Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County No. 06CM2461. Lynn C. Atkinson, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Harris, Acting P.J., Levy, J. and Dawson, J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 2, 2006, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Kings County charging appellant Roel Ryan Briones with count I, felony vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); count II, misdemeanor hit and run (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)); count III, misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol and/or a drug (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)); count IV, misdemeanor driving with a blood/alcohol level of .08 percent or greater (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)); count V, felony possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359); and count VI, transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)). Appellant pleaded not guilty.
On September 19, 2006, appellant pleaded guilty to count I. The court dismissed count II pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, and dismissed the remaining counts.
On November 3, 2006, the court referred the matter to the California Department of Corrections for completion of a diagnostic study pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.3 to assess appellant’s suitability for probation.
On April 10, 2007, the court conducted the sentencing hearing and noted the diagnostic report did not recommend probation. Appellant waived alternative sentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.9. The court denied probation and imposed the midterm of two years in state prison, with 160 days of actual credits and 80 days of good time/worktime credits, for a total of 240 days of credit. The court imposed a $400 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), another $400 restitution fine, suspended until successful completion of parole (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $20 court security fee, and victim restitution.
On June 14, 2007, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
FACTS
On the evening of April 3, 2006, appellant was on leave from the United States Marine Corps and socialized with friends in Hanford. He became severely intoxicated and stole a Ford F-110 truck from Michael Harris’s driveway.
Appellant recklessly drove the stolen vehicle through residential neighborhoods at a high rate of speed. He crashed into a fence, continued through a residential yard, drove over multiple bushes, trees, and sprinkler valves, and then crashed into the corner of the house where California Highway Patrol Officer Robert Whitney lived. Appellant managed to keep going, drove across the street, jumped a curb, ran over another tree, and crashed into the front portion of the house owned by William Garcia, and occupied by United States Navy Lieutenant Commander Craig Dalle and his family. Appellant kept driving through the house’s entranceway, taking out the wall of the bedroom where Dalle’s 13-year-old daughter and one-year-old son were located. When the truck finally stopped, about three-quarters of the vehicle were inside the house and the outer walls were completely destroyed. Appellant ran from the scene and jumped several fences, but witnesses followed and apprehended him for the police. His blood/alcohol level was at twice the legal limit.
In the probation report, appellant stated he remembered going to a restaurant but could not remember anything else. Appellant said he blacked out from excessive drinking and he did not realize what had happened until the next day. Appellant had served in Iraq, he was receiving treatment and medication for post-traumatic stress disorder, and remorseful for his behavior.
At the sentencing hearing, the court ordered appellant to pay victim restitution of $29,466.41 to William Garcia and $55,492 to Craig Dalle for property damage, $26,641 to Michael Harris’s insurance company for the stolen truck, and reserved jurisdiction as to further victim restitution.
DISCUSSION
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed an opening brief which adequately summarizes the facts and adequately cites to the record, which raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) By letter of November 7, 2007, this court invited appellant to submit additional briefing and state any grounds of appeal he may wish this court to consider. Appellant has not done so.
Our independent review discloses no further reasonably arguable appellate issues. “[A]n arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements. First, the issue must be one which, in counsel’s professional opinion, is meritorious. That is not to say that the contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a reasonable potential for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment.” (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.