People v. James CA5

Filed 4/9/25 P. v. James CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F088538 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. F22901194, v. F24903515)

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL JAMES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of County. Mark E. Cullers, Judge. Vicki Hightower, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Franson, J. and DeSantos, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Christopher Michael James (appellant) had three prior convictions for driving under the influence (DUI). In 2022, while he was on probation, he committed another offense and pleaded no contest to driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent causing injury (Veh. Code,1 § 23153, subd. (b)), and was again placed on probation. In 2024, while still on probation, he committed another offense and probation was revoked. He pleaded no contest to driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher (§ 23152, subd. (b)), and was sentenced to two concurrent terms of two years in state prison for both cases. On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Case No. F22901194 On January 16, 2022, appellant was responsible for a traffic collision that involved injury to another person. When officers arrived at the scene, appellant was seated halfway in the passenger seat of his car. Appellant had red, watery eyes, slurred speech, and the strong smell of alcohol. Appellant denied consuming any alcohol and refused a preliminary breath test. Appellant was advised that he could not refuse because he was on probation. Appellant ultimately agreed to a blood test, but then refused to submit. He eventually gave a breath test, which resulted in blood-alcohol levels of 0.27 percent and 0.26 percent.2

1 All further statutory citations are to the Vehicle Code. 2 The facts in case No. F22901194 were recited by the prosecutor at appellant’s sentencing hearing on August 21, 2024.