Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CRF08107
ROBIE, J.
On a February evening in 2008, defendant Anthony Angelo Zamora declined to stop at a posted stop sign. A deputy of the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department witnessed the transgression and initiated a traffic stop. Defendant appeared as though he was going to yield, but then made a U-turn and sped off, reaching speeds in excess of 90 miles per hour. Siren wailing, the deputy followed in pursuit. In an attempt to make a sudden stop, defendant’s vehicle slid through another stop sign, through an intersection, and nearly collided with a retaining wall. When he regained control of the vehicle, defendant again sped off. A short time later, defendant slid the vehicle to a stop; one of the passengers, Fredrick Steele, emerged and took off on foot. Defendant renewed the chase, reaching the speed of 50 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood, blowing through stop signs, and striking the side mirror of a parked car. When defendant came to another abrupt stop, another unidentified passenger emerged and fled on foot. Defendant again drove away, continuing to ignore the stop signs in his path. He made yet another stop a short time later. This time, three passengers emerged from the vehicle: Rachel Steele exited holding a small infant in her arms, and then reached in and pulled out a small child by the arm. Defendant drove away a final time, reaching the speed of 60 miles per hour before coming to a definitive stop, reaching out the driver’s side window with both hands, and yelling: “‘I’m not resisting, don’t hurt me.’” Defendant’s explanation for his reckless evasion: “‘I was running because I’m a parolee at large.’”
Defendant pled no contest to felony evading a peace officer while driving recklessly. Additional charges of felony child endangerment, misdemeanor resisting a peace officer, and misdemeanor failure to notify the owner of the vehicle damaged during the high-speed chase, were dismissed.
Prior to accepting defendant’s plea, the trial court explained to defendant his rights to a speedy public trial by jury, to the assistance of counsel, to present evidence and cross-examine and confront witnesses testifying against him, and to remain silent. Defendant indicated that he understood each of these rights. The trial court then explained to defendant that he was entering a plea that would be treated as a guilty plea for purposes of sentencing, and that by entering such a plea he would be giving up the aforementioned rights. Defendant indicated that he gave up those rights. Among other advisements, the trial court explained to defendant the plea was to a felony, he could be sentenced to prison for a maximum of three years, a mandatory restitution fine and court security fee would be imposed, and that an unusual case finding would be required in order for defendant to receive probation. Defendant indicated he understood each of these advisements, he had enough time to speak with his attorney, and that he had discussed his rights, defenses, and the potential consequences of the plea with his attorney. Defendant also stated that, aside from the dismissal of the remaining charges, no additional promises were made, and that he was not threatened or forced into entering the plea. The trial court found defendant’s waivers to be knowing, voluntary and intelligent, accepted the plea of no contest, and found defendant guilty of felony evasion.
The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years in state prison. The upper term was chosen because defendant’s “multiple prior felony convictions, including in the federal system, are aggravating circumstances.
There is no mitigating circumstance.” The court also imposed a $600 restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), a suspended $600 parole revocation restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.45, and a $20 court security fee pursuant to section 1465.8. Defendant was also ordered to provide DNA samples pursuant to section 296, given notice that he could no longer possess firearms or ammunition pursuant to section 12021, and advised of his parole rights and his right to appeal. The trial court awarded no presentence custody credit, explaining that because defendant had absconded from parole prior to committing the current offense and was ordered returned to custody for one year for the parole violation, the time spent in custody prior to sentencing was spent on the parole violation.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. His request for a certificate of probable cause was denied.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us 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. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. 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: NICHOLSON, Acting P. J., HULL, J.