People v. Valdez CA5

Filed 8/6/14 P. v. Valdez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F066817

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DF010971A)

v. OPINION CIRENIO AMBRIZ VALDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Robert S. Tafoya, Judge. Ann Bergen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and John G. McLean, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Franson, J., and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION On January 9, 2013, appellant, Cirenio Ambriz Valdez, was charged in an amended information with two felony counts of driving under the influence of alcohol with two prior felony convictions for driving under the influence (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a) & 23550.5, count 1) and driving with a blood alcohol of .08 percent or higher with two prior felony convictions for driving under the influence (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (b) & 23550.5, count 2). The amended information further alleged a misdemeanor violation of driving a vehicle with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a), count 3), two prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and five prior convictions for driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.1 Prior to the commencement of a jury trial, the court granted appellant’s motion for a bifurcated trial on the issue of the truth of the prior prison term enhancements, and on the truth of his prior driving under the influence convictions. Appellant was found guilty of all three counts.2 Appellant waived a jury trial on the truth of his prior convictions. Appellant admitted the truth of one of the prior prison term enhancements and of all the allegations in the amended information that he had multiple convictions for prior acts of driving under the influence.3 The second prior prison term enhancement was withdrawn on motion by the prosecutor. Appellant was sentenced to prison for the upper term three years on count 1 and to a consecutive term of one year for the prior prison term enhancement. Appellant’s