Opinion
B329040
01-16-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JONATHAN CURTIS FLOYD, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Ventura County Super. Ct. No. 2021009222, Bruce A. Young, Judge.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CODY, J.
Jonathan Curtis Floyd appeals the judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to driving under the influence with prior similar convictions (Veh. Code, §§ 23550, 23152, subd. (f)) and driving with a suspended license. (Id., § 14601.2, subd. (a).) A 2006 conviction for burglary was alleged as a prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 1170.12) but was stricken by the trial court pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The trial court suspended imposition of appellant's sentence and placed him on probation subject to the condition, among, others, that he spend 250 days in custody in county jail. He received 89 days of presentence conduct credit.
Appellant crashed his car into a fence along Harbor Boulevard in Oxnard. He drove away from the accident scene. Officers found him down the road still driving the heavily damaged car. They found marijuana, prescription painkillers, and an unopened "tall can" of Sierra Nevada beer inside. Appellant appeared under the influence of drugs and alcohol and performed poorly on field sobriety tests. Officers determined he was driving on a suspended license and that his car's registration had expired the year prior. Appellant had two prior DUI convictions at the time of accident and received a third prior to his conviction in this case.
The facts are derived from the probation report because appellant pleaded guilty to both counts charged.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. We advised appellant on October 31, 2023 that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We received no response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's counsel fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GILBERT, P. J., BALTODANO, J.