P. v. >Ponce>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 5/2/13  P.
v. Ponce 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.   RAMON MERCADO PONCE,                           Defendant and Appellant.

C072034   (Super. Ct. No. CRF112268)

 

 

 

 

            Appointed counsel for defendant
Ramon Mercado Ponce asked this court to review the record to determine whether
there are any 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 executed a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">search warrant on defendant’s residence
and found .81 grams of methamphetamine in defendant’s bedroom.  Less than two months later, law enforcement
stopped defendant after observing him driving erratically and exhibiting
objective signs of intoxication. 
Defendant failed field sobriety tests and was subsequently found to have
a blood-alcohol level of .28 percent. 

            Defendant pleaded no contest to
misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (b) -- count 1) and felony
driving under the influence of alcohol with three prior convictions for the
same offense (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23550 -- count 2). 

            On the possession offense, the trial
court ordered defendant to complete a deferred entry of judgment drug diversion
program.  And on the driving under the
influence offense, the trial court placed defendant on probation for five years
with the condition, among others, that defendant serve 240 days in county
jail.  The trial court also ordered
defendant to pay various fines and fees, including a $200 restitution
fine. 

            The probation department
subsequently notified the trial court that defendant was arrested for driving
with a suspended license and thus violated the orders for deferred entry of
judgment and probation.  Defendant
admitted violating the orders. 

            On the possession offense, the trial
court sentenced defendant to 360 days with credit for 360 days.  And on the driving under the influence
offense, the trial court terminated defendant’s probation, sentenced him to the
middle term of two years (to be served locally pursuant to Penal Code section
1170, subdivision (h)), and awarded presentence credit of 396 days (198 actual
days and 198 conduct days). 

            Defendant did not obtain a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">certificate of probable cause.  (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.) 

II

            Appointed counsel filed an href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.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:

 

 

                    
ROBIE                        , Acting P. J.

 

 

                     DUARTE                    , J.