From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mitchell

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Jun 23, 2008
No. H032224 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 23, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE MICHAEL MITCHELL, Defendant and Appellant. H032224 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District June 23, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Santa Clara County, Super. Ct. No. BB724851

Mihara, J.

Police officers saw defendant driving 45 miles per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour zone. Defendant’s vehicle crossed over the center divider line on a curve. The officers detained defendant, and defendant admitted that he did not have a driver’s license and was on parole for driving under the influence of alcohol. Defendant was disoriented and smelled of alcohol. He denied alcohol consumption but admitted he had taken Vicodin. After failing field sobriety tests, defendant refused to voluntarily submit to a blood or breath test. The forced blood test showed that his blood alcohol level was .19 percent. Defendant had participated in alcohol treatment multiple times in the past, and had a history of parole violations.

Defendant was arrested and charged by complaint with driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs with a felony prior (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, 23550.5, subd. (a)), and the complaint further alleged that he had served prison terms for four prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). He waived his right to a preliminary examination, pleaded no contest, and admitted the prison prior allegations. There was no plea agreement. One of the prison priors was subsequently stricken on the prosecutor’s motion. The court imposed the middle term of two years, and consecutive one-year terms for each of the remaining three prison priors, for a total state prison term of five years. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal challenging his sentence.

Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf but has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J., Duffy, J.


Summaries of

People v. Mitchell

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Jun 23, 2008
No. H032224 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 23, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Mitchell

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE MICHAEL MITCHELL…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Jun 23, 2008

Citations

No. H032224 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 23, 2008)