From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Shrin

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Feb 14, 2008
No. D051219 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JACK DANIEL SHRIN, Defendant and Appellant. D051219 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division February 14, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCE268629, Herbert J. Exarhos, Judge.

AARON, J.

Jack Daniel Shrin entered a negotiated guilty plea to one count of driving while having a blood alcohol level above .08 percent (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)) and admitted that he had a prior serious/violent felony or strike conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The trial court sentenced Shrin to a prison term of two years eight months, as stipulated in the plea bargain. Shrin did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

FACTS

On January 17, 2007, a California Highway Patrol officer was dispatched to a location where a pickup truck had been driven off the road and was stuck on rocks. The officer contacted Shrin, who was the registered owner of the vehicle. Shrin told the officer that he had been driving the vehicle when it went off the road. The officer administered field sobriety tests, which indicated Shrin was under the influence of alcohol. The officer arrested Shrin. A subsequent blood test showed that Shrin's blood alcohol level was .24 percent.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks that this court 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 the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Shrin to prison rather than a treatment program; and (2) whether trial counsel coerced Shrin to accept the plea bargain.

We granted Shrin permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded.

A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues referred to by appellant's counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Shrin on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., IRION, J.


Summaries of

People v. Shrin

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Feb 14, 2008
No. D051219 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Shrin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JACK DANIEL SHRIN, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Feb 14, 2008

Citations

No. D051219 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2008)