P. v. Lopez

Filed 6/15/06 P. v. Lopez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael B. Lewis and Lee P. Felice, Judges.^†

H. Russell Halpern for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Leslie W. Westmoreland, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appellant, Emiliano Lopez, pled no contest to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated with a prior conviction for driving under the influence (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (d)). On May 12, 2005, the court sentenced Lopez to 15 years to life. On appeal, Lopez contends: 1) the court did not make an adequate inquiry into the factual basis of his plea; 2) the court did not advise Lopez of the nature of the charges against him; and 3) the court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. We will affirm.

FACTS

On August 17, 2004, at approximately 7:00 a.m. Lopez was driving a Mercedes in Bakersfield when he ran a red light and broadsided a car driven by Tammy McCright, who died at the scene. Lopez attempted to flee but was detained by bystanders.

Although Lopez refused to provide a blood sample, he was taken to a hospital where blood was drawn at 8:35 a.m. Analysis of this blood sample disclosed that Lopez had a .20 blood-alcohol content.

DISCUSSION

The Factual Basis Issue and Alleged Failure to Advise Lopez of

the Nature of the Charge Against Him

Lopez contends the court did not make any inquiry into the factual basis of his plea as required by Penal Code section 1192.5 because it did not state on what basis it made its finding of fact or ask counsel to stipulate to a factual basis. He also contends that recitation of the charge during the change of plea proceedings was insufficient to apprise him of the nature of the charge. We will find that these issues are not cognizable on appeal.

Penal Code section 1237.5 provides:

â€