAN II, Defendant and Appellant.

C070940 (Super. Ct. No. CRF111647)

Appointed counsel for defendant James Russell Foreman II asked this
court to review the record to determine whether there are any href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">arguable issues on appeal. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result
in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

I

Law enforcement officers pulled
defendant over after observing him driving on the wrong side of the road. Upon contacting defendant, they noticed a
strong odor of alcohol and noted that his eyes were bloodshot and watery and
his speech was slurred. Defendant
completed only one field sobriety test before declaring he was “done” and
telling the officers to take him to jail.
A breath test administered at the county jail indicated blood-alcohol
levels of .20 and .22 percent.

Defendant pleaded no contest to
driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or higher, having sustained
three or more convictions for driving under the influence within the previous
10 years. (Veh. Code, §§ 23152,
subd. (b), 23550.) He also admitted
allegations that he served three prior prison terms.

The trial court sentenced defendant
to an aggregate term of six years (the upper term of three years plus a
consecutive three years for the prior prison term enhancement), to be served
locally pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h). The trial court reserved jurisdiction and set
a review date of July 15, 2013, to consider whether execution of a portion
of the term should be suspended in favor of mandatory supervision. The trial court awarded defendant two days of
custody credit, ordered him to pay various fines and fees, and denied his
request for a certificate of probable
cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).

II

Appointed counsel filed an href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">opening brief setting forth the facts of
the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there
are any arguable issues on appeal. (>Wende, supra, 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 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.

DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.







MAURO , J.





We concur:





BLEASE , Acting P. J.





MURRAY , J.