Opinion
A158812
03-30-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GABRIELLE DORSETT, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR953272)
Gabrielle Dorsett appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after she entered a no-contest plea to the charge of causing bodily injury while driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a).) Her attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the appellate record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm.
Except where otherwise indicated, all statutory references herein are to the Vehicle Code. --------
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Dorsett was charged with causing bodily injury while driving under the influence of alcohol (§ 23153, subd. (a)) and causing bodily injury while driving with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.08 percent (§ 23153, subd. (b)). As to each count, it was alleged that she proximately caused injury to more than one victim (§ 23558). It was further alleged that she had two prior convictions under section 23152, subdivision (b).
A. Underlying Incident
Dorsett has a history of alcoholism and misdemeanor convictions for alcohol-related offenses. Underlying the present charges, she was involved in a two-car collision on Highway 29 on February 17, 2019. At the scene, the driver of the other vehicle told police that she was driving northbound when Dorsett drifted into her lane from the opposite direction and clipped the right side of her car, sending her vehicle off the road into a dirt field and causing extensive damage to her car and causing serious injuries to her and her passenger. Officers noted Dorsett was incoherent, smelled strongly of alcohol, and had red and watery eyes. A preliminary alcohol screening test revealed that she had a blood alcohol content of 0.195 percent. Officers took Dorsett to the hospital and, after discharge, booked her at the Hill Road Correctional Facility.
After her arrest, Dorsett enrolled in an 18-month residential treatment program called Crossing the Jordan.
B. Negotiated Disposition
On June 25, 2019, Dorsett signed a "Plea Form, With Explanation and Waiver of Rights - Felony" by which she agreed to enter an open plea of no contest to count two (§ 23153, subd. (b)), acknowledging that she would be sentenced to state prison for not more than three years and that fines, assessments and penalties would be imposed. In her plea form, she acknowledged her understanding of the consequences of her plea and advisement and waiver of her constitutional rights.
Dorsett confirmed to the court that she signed the plea form, gave up her rights as stated in the form, and understood that she could be sentenced to up to three years in state prison. The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. Dorsett entered her no contest plea and admitted her prior convictions. The court dismissed the remaining count on the People's motion and set the matter for sentencing.
C. Departure From Treatment Program
In July 2019, about four months into her 18-month treatment program, Dorsett left Crossing the Jordan for three weeks. She later told staff she was visiting a friend, but the record suggests she relapsed while she was gone. According to the program director, she was intoxicated and abusive when she later attempted to re-enroll. She returned to the program on August 5, 2019, and remained there until sentencing.
D. Sentencing
In its pre-sentencing report, the probation department cited several factors in aggravation, including Dorsett's prior convictions, the fact that she physically injured an elderly person, and the fact that she historically performed poorly on probation. The probation department noted that, in the absence of the plea agreement, it would have recommended the upper term of four years in prison because "there are no mitigating factors to compete with the numerous factors in aggravation."
At the sentencing hearing on September 9, 2019, the prosecution argued that "the probation department hit the nail on the head in terms of the danger that [Dorsett] poses to the community and herself." Defense counsel represented that Dorsett "knows that she did something that is probably short of killing someone" and "understands she has a problem," but she was thriving at Crossing the Jordan (since her return). Defense counsel asked the court to place Dorsett on probation and have her continue in the program.
The court denied Dorsett's request for probation, stating: "Her ability to comply with reasonable terms of probation is poor given her past performance on summary probation and her failure to stop drinking after attending numerous rehabilitation programs. She was in a program while she was pending sentencing, and she decided to leave for three weeks, and she consumed alcohol while she was gone. And I would think if she was serious about being in a program and avoiding prison, then she wouldn't have left the program."
The court identified numerous circumstances in aggravation and concluded there were no circumstances in mitigation. Although it believed that Dorsett's actions merited imposition of the upper term, it imposed the middle term of three years pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement. It also imposed a $300 restitution fund fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), a $300 parole revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45, stayed), a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Govt. Code, § 70373), and a $1,015 fine and $3,146 penalty assessment under section 23566, subdivision (a).
Dorsett filed a notice of appeal without seeking or obtaining a certificate of probable cause.
II. DISCUSSION
Dorsett's appellate counsel has indicated in her opening brief that she wrote to Dorsett at her last known address and advised that a Wende brief would be filed and that Dorsett may personally file a supplemental brief within 30 days raising any issues she wished to call to the court's attention. The thirty-day period has expired, and we have not received a supplemental brief from Dorsett.
We find no arguable issue on appeal. There is no legal issue that requires further briefing.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
NEEDHAM, J. We concur. /s/_________
JONES, P.J. /s/_________
BURNS, J.