People v. Rodriguez CA5

Filed 9/26/23 P. v. Rodriguez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F085606 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. PCF417465) v.

FRANKIE RODRIGUEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Robert Anthony Fultz, Judge. C. Athena Roussos, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.

Defendant Frankie Rodriguez pled no contest to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and admitted having suffered a prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d))1 which also qualified as a serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to a 13-year term of imprisonment. Defendant’s appointed counsel had filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no error and asking the court to determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant was afforded an opportunity to submit a supplemental brief but failed to do so in the time allotted. We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no error. We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 18, 2021, the Tulare County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (§ 191.5, subd. (a); count 1), driving under the influence of alcohol and a drug, causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 2), driving with a blood-alcohol level above the legal limit causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b); count 3), and operating a vehicle without a valid driver’s license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a); count 4). As to counts 1 through 3, the information further alleged that defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) which also qualified as a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). As to counts 2 and 3, the information also alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). On July 25, 2022, defendant moved to dismiss the prior serious felony conviction and prior strike conviction enhancement allegations pursuant to section 1385 and People