Friday, February 15, 2008

Jail time if consume alcohol when on DUI probation?

California DUI attorney case

Filed 2/15/08 P. v. Jenkins CA3

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

----

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TRACY ANN JENKINS,

Defendant and Appellant.
C056329
(Super. Ct. No. 03F7585)


Driving at 64 miles per hour around a curve posted at 35 miles per hour, defendant Tracy Ann Jenkins lost control of a dune buggy and crashed. Her passenger, a hitchhiker, sustained a broken arm, a concussion and a bruised chest. Defendant, who had a blood-alcohol content of .32 percent, sustained a broken arm, a concussion and a punctured lung. Defendant pleaded no contest to DUI - driving under the influence causing injury to her passenger, a felony (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining count and the prosecutor’s agreement not to oppose reduction to a misdemeanor upon defendant’s successful completion of probation.

The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted probation subject to certain terms and conditions, including serving 120 days in county jail and refraining from the consumption of alcohol.

Defendant admitted she had violated probation by consuming alcohol. The court reinstated defendant on probation subject to an additional 30 days in jail.

Defendant again violated probation by consuming alcohol and once again the court reinstated defendant on probation with an additional 60 days in jail.

Defendant violated probation for a third time by consuming alcohol as well as failing to report her arrest to probation.

The court sentenced defendant to state prison for the midterm of two years with presentence custody credit of 266 days (178 actual and 88 conduct days).

Defendant appeals.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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.