People v. Kass CA1/5

Filed 11/6/20 P. v. Kass CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A159399 v. STANISLAV KASS, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 19-NM-009259A) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Stanislav Kass appeals from a judgment following his plea of no contest to one count of driving under the influence. (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b).)1 Appellant’s counsel has raised no issue on appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellate counsel advised Appellant of his right to file a supplementary brief to bring to this court’s attention any issue he believes deserves review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.) Appellant has not filed such a brief. We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and affirm the judgment.

1 All undesignated section references are to the Vehicle Code.

1

BACKGROUND On August 21, 2019, the San Mateo District Attorney filed an Information charging Appellant with two felony counts of driving under the influence (§ 23152, subds. (a), (b), counts 1 & 2), each with allegations that Appellant had suffered three or more prior driving under the influence convictions within the last 10 years (§ 23550); one misdemeanor count of indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. (1), count 3), and three misdemeanor counts of driving with a suspended license (§§ 14601.2, subd. (a), 14601.5, subd. (a), 14601.1, subd. (a), counts 4, 5, & 6). As to count 2, an enhancement was alleged that he drove with a blood alcohol concentration greater than 0.15 percent. (§ 23578.) Appellant agreed to plead no contest to count 2 and admit the section 23550 allegation;2 in exchange, the remaining counts as well as four unrelated misdemeanor charges would be dismissed. In the change of plea form signed by Appellant, he acknowledged that his attorney had explained the maximum penalty that could be imposed as a result of his change of plea was 3 years imprisonment (as well as additional fines and fees). At the change of plea hearing, the court confirmed that Appellant had read the change of plea form before signing it and that he understood the rights he was giving up by changing his plea. He replied, “Yes, your Honor.” The court then detailed the maximum possible sentence Appellant could receive and again asked if Appellant understood. He answered, “Yes, I do.” Defense counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the charges “based on [his]