Opinion
H046075
02-28-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEVIN ROBERT SULLIVAN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1780198)
Defendant Kevin Robert Sullivan pleaded no contest to driving under the influence with three or more prior convictions. The trial court granted a three-year term of probation with one year in county jail.
We appointed counsel to represent Sullivan in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief stating the case and the facts, but raising no specific issues on appeal. We notified Sullivan of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. The deadline has passed and we received no response.
We have reviewed the entire record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly).) We conclude there is no arguable issue on appeal. We will affirm the judgment.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The prosecution charged Sullivan with two counts: Count 1—driving under the influence of alcohol with three or more prior convictions (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23550, subd. (a)); and count 2—driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent with three or more prior convictions (§§ 23152, subd. (b), 23550, subd. (a)). The complaint alleged Sullivan had suffered three prior convictions for violating section 23152.
Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Vehicle Code. --------
Sullivan pleaded no contest to count 2 and admitted the prior convictions. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted a three-year term of probation including one year in county jail.
The record does not contain any description of the facts underlying the offense. The parties stipulated to a factual basis for the plea.
Sullivan filed a timely notice of appeal and did not request a certificate of probable cause.
II. DISCUSSION
Sullivan raised no claims in response to our letter informing him of appellate counsel's position. We reviewed the entire record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106. The record shows Sullivan was adequately advised of his rights and the consequences of his plea. He freely, knowingly, and intelligently waived his rights and entered his plea. He sought no certificate of probable cause, and the record contains no indication of ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, no sentencing error appears.
We conclude there is no arguable issue on appeal. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Greenwood, P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J. /s/_________
Danner, J.