Opinion
A134499
05-15-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BODHI TREE, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR1104117)
Appellant Bodhi Tree appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to driving recklessly while evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 69). His counsel on appeal has filed an opening brief that asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record as is required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel also informed appellant that he had the right to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Appellant declined to exercise that right.
On October 4, 2011, appellant led police officers on a high speed chase from the Bear River Casino in Loleta. He fled at speeds of up to 100 miles per hours while on Highway 101. At one point, appellant drove straight toward a California Highway Patrol officer who was outside his vehicle. Authorities finally were able to stop him by deploying a spike strip that rendered his vehicle inoperable. Appellant violently resisted arrest and had to be transported to jail in hobbles.
Based on these facts, an information was filed that charged appellant with several offenses including the two we have set forth above.
The case was resolved through negotiation. Appellant pleaded guilty to driving recklessly while evading a police officer and resisting arrest. In exchange, other counts were dropped.
Subsequently, the court sentenced appellant to the upper term of three years for driving recklessly and a concurrent term of two years for resisting arrest.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued. Before accepting appellant's plea, the court made sure he understood the constitutional rights he was waiving. The court also made sure appellant understood the consequences of his plea. We see no error in the sentence. Appellant was effectively represented by counsel.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The judgment is affirmed.
_____________
Jones, P.J.
We concur:
_____________
Simons, J.
_____________
Needham, J.