P. v. Vernon
Filed 10/21/08 P. v. Vernon 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. WILLIE VERNON, Defendant and Appellant. | C058545 (Sup.Ct. No. 05F03047) |
Driving at an unsafe speed and with a blood-alcohol level of 0.16, defendant Willie Vernon made an unsafe turn on a freeway off-ramp which resulted in a crash that killed one passenger and seriously injured two others. Defendant pleaded no contest to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code 191.5, subd. (a); further undesignated references are to this code), and admitted that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on two victims ( 12022.7, subd. (a)) and had a prior strike conviction ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)) in exchange for dismissal of all remaining counts and allegations, dismissal of two unrelated pending cases pursuant to a Harvey[1]waiver, and a sentencing lid of 18 years in state prison.
On October 7, 2005, the court denied probation and sentenced defendant to 18 years in state prison, comprised of the middle term of six years, doubled pursuant to the strike, plus two consecutive three-year terms pursuant to section 12022.7. The court awarded defendant 156 days of presentence custody credit and imposed a $5,000 restitution fine ( 1202.4), a $5,000 parole revocation fine, stayed pending successful completion of parole ( 1202.45), $5,540 in victim restitution, plus an additional amount to be determined.
On February 5, 2008, defendant filed a motion for modification of sentence ( 1170, subd. (d)) requesting that the two consecutive three-year terms be modified to run concurrent to the 12-year principal term. The court denied the motion, and defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on 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. (People v. Wende (1979) 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 elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error in favor of defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MORRISON , Acting P.J.
We concur:
ROBIE , J.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]People v. Harvey (1979) 29 Cal.3d 754.
