Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ct. Nos. FMB007290 & FMB007684 Rodney A. Cortez, Judge.
Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKinster, Acting P.J.
Defendant and appellant James Ronald Drake appeals after he pled guilty to one felony count of driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)). His appellate counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no arguable issues on appeal, and submitting the matter for the court’s review. We have now undertaken the required review of the entire record, and we find no ground for reversal. The judgment is affirmed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In January 2005, a sheriff’s deputy stopped defendant’s truck as defendant was driving on a dirt road. Defendant stumbled out of the vehicle. Defendant had difficulty maintaining his balance and he could not focus on the questions the deputy asked him. The deputy detected the odor of alcohol inside the cab of defendant’s truck and on defendant’s person. The deputy arrested defendant for driving under the influence. After his arrest, defendant provided a blood sample which tested for a blood-alcohol level of 0.25 percent.
After a preliminary hearing in February 2005, defendant was held to answer on charges of driving while intoxicated (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) and driving with a blood-alcohol level over 0.08 percent (Veh. Code, §§ 23550, 23550.5). He was charged by information with those offenses. The information also alleged that defendant had suffered two prior prison term convictions, one for a drunk driving conviction in 2003, and one for assault with a deadly weapon in 2000.
Defendant was admitted to bail in February 2005. He failed to appear for pretrial in May 2005, but he did attend court in June 2005. The court recalled the bench warrant and reinstated defendant’s bond. Defendant again failed to appear at the rescheduled pretrial hearing in August 2005, however, and was a fugitive. Defendant was apparently arrested on new charges in Nevada in 2006, and eventually extradited to California.
The People filed an amended information in May 2007, alleging two felony counts of failure to appear while out on bond (Pen. Code, § 1320.5). One count concerned defendant’s failure to appear in May 2005, and the second concerned defendant’s flight and absence as a fugitive after August 2005. The People moved to consolidate the two proceedings. The court granted the motion.
In the meantime, the court had suspended proceedings on the failure-to-appear charges, to determine whether defendant was mentally competent to stand trial. The court received the psychologist’s report, which found that defendant was competent, and reinstated proceedings. At the same time, in July 2007, defendant moved to represent himself under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562]. The court granted the motion, but denied defendant’s request for a continuance, whereupon defendant withdrew his request for self-representation. Defendant also brought a Marsden motion, seeking to discharge his counsel. The court denied the motion.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
The People filed a first amended information alleging all four consolidated counts. Judge Powell recused himself from hearing the trial in December 2007. On the eve of jury trial, defendant again moved to dismiss his attorneys. The court continued consideration of defendant’s motion to the next court hearing. At the continued hearing, however, defendant moved to change his plea. Defendant agreed to plead guilty to felony drunk driving and to admit a prior drunk driving conviction in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations. Defendant would receive a four-year sentence, comprised of the aggravated term of three years on the principal offense, plus one year for a prior prison term conviction. Defendant duly pleaded guilty, and was sentenced in accordance with the agreement.
Defendant sought and obtained a certificate of probable cause for this appeal.
ANALYSIS
Appellate counsel has filed a brief making no substantive arguments, consonant with Anders, supra, and Wende, supra. Counsel has identified the following areas of inquiry: whether the failure-to-appear charges were properly consolidated with the driving under the influence and blood-alcohol charges, whether the court correctly found defendant competent to stand trial, whether defendant’s Marsden motions were properly denied, and whether the driving while intoxicated offense was properly charged as a felony.
Defendant was invited to file a supplemental brief, to raise personally any additional issues he wished the court to consider. He has filed none.
We have now completed a review of the entire record in the case.
As to consolidation: the cases were properly joined. Penal Code section 954 provides for the consolidation of different offenses if they are of the same class of crimes or are connected in their commission. Offenses “‘committed at different times and places against different victims are nevertheless “connected together in their commission” when they are . . . linked by a “‘common element of substantial importance.’” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 160.) Here, the failure to appear charges were relevant to and cross-admissible on the drunk driving and blood-alcohol charges, because defendant’s flight could reflect a consciousness of guilt. (See, e.g., People v. Snyder (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 195, 197-199.) People v. Madden (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d Supp. 14, upon which defendant relied below, is distinguishable and inapposite. There, the defendant failed to appear at a hearing, but came to court the next day. He stated that he had been mistaken about the court date. That circumstance is far different from that here, where defendant’s absence consisted of flight to another state.
As to defendant’s competence to stand trial, we have reviewed the circumstances and the doctor’s report. Defendant was coherent, oriented, able to understand the proceedings and able to cooperate with counsel. Defendant was competent.
Defendant’s Marsden motions were properly denied. He failed to substantiate any allegation of incompetence or breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.
By his guilty plea, defendant expressly admitted all the elements of the charged offense, including the element that defendant had suffered a prior felony driving while intoxicated conviction under Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a). The elements defendant admitted established the current charge as a felony. On the face of the record, we have no indication otherwise.
No other potential issues worthy of discussion have appeared upon detailed review of the entire record.
DISPOSITION
No error appears upon examination of the record. The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Richli, J., Miller, J.