Opinion
A151711
03-12-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RALPH WILSON, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC200261A)
Ralph Wilson appeals from a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement. His appointed counsel asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Wilson did not file a supplemental brief, and our review of the record discloses no arguable issues.
We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In February 2017, the prosecution charged 77-year-old Wilson with driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage with prior convictions (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23550, subd. (a) (Count 1)); driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 or more with prior convictions (§§ 23152, subd. (b), 23550, subd. (a) (Count 2)); and misdemeanor driving with a suspended license (§ 14601.2, subd. (a) (Count 3)). The complaint alleged Wilson's blood alcohol level was .21, and that he had three prior DUI convictions (§ 23152).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Vehicle Code. --------
In April 2017, the parties reached an agreement whereby Wilson would plead guilty to Counts 2 and 3, admit the three prior convictions, and admit violating probation in a prior misdemeanor case: Marin County Superior Court case No. CR-196766A (prior case). In exchange, the prosecution would dismiss Count 1, and Wilson would be placed on probation for five years, and serve 230 days in jail (comprised of 180 days for Count 2, and 50 days in jail for the probation violation in the prior case).
Wilson signed an advisement, waiver of rights, and guilty plea form, and agreed to waive his "right to appeal and [the] right to attack the final judgment . . . except as to any sentencing error the court may make." In open court, Wilson agreed he had reviewed the form with his attorney, and that he understood it. The court advised Wilson of the rights he was waiving, and Wilson said he understood. Wilson then pled guilty to Counts 2 and 3, admitted the three prior convictions, and admitted violating probation in the prior case. The court found Wilson "knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his Constitutional rights, and that there [was] a factual basis for the guilty pleas and the admission of the priors." The court reached the same conclusion with respect to the probation violation. The court dismissed Count 1.
The probation report recommended various conditions, including that Wilson not leave California or move his residence to another county without the probation officer's prior written approval. At the June 2017 sentencing hearing, defense counsel objected to that condition under People v. Soto (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1228). The court concluded Soto was distinguishable, and that the probation condition was permissible under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481. The court overruled defense counsel's objection, and sentenced Wilson pursuant to the plea agreement. In the prior case, the court revoked, reinstated, and modified probation. The court imposed various fines and fees, and awarded Wilson 193 days of credit.
Wilson did not seek a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Following Wende guidelines, we have reviewed counsel's brief and the appellate record. Our review of the entire record does not show the existence of an arguable issue. Wilson has not availed himself of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 111), nor has he requested to have appellate counsel relieved. Wilson did not obtain a certificate of probable cause and does not raise any cognizable issues. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74-76 [discussing issues that may be raised in a guilty plea appeal without issuance of a probable cause certificate]; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 442-443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Jones, P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Simons, J. /s/_________
Bruiniers, J.