Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Super. Ct. No. 06F6943
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.
This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Defendant Steven Robertson Gray was charged with two crimes based on his driving under the influence (DUI) on August 23, 2006. Count I charged a simple DUI and count II charged DUI with a blood-alcohol level (BAL) at or above.08 percent. (Veh. Code, § 23152, subds. (a) & (b).) The People also alleged that defendant had three prior DUI convictions and had driven with a BAL of.15 percent or higher. (Veh. Code, §§ 23550, 23578.)
As part of a bargain, defendant pled no contest to count II, the other charges were dismissed, and he was promised a lid of no more than 16 months in prison.
On October 25, 2006, the trial court (Wilson, J.) suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation, with conditions including defendant’s service of a year in jail and completion of a residential treatment program. The trial court twice modified the probation conditions, first on January 31, 2007, to allow defendant to enter into a specific treatment program, and later, on July 19, 2007, to allow defendant to use medical marijuana.
About a year later, on August 18, 2008, a petition to revoke probation was filed, alleging defendant had used alcohol on July 13, 2008, as shown by a BAL reading of.251 percent on a preliminary alcohol screening device. A month later, on September 18, 2008, a second petition to revoke probation was filed, alleging defendant used alcohol on August 19, 2008, as shown by a BAL reading of.13 percent on a similar test.
After defendant admitted both of the probation revocation petitions, the trial court (Anderson, J.) sentenced him to prison for the midterm of two years. Defendant timely appealed.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. 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. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SIMS, Acting P. J., RAYE, J.