People v. Bryan CA4/3

Filed 4/8/14 P. v. Bryan CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G048706

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11CF0864)

ASHLEY SELINA BRYAN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lance Jensen, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Richard J. Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Appellant Ashley Selina Bryan was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence and causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)) and one count of driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or more and causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)). They found true a sentencing allegation that her blood alcohol level was above .15 percent. The jury was unable to agree on the charge of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated as described in Penal Code section 191.5, subdivision (a). Ms. Bryan subsequently pled to that charge and to the accompanying allegation she had caused bodily injury and death to more than one victim (Veh. Code, § 23558). She was sentenced to the midterm of six years for the Penal Code section 191.5 charge and a concurrent term of two years for the Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a) count, and ordered to pay restitution and various fines and fees. She filed a timely appeal. We appointed counsel to represent her on appeal. While not arguing against appellant, counsel filed a brief which fully set forth the facts of the case and advised us there were no arguable issues on appeal. The brief included a review of the record and consideration of possible arguments, but concluded none of those arguments had any chance of success. However, counsel noted that since he had no access to the file of the Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531) hearing in the case, he could not review that. We informed appellant she had 30 days to file written argument in her own behalf. Almost four months have passed, and we have received no such argument, so it appears she does not intend to file one. We have reviewed the record of appellant’s trial and the brief filed by her counsel. We have also reviewed the transcript of the Pitchess motion hearing, can find no flaw in the court’s actions in that hearing, and find ourselves in agreement with appellate counsel: There is no arguable error in the proceedings against appellant. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)