People v. Alvarez CA3

Filed 4/21/21 P. v. Alvarez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Glenn) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C092114

v. (Super. Ct. No. 19CR14229)

ARTHUR ALVAREZ II,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Arthur Alvarez II asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Based on our review of the record, we will affirm the convictions but remand for the trial court to correct a sentencing error. I In April 2019, a California Highway Patrol officer arrested defendant in Glenn County for driving under the influence (DUI). A test indicated defendant had a blood alcohol content of .23 percent. During his arrest, defendant provided a false name and birthdate to the officer.

1

Approximately five months later, a Solano County judge sentenced defendant to a four-year term in state prison for a crime he had previously committed in 2017. Then, in January 2020, while defendant was serving his state prison term for the Solano County crime, authorities took him to Glenn County for resolution of the DUI case. Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to felony false personation (Pen. Code, § 529, subd. (a)(3) -- count I)1 and misdemeanor driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or higher, with a prior (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b) -- count III). He also admitted a prior strike conviction allegation (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). Defense counsel explained to the trial court that the stipulated term was 16 months, which was one-third the middle term for count I, doubled for the prior strike. The misdemeanor plea form initialed and signed by defendant said he would serve “[n]o additional time to that served” for the felony, and the felony plea form reflected the 16- month term that defense counsel articulated. When defendant inquired about custody credit at the plea hearing, the trial court said probation would prepare a report and include all custody time. Defendant confirmed there had been no promises made to him other than those made in court. In a March 2020 hearing scheduled for sentencing, defendant said that when he agreed to the negotiated disposition, he thought his Glenn County sentence would be concurrent to the Solano County sentence he was already serving. The prosecutor maintained that count III was to be concurrent to the 16 months for count I, but that it was never contemplated that count I would be concurrent to the sentence defendant was already serving. The trial court continued sentencing for clarification on the issue.