P. v. Wintemute
Filed 6/26/12 P. v.
Wintemute 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NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
(Yuba)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ROBERT MICHAEL WINTEMUTE,
Defendant and Appellant.
C069966
(Super.
Ct. No. CRF1172)
This case comes to
us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (
record as required by Wende, we
affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description
of the facts and procedural history of the case. (Kelly,
Defendant was
granted five years’ probation in
Superior Court No. 62-78565 on September 29, 2008, after
pleading no contest to violating Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b)
(driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or greater), and
admitting three prior convictions for driving under the influence
(DUI) (id., § 23550). The
terms and conditions of probation included successfully completing an
18-month DUI program and not driving unless licensed and insured. Defendant was thereafter found in violation
of probation on three occasions described post.
According to the
probation reports, on which the trial court relied, on February 29, 2008, a Roseville
police officer stopped defendant’s vehicle because the license plate lamp was
not functioning properly. Detecting
alcohol on defendant’s breath, the officer asked defendant to submit to a
breath test. The field tests showed
blood-alcohol levels of .115 percent and .119 percent. A subsequent intoxilyzer test showed a level
of .12 percent. Defendant had been
convicted of three DUI offenses from 1999 to 2001.
On December 20, 2010, defendant
admitted violating his probation by failing to complete the 18-month DUI
program. His probation was
reinstated with directions to complete the program.
On January 10, 2011, defendant’s
probation was transferred to Yuba County.
On April 18, 2011, defendant
admitted violating his probation by failing to complete the 18-month DUI
program and by driving without a valid license.
The Yuba County Superior Court reinstated his probation with an
additional condition requiring defendant to serve 341 days in jail, with
credit for 341 days.
On September 29, 2011, defendant
admitted violating his probation by failing to complete the DUI program,
failing to report a change of address, and failing to report monthly to his
probation officer.
On December 5, 2011, the trial
court denied further probation and sentenced defendant to a two-year term for
his 2008 Vehicle Code offenses. The
court reinstated the previously imposed fines and fees, including a $200
restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), a $200 restitution fine, suspended
unless probation is revoked (Pen. Code, § 1202.44), and a $20 court
security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8).
The court awarded 366 days of presentence custody credits
(183 actual days and 183 conduct days).
We appointed
appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief
that sets forth the facts of the case and requests 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 of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we
have 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.
The judgment is
affirmed.
MURRAY , J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.
HULL , J.
