P. v. Campbell
Filed 7/30/08 P. v. Campbell CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARRELL CAMPBELL, Defendant and Appellant. | E045140 (Super.Ct.No. FVA701605) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Stephen G. Saleson, Judge. Affirmed.
Jennifer L. Peabody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found defendant guilty of the misdemeanors of driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a)) and driving with a blood alcohol level at or exceeding 0.08 percent. (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to local time, with time served. He appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and a potential arguable issue and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
After concluding our independent review of the record, we affirm the judgment.
Facts
On September 24, 2007, defendant was pulled over by a police officer while driving in an unusual manner. Defendant exhibited signs to the officer of being intoxicated and he told the officer he had consumed 6 ounces of beer 30 minutes previously. Defendant failed to pass his first field sobriety test and he declined to take the others, saying he was drunk. An hour and a half later, his blood was taken and it showed that he had a blood alcohol level of 0.11 percent, which an expert testified impaired his ability to drive safely.
Discussion
There was more than sufficient evidence to support both convictions, as outlined above.
We have concluded an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
GAUT
J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
