Opinion
C084949
07-31-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NENG YANG, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. CRF16137)
Appointed counsel for defendant Neng Yang has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Around 7:15 p.m. on March 5, 2016, when severe weather had flooded highways in Yuba County, defendant, driving northbound on State Route 70 at a high rate of speed, went through a road closure, entered an underpass, and drove into six to eight feet of water. He escaped the submerged car, but his female passenger did not. A rescue team found her, but could not resuscitate her. An officer interviewed defendant at the hospital, determined he was impaired by alcohol, and arrested him. Blood testing showed a blood-alcohol percentage of around 0.15, which meant that it could have been anywhere from 0.17 to 0.20 at the time of the accident.
Defendant was charged by information with gross vehicular manslaughter (count 1; Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)); driving while under the influence of alcohol, causing injury to another person (count 2; Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)); and driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more, causing injury to another person (count 3; Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)).
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
A jury convicted defendant on count 1 and did not reach verdicts on the lesser included offenses charged in counts 2 and 3.
The trial court sentenced defendant to serve four years in prison, the low term on count 1. The court awarded 921 days of presentence custody credit (461 actual days and 460 conduct days). The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 suspended parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court awarded victim restitution in the amount of $5,600.
Appointed 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. (Wende, supra, 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 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/_________
HOCH, J. We concur: /s/_________
MAURO, Acting P. J. /s/_________
DUARTE, J.