Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Clarence Westra, Jr., Judge., Super. Ct. No. BF113607A
Sylvia Whatley Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Levy, Acting P.J.; Cornell, J.; and Dawson, J.
A jury convicted appellant Shannon Ruffin of driving while under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a); count 1), driving while his driving privilege was suspended or revoked (§ 14601.1, subd. (a); count 2) and willful obstruction of a peace officer in the performance of official duties (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3) and appellant admitted that within the previous 10 years he had suffered a conviction of violating section 23152, subdivision (a), thereby making the count 1 offense a felony under section 23505.5. In a separate proceeding, appellant admitted allegations that he had served four separate prison terms for prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).
Except as otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Vehicle Code.
The court imposed a prison term of six years, consisting of the two-year midterm on count 1 and one year on each of the four prior prison term enhancements. The court imposed concurrent 180-day county jail terms on each of counts 2 and 3.
Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.) Appellant has not responded to this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.
FACTS
Prosecution Case
At approximately 10:00 p.m. on December 14, 2005 (December 14), Shannon Thompson (Shannon) and her husband, Shane Thompson (Shane), were driving eastbound on White Lane in Bakersfield when they saw a pickup stopped in the middle lane ahead of them. As the Thompsons drove by, Shannon saw a person, whom she identified in court as appellant, in the driver’s seat, slumped over.
We refer to Mr. and Ms. Thompson by their first names for convenience and clarity. We intend no disrespect in doing so.
Shane was driving. He pulled over, and he and Shannon got out and approached the pickup. Appellant was unconscious, the keys were in the ignition, the engine was running and the vehicle was in neutral. Shannon called 911, while Shane turned the ignition off and, with the help of another person who had stopped, pushed the pickup out of the roadway and into a parking lot.
Shortly thereafter, police officers arrived on the scene, one of whom shined a flashlight in appellant’s eyes, causing appellant to regain consciousness. The officer then removed appellant from the pickup. Appellant smelled strongly of alcohol and his eyes were bloodshot. Officers administered various field sobriety tests to appellant, and appellant failed them. One of the officers also administered a “preliminary alcohol screening test” (PAS test), which indicated appellant had a blood alcohol content of .191 percent.
Shortly thereafter, one of the officers told appellant he was under arrest, at which point appellant started running. Another officer was able to grab appellant and take him to the ground. Thereafter, the officers placed appellant in a patrol vehicle and transported him to the Kern County jail.
Appellant later telephoned Shane from the jail. During this call, appellant referred to an “incident” in which he “was driving … a little pick up and [Shane] helped [appellant] out the road.”
Appellant’s driving privilege was in “suspended” status on December 14.
Defense Case
Appellant testified to the following. On the evening of December 14 at approximately 7:00 p.m. he arrived at Don Perico’s, a bar and restaurant in Bakersfield. He “had something to eat” and drank one beer. He stayed at the restaurant for approximately one to one and one-half hours, and he left with two women. He got into his pickup and sat on the passenger side. The next thing he remembered was being awakened by a police officer. He did not know how he came to be behind the wheel of his pickup. He did not drive to the location where he was awakened by the officer. At some point during the evening of December 14 he smoked PCP.
DISCUSSION
We have independently reviewed the record and based on that review we have concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.