Filed 1/10/22 P. v. Euerle CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094716 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF211021) v. RYAN MARCUS EUERLE, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Ryan Marcus Euerle has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error in defendant’s favor, we affirm.

BACKGROUND Defendant led police officers on a nearly four-mile car chase and after he was arrested, a breath alcohol test indicated defendant had a 0.15 or 0.14 percent blood- alcohol concentration.

Defendant was charged with one count of felony reckless evasion of a peace officer (count one), two counts of misdemeanor driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol within 10 years of two DUI offenses (counts two and three), and misdemeanor driving on a suspended or revoked license (count three) (Veh. Code, §§ 2800.2, 23152, subds. (a), (b), 23546, 14601.2, subd. (a).) Defendant pleaded no contest to reckless evasion (count one) and one count of driving under the influence (count three) in exchange for a maximum sentence of two years in state prison.

On August 9, 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant pursuant to the plea agreement to two years (midterm) in prison for the evasion conviction and one year for the driving under the influence conviction, to be served concurrently. The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), $300 parole revocation fine (id., § 1202.45), two $40 court operations assessments (id., § 1465.8), and two $30 criminal conviction assessments (Gov. Code, § 70373).

Defendant timely appealed on August 18, 2021, but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. This case was fully briefed November 24, 2021, and assigned to this panel shortly thereafter.

DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed.

More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ Duarte, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/ Renner, J.

/s/ Krause, J.