NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

CODRINGTON, J.

I

INTRODUCTION

While driving under the influence of alcohol, defendant and appellant James August Stoffer struck another vehicle, causing injuries to the victims, and then fled the scene of the accident. Pursuant to a plea to the court, defendant pled no contest to driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 1), driving with a blood alcohol level of greater than 0.08 causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b); count 2), and hit and run resulting in injury to another person (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(1); count 3). Defendant also admitted that in the commission of counts 1 and 2, he personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). Following a sentencing hearing, defendant was sentenced to a total term of five years in state prison with 462 days' credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

II

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

On March 15, 2016, at approximately 12:36 a.m., Priscilla Williams was driving on the I-215 freeway with her six-year-old daughter and one-year-old son in the car, when she noticed, in her rearview mirror, lights quickly approaching immediately behind her. Williams moved into the right lane and the vehicle behind her moved into the left lane. The vehicle then hit the middle divider, bounced back into the lanes of traffic, and crashed into Williams's vehicle. Williams's car flipped over on its side.

As a result of the accident, Williams suffered neck injuries and a cut on her left arm. The cut extended from the base of her index finger down to her forearm and required three or four stitches. Williams's daughter sustained a belt burn on her neck and chest. The driver of the vehicle did not stop and contact Williams.

California Highway Patrol Officer Flores arrived at the scene of the accident, and observed Williams's car laying on its side blocking the number three and four lanes. Officer Flores also noticed Williams's injury on her left hand and left forearm, and heard Williams complain of pain in the torso, chest, back, and on one of her legs.

An eyewitness informed Officer Flores that he had seen a vehicle veer left uncontrollably, strike the center median, come to rest, and moments later drive off and exit the freeway at the next exit. The witness also stated that he had followed the vehicle off the freeway and saw the driver park at a gas station less than a mile from the accident. The witness then saw a male occupant exit the driver's side and circle around the car to inspect the damage. The witness noticed the driver stumble several times into the bushes, and identified defendant as the driver of the vehicle.

Officer Flores interviewed defendant at the gas station. At the time of the interview, Officer Flores noticed defendant "displayed [an] unsteady gait as he sat." Defendant also emitted an odor of alcohol from his breath and person, and had difficulty putting complete sentences together. Defendant's speech was extremely slurred, slow, and thick. Officer Flores suspected defendant of being under the influence of alcohol, and he administered a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) test on defendant. The PAS test results were 0.225 percent and 0.237 percent.2 Based on his training and experience, the objective signs and symptoms of alcohol intoxication, defendant's poor driving, the PAS results, and the statements from defendant that he had been drinking earlier in the day, Officer Flores concluded defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time he was driving and therefore had caused the collision.

On June 29, 2016, an information was filed charging defendant with driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 1), driving with a blood alcohol level of greater than 0.08 causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b); count 2), and hit and run resulting in injury to another person (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(1); count 3). The information also alleged that in the commission of counts 1 and 2, defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim (Pen Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)).

On March 10, 2017, pursuant to a plea to the court, defendant pled no contest to the charges and admitted the great bodily injury enhancement allegations. The trial court gave an indicated maximum sentence of five years and ordered a probation report. After directly examining defendant, the court found that defendant had read and understood his plea form and that defendant understood the charges and consequences of his guilty plea and admissions. The court also found that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights and that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pled no contest and admitted the enhancements. The court further found that there was a factual basis for defendant's plea and admissions.

Prior to the sentencing hearing, defendant's counsel filed a sentencing memorandum, requesting defendant be sentenced to three years. Defendant's counsel noted that defendant was 61 years of age and, for "fourteen years, from July 1998 through July 2012, he served as a special education teacher working with patients with mild to moderate disabilities at Patton State Hospital." Defense counsel also pointed out that defendant was "President of the Board for the Centers for Individuals with Disabilities, a volunteer position," and that defendant had support from his friends and family and referenced multiple character letters attached to the probation report.

The probation officer recommended defendant be sentenced to state prison for a total term of five years. The probation report noted defendant had a prior conviction in May 2003 for driving under the influence of alcohol. The probation report also indicated defendant had expressed remorse and had stated he was "very, very sorry he made the decision to drive while intoxicated."

The sentencing hearing was held on April 20, 2017. Following argument and statements from defendant and the victim, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of five years in state prison, comprised of the middle term of two years on count 1, plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement. Sentences on count 2 and the attendant enhancement allegation were stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. The court also imposed a concurrent middle term of two years on count 3, and awarded defendant 462 days' credit for time served. In considering the appropriate sentence to be imposed, the court stated that "the nature and circumstances of the crime are serious" and defendant inflicted serious injury on "both the child and the mother." The court also noted its concern about the fact defendant had a prior driving under the influence offense. The court believed there was likelihood that "if not in prison, the defendant would be a danger to others, specifically if he continues to drink and drive."

On May 5, 2017, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

III

DISCUSSION

After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

IV

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

McKINSTER, Acting P. J. and MILLER, J., concurs.