Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR060888S
Parrilli, Acting P. J.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered following a guilty plea by appellant Cresencio Shawn Zavala to one count of vehicular manslaughter. The trial court sentenced appellant to state prison for the midterm of two years.
After appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief in accordance with procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [People v. Wende], stating the case and facts raise no issue for our review.
Appointed counsel advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief raising any issues for our consideration within 30 days of the filing of the opening brief. We received no response. Mindful our review is limited to grounds for appeal occurring after entry of the plea (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304, subd. (b)(5)), we have reviewed the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende. For reasons set forth below, we conclude no arguable issue exists on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 11, 2006 at approximately 3:00 a.m., appellant was driving three friends home from a nightclub in Eureka. Despite being the designated driver, appellant had consumed over 4 beers and marijuana. While entering a curve on a rural road traveling about 50 miles per hour, appellant’s vehicle fell off the embankment and hit 3 trees before coming to a stop. The posted speed limit around the curve was 35 miles per hour. Unbelted front passenger Tawnja Crenshaw, appellant’s romantic partner, was fatally injured. Backseat passenger Robert Price sustained a fractured spine. Backseat passenger Jodie Rollins sustained lacerations on her arm and upper lip, and small cuts on her ankle and arms. Appellant sustained a seatbelt laceration and experienced chest pain.
At the accident scene, appellant reported the accident occurred when he swerved to avoid hitting a deer in the road. During his probation interview, appellant failed to mention the deer and reported the accident occurred due to poor driving.
On March 9, 2006, an amended complaint was filed charging appellant with vehicular manslaughter (count 1), driving under the influence and causing bodily injury to another person (count 2), and driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding .08 percent and causing bodily injury to another person (count 3). An enhancement for causing bodily injury to multiple victims was alleged as to all counts.
On May 18, 2006, appellant entered an open guilty plea to vehicular manslaughter (count one) while represented by counsel after a waiver of rights and of a preliminary hearing. The remaining counts and the enhancement were dismissed with a Harvey reservation. At the time of his guilty plea, appellant was advised the range of prison terms for vehicular manslaughter was 16 months, 2 years or 4 years, and possible probation for up to 5 years. Appellant was also informed commission of vehicular manslaughter constituted a strike under the Three Strikes Law, which under certain circumstances could later subject him to a mandatory prison sentence of twice the term otherwise imposed or a term of at least 25 years to life.
See People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
On July 25, 2006, appellant filed a statement in mitigation requesting probation or, alternatively, imposition of the lower prison term. In support of mitigation, appellant presented evidence that he had a minimal prior record, had strong family ties, was a highly regarded and productive member of society, and was intensely remorseful for the victim’s death.
Appellant’s sole prior conviction was a 1997 misdemeanor in Idaho for possession of drug paraphernalia.
The probation officer filed a statement requesting imposition of the midterm two-year sentence. In support of its request, the probation officer advised the trial court that, among other things: appellant lacked the ability to comply with probation (based on, among other things, a history of substance abuse), he had violated his friends’ trust by consuming several alcoholic beverages while serving as their designated driver on the night in question, his crime seriously injured three persons, his victims were vulnerable because they placed their trust in him to serve as their designated driver, his crime caused monetary loss in that the victim’s two children are now without a mother, and he habitually drove his friends after consuming several alcoholic beverages.
On August 11, 2006, the trial court denied appellant’s request for probation and sentenced him to the midterm of two years in state prison. In so ruling, the trial court noted appellant was a “suitable candidate for probation,” but that on the night in question he had violated his friends’ trust as their designated driver by consuming a significant amount of alcohol and at least some marijuana, and had permitted the victim to ride in his vehicle without a seatbelt. The trial court further noted appellant had a history of substance abuse. Appellant received credit for 7 custody days and 2 conduct days, for a total of 9 days. He was ordered to pay a restitution fine of $3,000, as well as an additional $3,000 restitution fine to be suspended unless parole is revoked. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Neither appointed counsel nor appellant has identified any issue for our review. Upon our own independent review of the entire record, we agree none exists. Appellant was sentenced to a midterm of two years in state prison. Having ensured appellant received adequate and effective appellate review, we conclude his sentence is lawful (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.414, 4.421, 4.423), and was imposed in accordance with appellant’s valid plea agreement (Pen. Code, §§ 1016-1018). (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Pollak, J., Siggins, J.