Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court No. 06HF0617 of Orange County, M. Marc Kelly, Judge. Affirmed.
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
SILLS, P. J.
Juan Valentin Ramirez filed a notice of appeal with this court following the judgment of conviction ordering him to prison for a total of eight years after a guilty plea in which he admitted he drove a car—on three different occasions—while under the influence of alcohol (see Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), drove a car while having a blood-alcohol level greater than .08% (see Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (b)), and evaded a police officer by driving recklessly (see Veh. Code, § 2800.2) after having three prior convictions for the alcohol offenses, a prior prison term (see Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and while on bail for another offense. (See Pen. Code, § 12022.1, subd. (b).) A certificate of probable cause was not obtained: Thus, the appeal is limited to issues arising after entry of the plea that—at least, arguably—do not challenge its validity. (See Pen. Code, § 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 30(b).)
The plea disposition was that certain charges would be dismissed in exchange for Ramirez’s plea to the three offenses of driving under the influence having three prior convictions for it and evading a police officer after a prior prison term and while on bail. As part of the plea, Ramirez stated he knew the court would impose the maximum term of eight years. Thus, an argument could be made that the term of imprisonment was part of the plea agreement, thereby making an attack on that sentence an attack on the validity of the plea. However, for purposes of this appeal, we accept the statement in the Notice of Appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent Ramirez on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against Ramirez, but advised the court he failed to find any issues to argue on his behalf. We examine the entire record ourselves to see if any arguable issue is present.
The charges arose from the following summary of facts found in the probation report prepared for Ramirez’s sentencing. Ramirez was stopped on three different dates for driving in a dangerous manner. In the first instance, a witness telephoned the police while following behind Ramirez’s car, although by the time the officer arrived, Ramirez had completely passed out and was stopped in the third lane of the street. In the second instance, the officer stopped Ramirez’s car due to its erratic movements, and he practically fell out of the car when the officer asked him to step out of it. No information was provided concerning the third offense which occurred two months after the second one. In both cases for which a report was summarized, Ramirez exhibited all the symptoms of an extremely intoxicated person. Ramirez admitted he was released on bail for the first of these offenses when he committed the second and third offenses. He also admitted having three prior convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol before these three crimes were committed and had spent a term in prison. The trial court imposed the maximum sentence possible under the admitted offenses, a total of eight years in prison.
Counsel briefly stated that the following issue was considered or investigated, but he determined it was not arguable in this case. Nonetheless, we reviewed the issue, summarized as follows: The sentence was excessive although statutorily authorized. Based on the rationale of People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, at pages 376-377, we conclude counsel was correct in that assessment.
Ramirez was informed he could submit written concerns or argument and was given at least 30 days to do so. We have not received anything from him.
We have examined the record and found no other issues to argue. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: MOORE, J., FYBEL, J.