People v. Eldridge CA3

Filed 4/7/23 P. v. Eldridge CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096457

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 22CF01129, 22CF01608, 22CM01607, v. 22CM01611)

JOEY BRIAN ELDRIDGE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Joey Brian Eldridge filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 11, 2020, defendant resolved six cases pending against him by way of a plea agreement. In case No. 19CF08335 (vehicle theft case), defendant pleaded guilty to felony driving or taking a vehicle valued more than $950 without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851), and in case No. 19CM07770 (FTA case), defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor failure to appear (Pen. Code, § 853.7).1 In exchange for the guilty pleas, the remaining four cases were dismissed with waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. The stipulated factual basis for the plea was the probation report. Given defendant’s guilty pleas, the trial court found him in violation of his probation in case No. 19CM05511. On July 8, 2020, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence for the vehicle theft and FTA cases and placed defendant on felony probation for three years 2 under specified terms and conditions. The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) in the vehicle theft case, a $150 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) in the FTA case, and matching, suspended probation revocation restitution fines (§ 1202.44). The court further imposed a $30 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373) and a $40 court operations assessment fee (§ 1465.8) in the theft and FTA cases. The court terminated defendant’s probation in case No. 19CM05511 as unsuccessful. A felony complaint filed March 8, 2022, in case No. 22CF01129 (evading case) charged defendant with driving with disregard for the safety of people or property while fleeing from a pursuing peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2; count 1), driving a car in the opposite direction of traffic during flight from a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.4;