P. v.
Filed 2/27/12 P. v.
Lynn 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NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
CARLOS EDWIN LYNN,
Defendant and Appellant.
C067246
(Super.
Ct. No. 10F05239)
Appointed counsel
for defendant Carlos Edwin Lynn has asked this court to review the record to
determine whether there exist any arguable
issues on appeal. (
We find no errors and no concerns regarding presentence credits. We shall affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
In July 2010, a
California Highway Patrol officer stopped defendant’s vehicle on the highway
because defendant was speeding and making unsafe lane changes. Defendant spoke slowly, his eyes were glassy
and watery, and he had the odor of alcohol on his breath. The officer administered two preliminary alcohol
screening tests to defendant; the first registered 0.157 percent and the second
0.158 percent. Defendant’s blood was
drawn approximately an hour and 15 minutes after his arrest. His blood-alcohol content was .17 percent.
On December 14, 2010, defendant pled no
contest to driving with a suspended license with three prior suspension
convictions (count 3). On December 16, 2010, a jury convicted
defendant of driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd.
(a) [count 1]) and driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or more
(Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b) [count 2]).
The jury also found true an allegation that defendant’s blood-alcohol
level was .15 percent or greater (Veh. Code, § 23578).
On January 14, 2011, prior to sentencing,
the trial court found defendant had a prior strike conviction (robbery). The court then sentenced defendant to
count, staying sentence on count 1 pursuant to Penal Code section 654, and to
100 days in county jail on count 3, to run concurrently with count 2. The court awarded defendant presentence
credit of 259 days, consisting of 173 days of actual credit plus 86 days
of conduct credit.
title="">[1]
Defendant filed a
timely notice of appeal.
Counsel filed an
of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on
appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Counsel advised defendant 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.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is
affirmed.
DUARTE , J.
We concur:
RAYE , P. J.
MURRAY , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Defendant is not entitled to increased
conduct credit because of his prior strike conviction. (Pen. Code, § 2933, subd. (e)(3).)
