Opinion
F075589
03-20-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GREG ALLEN HUDSON, Defendant and Appellant.
Joshua G. Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. F17900788)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Don Penner, Judge. Joshua G. Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Peña, J.
-ooOoo-
Appointed counsel for defendant Greg Allen Hudson asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to defendant, advising him of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. On review, we find no arguable issues.
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On February 5, 2017, at about 2:24 a.m., defendant drove past an officer assisting a civilian. Defendant was driving about 80 miles per hour in a 40-mile-per-hour zone, and he nearly hit the officer and civilian as he drove past. The officer pursued him for over 18 miles, during which defendant ran 11 stop signs and one red light. He exceeded speeds of 120 miles per hour in posted 40- and 55-mile-per-hour zones. When he stopped, he fled on foot until a K-9 unit located him and he was taken into custody. His field sobriety tests were negative. When the officer asked him why he had fled, he answered, "I don't know, stupid." In his statement to the probation officer, he said, "I am very sorry for what I did. I don't know why I ran. I was just hoping to get home I guess. I am really happy that no one got hurt."
On February 22, 2017, defendant pled no contest to evading a pursuing officer with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and admitted having suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
On May 3, 2017, the trial court declined to strike the prior serious felony conviction allegation following defendant's Romero motion. The court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, and imposed various fines and fees.
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). --------
On May 4, 2017, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.