P. v. Mayfield CA1/3

Filed 4/30/13 P. v. Mayfield CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A136561 v. CAREEM MAYFIELD, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC075222) Defendant and Appellant.

This is an appeal from judgment following entry of a no contest plea by appellant Careem Mayfield to one count of driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding .08 percent in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (b), and his admission of allegations that he had sustained three charged priors within the meaning of Vehicle Code 23550 and a prior strike within the meaning of Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1).1 The trial court sentenced appellant to a total of 32 months in prison and ordered him to pay a $240 restitution fine, a $40 court administrative fee, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment. Appellant also received one day of presentence custody credit and was ordered to submit to DNA testing pursuant to Penal Code section 296. After appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, appellate counsel was appointed to represent him. Appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (People v. Wende), in which she raises no issue for appeal and asks this court for an independent review of the record. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40

1 Unless otherwise stated, all statutory citations herein are to the Vehicle Code.

1

Cal.4th 106, 124 (People v. Kelly).) Counsel attests that appellant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief in a timely manner, but he has not exercised this right. Mindful that our review is limited to grounds for appeal occurring after entry of the plea (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(5)), we have examined the entire record in accordance with People v. Wende and People v. Kelly. For reasons set forth below, we agree with counsel that no arguable issue exists on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.