Court Opinion

ID: 9905564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 18:04:41.887974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:43.942672
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/29/23 P. v. Hughes CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                         (Butte)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097607

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. Nos. 21CF03691,
                                                                                         22CF00943)
           v.

 JADEN ALEXANDER HUGHES,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Jaden Alexander Hughes asked this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
                                                  BACKGROUND
         On July 15, 2021, Chico police officers responded to the scene of a three-car
collision where one individual was lying in the roadway, having been ejected from the
vehicle in which he was riding. Upon encountering defendant sitting on a curb, an officer
detected the odor of alcohol and observed signs of intoxication. Defendant admitted the

                                                             1
vehicle he was driving struck another vehicle and he admitted to consuming alcohol.
Blood samples taken later indicated his blood alcohol content was 0.21 percent.
       In case No. 21CF03691 (case No. 691), the prosecution charged defendant with
driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury within 10 years of another driving
under the influence offense (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 1),1 driving with a 0.08
percent blood alcohol content causing injury within 10 years of another driving under the
influence offense (§ 23153, subd. (b); count 2), and driving when privilege suspended or
revoked for a driving under the influence conviction (§ 14601.2, subd. (a); count 3). The
information alleged, in connection with counts 1 and 2, that defendant had a blood
alcohol concentration of 0.15 percent and more, specifically above 0.20 percent
(§ 23578), that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on a victim (Pen. Code,
§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and that he proximately caused bodily injury and/or death to more
than one victim (§ 23558).
       In November 2021, defendant waived his constitutional rights, pleaded no contest
to count 2, admitted to the prior driving under the influence conviction, admitted the great
bodily injury allegation, and admitted his blood alcohol content was 0.21 percent. The
trial court found defendant’s waiver of his rights was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent,
and that his plea was freely and voluntarily made. In December 2021, the trial court
suspended sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for a term of three years.
The court dismissed the remaining counts with a Harvey waiver (People v. Harvey (1979)
25 Cal.3d 754) and struck the remaining enhancement allegations. The court imposed
various fines, fees, and assessments, and ordered defendant to pay victim restitution to
three victims.

1      Undesignated statutory references are to the Vehicle Code.

                                             2
       On February 24, 2022, a police officer performed a traffic stop on a vehicle driven
by defendant. He admitted he had consumed alcohol and that his license was suspended.
Pulmonary alcohol screening tests measured defendant’s blood alcohol content at 0.12
and 0.13 percent.
       In case No. 22CF00943 (case No. 943), the prosecution charged defendant with
driving under the influence of alcohol within 10 years of three other driving under the
influence offenses (§ 23152, subd. (a); count 1), driving with a 0.08 percent blood alcohol
content within 10 years of three other driving under the influence offenses (§ 23152,
subd. (b); count 2), driving when privilege suspended or revoked for a driving under the
influence conviction (§ 14601.2, subd. (a); count 3), and driving with a 0.01 percent
blood alcohol content while on driving under the influence probation (§ 23154, subd. (a);
count 4). The complaint alleged defendant had a prior strike. The prosecution also filed
a violation of probation petition in case No. 691, alleging defendant violated several
conditions of his probation.
       In June 2022, defendant waived his constitutional rights and pleaded no contest to
count 1 in case No. 943. He admitted he had sustained three prior driving under the
influence convictions. The trial court found defendant’s waiver of his rights was
knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and that his plea was freely and voluntarily made.
The court dismissed the remaining counts and struck the prior strike conviction
allegation.
       At sentencing on both matters, upon defendant’s admission that he violated
probation, the trial court terminated probation. The court noted it did consider imposing
a low term sentence because defendant was 26 years old or younger at the time of his
offenses (Pen. Code, §§ 1170, subd. (b)(6)(B), 1016.7, subd. (b)), but found imposition of
the low term would not be in the interests of justice because aggravating circumstances
outweighed mitigating circumstances. The trial court sentenced defendant to an
aggregate prison term of six years eight months consisting of the upper term of three

                                             3
years on count 2 in case No. 691, three years on the great bodily injury enhancement, and
a consecutive term of eight months, one third the middle term, on count 1 in case
No. 943. The court awarded defendant 497 days of custody credits including 433 days’
actual time and 64 days’ conduct credits, and imposed various fines, fees, and
assessments, including reimposing fines, fees, assessments, and restitution originally
imposed in case No. 691. An amended abstract of judgment corrected the statutory
authority for two of the fines, fees, and assessments imposed.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant
of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of the filing of the
opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we 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.

                                                       /s/
                                                   EARL, P. J.

We concur:

   /s/
MAURO, J.

    /s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

                                               4