Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 09F02179
ROBIE, J.
While defendant Raul Sanchez was driving with a blood-alcohol level of.25 percent, he hit a pedestrian, Amy Van Boven, breaking her leg in two places. Defendant also committed a number of other traffic violations while driving under the influence, including failing to yield the right-of-way, speeding, and running a red light. Defendant had two prior convictions for driving under the influence in the past 10 years. Ultimately he pled no contest to driving with a blood-alcohol level of.08 percent or more and committing various traffic offenses, and admitted the allegations that he had caused great bodily injury to Van Boven, had been driving with a blood-alcohol level of.15 percent or greater, and that he had two prior driving under the influence of alcohol convictions in the last 10 years.
Defendant was sentenced to five years in prison. The remaining counts were dismissed. The court imposed a restitution fund fine of $1,200, and a like amount was imposed and suspended as a parole revocation fine. Defendant was also ordered to pay a $20 court security surcharge, a $263.85 jail booking fee, a $28.75 jail classification fee, and a mandatory court facility fee of $30. Defendant was ordered to pay $31,281.39 in victim restitution to Van Boven. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 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.
Defendant filed a letter brief asking this court to review his case, claiming he did not understand the severity of the sentence that would be imposed. Defendant’s exposure on the matters he pled to and admitted was seven years. His sentence was agreed to by him, in exchange for which a number of additional counts and allegations were dismissed. The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the agreed-upon sentence.
Defendant also provides a factual explanation of the events purporting to explain that he did not flee the scene of the accident, offering justifications for his behavior and suggesting evidence which would support his claims. A no contest plea “constitutes an admission of every element of the offense charged and constitutes a conclusive admission of guilt. [Citation.]... [It] concedes that the prosecution possesses legally admissible evidence sufficient to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a plea of [no contest] waives any right to raise questions regarding the evidence....” (People v. Turner (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 116, 125.) In other words, “issues which merely go to the guilt or innocence of a defendant are ‘removed from consideration’ by entry of the plea.” (People v. Shults (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 714, 719.) Accordingly, we shall not consider defendant’s claims regarding the evidence.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J. SIMS, J.