P. v. Maciel
Filed 5/1/08 P. v. Maciel CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NICANDRO MACIEL, Defendant and Appellant. | A119917 (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-514024) |
Nicandro Maciel appeals from a judgment imposed upon his guilty plea to evading a peace officer while driving recklessly (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a)). His counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not do so.
On June 19, 2007, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with one count of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a), with the allegation that he suffered two prior prison convictions within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The charges stemmed from an incident in which defendant made a prohibited right turn on a red light and then fled from a pursuing police officer, driving at speeds of up to 90 m.p.h.
On June 25, 2007, defendant waived his right to a jury trial and pled guilty to committing Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a). The plea was entered with the understanding that defendant could be sentenced to state prison for a term of three years, and that the court would strike the prior prison conviction allegations.
On October 10, 2007, the court sentenced defendant to the midterm of two years in state prison. The court struck the two prior prison conviction allegations. The court did not award defendant any conduct credits because he was currently in custody on a parole violation on grounds independent of the present offense.
Defendant was represented by counsel. There was no error in the sentencing. This court has reviewed the entire record and there are no meritorious issues to be argued.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
________________________
RIVERA, J.
We concur:
___________________________
REARDON, Acting P. J.
___________________________
SEPULVEDA, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
