Opinion
D040733.
10-14-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARRELL TYRONE NOBLE, Defendant and Appellant.
A jury convicted Darrell Tyrone Noble of personally inflicting great bodily injury on more than one victim while driving under the influence of alcohol (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a), Veh. Code, §§ 23153, subd. (a), 23558), hit and run causing injury (§ 20001, subd. (a)), and driving with a suspended license (§ 14601.2, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated hearing, Noble waived jury and admitted a prior conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol within the previous seven years (§ 23560) and a strike prior (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).
FACTS
At approximately 5:00 p.m. on August 18, 2001, Noble was driving east on Highway 78 when he swerved across the lanes and collided with a van occupied by a woman and her children. The van rolled over and both vehicles ended up in a ditch. A passenger in a car that was in the number two lane testified that he saw Noble turn the steering wheel hard like he (Noble) was trying to make the off ramp. A woman riding with Noble broke her arm and the driver of the van sustained neck, shoulder and back injuries. Noble got out of the car he was driving, jumped a fence and left. He said "something like" he would be right back but did not identify himself to anyone before leaving. He called a woman friend and asked her to pick him up. He did not say he had been in a collision. Around 5:30 p.m., a sheriffs deputy contacted Noble in a nearby strip mall. A responding highway patrol officer noticed that Noble had abrasions and complained of pain. Noble denied being on the freeway and said he sustained the injuries in a fight. An odor of alcohol emanated from Noble, he was unstable on his feet and his eyes appeared glassy. The highway patrol officer believed him to be under the influence of alcohol and arrested him. At 7:05 p.m., Noble showed a blood/alcohol level of .06 percent. A sheriffs criminalist testified that given the burn-off rate, Noble had a blood/alcohol level of around .09 percent at the time of the collision. Noble stipulated his drivers license was suspended at the time of the collision.
Noble testified. He admitted driving the red car at the time of the collision but claimed the passenger grabbed the steering wheel during an argument. He testified that he drank gin and wine the night before the collision but nothing during that day. He testified that he was dizzy after the collision and told his passenger that he was going to get help.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether sufficient evidence supports the convictions and; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Nobles motion to strike the strike prior.
We granted Noble permission to file a brief on his own behalf. On March 14, 2003, we granted his request for an extension of time to file a supplemental brief, which was due May 12. On April 8, we granted his request for an extension of time to June 16. On June 5, we granted his request for an extension of time to July 16. On July 14, we granted his request for an extension of time to August 16. On August 13, we granted his request for an extension of time to September 9, noting this was the last extension. On August 28, we denied his request for an extension of time. On September 12, Nobel filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus that we resolve in In re Noble, D041799. On September 17, Nobel filed two supplemental briefs.
In the first supplemental brief, Nobel contends his trial counsel failed to provide him with the trial court file that contains exculpatory evidence. In the second supplemental brief, he acknowledges that on September 11, 2002, he received the trial court file. He further contends he was denied a fair trial through counsels failure to produce exculpatory evidence. The record contains no evidence on this issue. When reviewing an appeal we are limited to the record before us. (People v. Jackson (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 485, 490; People v. Roberts (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 387, 394.) If Noble wishes to pursue this issue, he must file a petition for extraordinary writ in the trial court.
A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and the issue in appellants second supplemental brief has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Noble on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: NARES, J. and OROURKE, J. --------------- Notes: All further statutory references are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise specified.