P. v. Harrison
Filed 2/5/08 P. v. Harrison CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLENE HARRISON, Defendant and Appellant. | E043174 (Super.Ct.No. INF48433) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Richard A. Erwood, Judge. Affirmed.
Randall B. Bookout, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Defendant pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol, causing injury (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (a)) and driving with a blood-alcohol level exceeding .08 percent, causing injury. (Veh. Code, 23153, subd. (b).) She also admitted inflicting great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, 12022.7, subd. (a)) and injuring a person in addition to the victim. (Veh. Code, 23558.) She was sentenced to prison and appealed. In People v. Harrison, case No. E038120, we affirmed her convictions, but vacated her sentence and remanded the matter to the trial court so it could order a diagnostic study, pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.03.
Subsequently, a diagnostic study was performed and a report generated. Additionally, defendants original probation officer submitted an updated report, as did her current probation officer. Both recommended prison. The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for six years.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed, and upon her request this court appointed counsel to represent her. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
/s/ McKINSTER
J.
/s/ MILLER
J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
