Filed 3/2/21 P. v. Encarnacion CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, G058830 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17CF1312) v. OPINION RAUL CRUZ ENCARNACION, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Affirmed. Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Appellant Raul Cruz Encarnacion was charged with two felony counts related to driving under the influence of alcohol (count 1: Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a); and count 2: Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)); and a misdemeanor violation of driving without a valid license (count 3: Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). It was also alleged he had three prior misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI) convictions within the past 10 years (Veh. Code, § 23550.5, subd. (a)), he had suffered two prior felony convictions that resulted in state prison sentences (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and his blood alcohol level exceeded .20 percent when he was arrested (Veh. Code, § 23538, subd. (b)(2)). Encarnacion went to trial on all charges and the blood alcohol level allegation. Count 3 was dismissed. The state prison and prior DUI conviction allegations were bifurcated at appellant’s request. A jury found Encarnacion guilty of both DUI counts; it also found true the blood alcohol allegation. The trial court then found true the prison priors and the DUI prior allegations. Encarnacion was sentenced to the aggravated term of three years in state prison on count 1; sentence was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654 on count 2. The prior prison allegations were dismissed for purposes of sentencing. Encarnacion appeals from that judgment. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel tells us she “thoroughly reviewed the record in this case” and consulted with Appellate Defenders, Inc. She then filed a brief pursuant to the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel did not argue against her client’s interest, but she informed us she was unable to find any issue to argue on her client’s behalf. Encarnacion has been given the opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf but he has not done so. 2 As required, we have examined the entire record to determine whether it contains any arguable appellate issue. To assist us in our evaluation, appointed counsel alerted us to one issue that she believed we should consider, to wit: “Did the trial court 1 err in denying appellant’s pretrial Trombetta motion regarding the blood …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals