IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
March 2, 2011
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
LESTER CHARLES RUSSELL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. LF010913A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte ,j.
P. v. Russell CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant Lester Charles Russell has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We shall affirm the judgment.
In August 2008, defendant drove his car on Highway 99 in San Joaquin County at speeds exceeding 90 miles per hour. Defendant was seen weaving in and out of traffic and then veering sharply off the highway and into a tree. Passersby arriving to assist found defendant conscious behind the wheel and defendant's son buckled into an infant seat. The child appeared to be bleeding from a cut on his face.
Police officers responded to the scene. After observing defendant, one of the responding officers believed defendant to be under the influence of phencyclidine (PCP) and marijuana. Blood tests later confirmed the presence of PCP and marijuana in defendant's system. Defendant was subsequently charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)), and willfully causing injury to or endangering a child (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that defendant was previously convicted of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, a serious felony under Penal Code sections 667 and 1170.12.
On October 10, 2008, the criminal proceedings against defendant were suspended pursuant to Penal Code section 1368. Defendant was found incompetent to stand trial. He was then sent to Napa State Hospital for treatment.
In March 2010, the trial court found defendant had been "restored to competency." The following month, defendant made a Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118), which the trial court denied. Defendant later pled guilty to both counts. In exchange for his plea, the court struck the enhancement allegation and sentenced defendant to two years in state prison with credit for time served, and ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees.
Defendant timely filed a 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 requests that this court review the record and determine whether it reflects any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 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 have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
We have reviewed the record in its entirety.*fn1 We find no error that might have resulted in a disposition more favorable to defendant and no Penal Code section 4019 concerns. The judgment is affirmed.
NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.
ROBIE , J.