Opinion
C080469
05-19-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESUS ALEJANDRO DELAMORA, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 14F01934)
Appointed counsel for defendant Jesus Alejandro Delamora asks 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.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.
On June 13, 2013, defendant was driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol and methamphetamine when he failed to yield to oncoming traffic at a stop sign and collided with another vehicle. The collision resulted in physical injuries to the driver and passenger of the other vehicle, as well as damage to both vehicles. Defendant had three prior DUI-related convictions.
Defendant was charged by complaint, deemed the information, with DUI of alcohol and/or drugs (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)—count one), driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more (id., subd. (b)—count two), and driving when his privilege was suspended or revoked for driving under the influence (id., § 14601.2, subd. (a)—count three). The information alleged defendant caused bodily injury to more than one victim in the commission of count one (id., § 23558), suffered two prior convictions for driving under the influence with respect to counts one and two, and suffered one prior conviction for driving when the privilege was suspended or revoked for driving under the influence.
The trial court denied two Marsden motions filed by defendant, as well as a motion to suppress pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
On August 17, 2015, defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to count two—driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more in violation of Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (b)—in exchange for a stipulated two-year term in state prison and dismissal of all remaining charges and allegations. The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea.
On September 17, 2015, defendant filed a petition requesting that the trial court reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. The court found defendant's offense was ineligible for resentencing under Proposition 47 and denied the petition.
On October 2, 2015, the court sentenced defendant to two years in state prison as stipulated and awarded defendant 576 days of presentence custody credit (288 actual days plus 288 conduct credits). The court imposed fees and fines as follows: a $1,015 fine, a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole revocation restitution fine, stayed pending successful completion of parole (§ 1202.45), a $50 alcohol abuse education prevention penalty assessment (Veh. Code, § 23645), a $382.22 main jail booking fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), a $61.75 mail jail classification fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2), a $4 emergency medical air transportation fund fee (Gov. Code, § 76000.10), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 court facility fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), a criminal impact fee of 20 percent of the base fine amount (§ 1465.7, subd. (a)), and $702 for investigation and presentence report costs.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. He did not request a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel for defendant 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. (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 of the opening brief. To date, defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BUTZ, J. We concur: ROBIE, Acting P. J. DUARTE, J.