Court Opinion

ID: 9929485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 19:02:25.987946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:24:49.822387
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/2/24 P. v. Lottinville 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F085386
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                                (Super. Ct. No. F21904902)
                    v.

    ALAN PIERRE LOTTINVILLE,                                                              OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jeffrey Y.
Hamilton, Jr., Judge.
         Karriem Baker, 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 Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Smith, J.
       Counsel for defendant Alan Pierre Lottinville has submitted a brief pursuant to
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asking this court to conduct an independent
review of the record on appeal. Although we offered defendant the opportunity to present
his own brief on appeal through a letter, he has not responded.
       Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record. Following our Supreme Court’s
direction in Kelly, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of
the case. (Kelly, at p. 110.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition
more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
                              PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
       On June 22, 2021, a felony complaint was filed against defendant alleging he
drove with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of at least 0.08 percent, causing injury to
another person (Veh. Code,1 § 23153, subd. (b), a felony; count 1); drove while under the
influence, causing injury to another person (§ 23153, subd. (a), a felony; count 2); while
evading an officer, caused injury to another person (§ 2800.3, subd. (a), a felony;
count 3); evaded an officer with wanton disregard (§ 2800.2, subd. (a), a felony; count 4);
and drove while his driving privileges had been suspended due to a prior conviction for
driving while under the influence (§ 14601.2, subd. (a), a misdemeanor; count 5).
Counts 1 and 2 further alleged defendant drove with a BAC of 0.15 percent or higher
(§ 23578), and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury during the commission of
these offenses (Penal Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)).
       On May 19, 2022, defendant pled no contest to counts 1 and 3, and admitted the
count 1 enhancements alleging he drove with a BAC of 0.15 percent or higher and that he
inflicted great bodily injury. As a result of this plea, the remaining counts in the

1      All further statutory references are to the Vehicle Code, unless otherwise specified.

                                              2.
complaint were then dismissed. Before accepting defendant’s plea, the trial court
acknowledged his sentence would not exceed five years.
       On October 7, 2022, after denying a Penal Code section 1385 motion to strike an
enhancement, the trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years for
count 1, adding a three-year consecutive term for the enhancement alleging he caused
great bodily injury to another person. To this sentence, the court added one-third of the
middle term for count 3, which was to run concurrently with the term for count 1. This
concurrent term was for one year eight months. Finally, the court awarded defendant
total time credits of 113 days.
       Following his sentencing, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Attached to
the notice of appeal was a request for a certificate of probable cause, which was granted
on December 7, 2022. In his request, defendant expressed his belief the sentence was too
harsh under the circumstances.
                                  FACTUAL SUMMARY2
       On April 22, 2021, defendant, who had a BAC of 0.27 percent, was driving on a
public roadway when he was involved in an accident that caused great bodily injury to
his wife. This occurred after defendant attempted to “flee or elude a pursuing peace
officer when the peace officer’s motor vehicle exhibited at least one lighted red lamp”
visible from the front of the marked vehicle.
                                      DISCUSSION
       Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude there is no arguable
issue on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–443.)
                                     DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

2      This factual summary is taken from the facts admitted by defendant at the time his
pleas of no contest were accepted.

                                            3.