People v. Vicari CA3

Filed 2/15/23 P. v. Vicari CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Amador) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096628

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CR29477)

v.

DONALD ANGELO VICARI,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Donald Angelo Vicari asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.)

1

The instant case is one of three cases plus one probation revocation petition defendant resolved with a plea bargain on April 8, 2022. In the instant case, the second amended complaint, later deemed an information, charged defendant with driving under the influence of alcohol and driving while having a 0.08 percent or higher blood-alcohol content. (Veh. Code, § 23152, subds. (a) & (b); statutory section citations that follow are found in the Vehicle Code unless otherwise stated.) The information also alleged enhancements as to both counts that defendant had three prior alcohol related convictions in the prior 10 years and had a blood-alcohol content in excess of 0.15 percent. (§§ 23550, 23550.5, & 23578.) Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to driving while having a 0.08 percent or higher blood-alcohol content, admitted his prior convictions, and admitted the enhancement for having a blood-alcohol content in excess of 0.15 percent in exchange for a sentence of 16 months and dismissal of the other count and enhancement. The factual basis for this plea was defendant drove his car over the reporting party’s tire in his driveway. When Ione police officers stopped him, he failed his field sobriety tests and gave one screening device test of a 0.26 percent blood-alcohol content. Following his plea in the instant case, defendant pleaded no contest in the second case, case No. 21-CR-31019, to driving under the influence within 10 years of a prior felony DUI offense in exchange for the dismissal of a charge of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer. (Pen. Code, § 148.) The prior felony DUI conviction was the instant case. In case No. 21-CR-31020, defendant pleaded no contest to one count of failing to appear. (Pen. Code, § 1320, subd. (a).) In case No. 20-CR-29607, defendant admitted he violated several conditions of his probation. During the pendency of the instant case, defendant filed an affidavit of disqualification of one of the judges of the trial court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6.)