Opinion
C070687
12-06-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES RICHARD FEATHERSTONE, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. CM034944)
Appointed counsel for defendant James Richard Featherstone asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
I
Defendant pleaded no contest to driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a) -- count 1), and admitted seven prior prison terms, in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations with a Harvey waiver. The trial court denied defendant's motions to withdraw his plea and to discharge appointed counsel. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.)
The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in county jail (three years for driving under the influence, plus seven years for the prior prison terms), awarded defendant 434 days of presentence custody credit (217 actual days and 217 conduct days), and imposed a $2,000 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a fine of $1,747 (Pen. Code, § 672), a $50 alcohol education fee (Veh. Code, § 23645, subd. (a)), a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $736 presentence investigation report fee (Pen. Code, § 1203.1b).
II
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking 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 the opening brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief.
Defendant asserts that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, that defendant had conflicts with his trial counsel, that trial counsel did not make a vigorous defense, that a prior prison term allegation should have been dismissed, that Butte County "waged a vendetta against him" because he once filed a federal civil rights claim against the county, among others, and that trial counsel had conflicts of interest.
Defendant's contentions are forfeited, however, because they are not supported with citations to the record, citations to relevant authority, or legal argument. (Amato v. Mercury Casualty Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1784, 1794; Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MAURO, J. We concur: BLEASE, Acting P. J. HULL, J.
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.