Filed 10/19/22 P. v. Alvarez CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B316110 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA102155) v. ISRAEL BARRIOS ALVAREZ, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Yvette Verastegui, Judge. Affirmed.

Susan Morrow Maxwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

INTRODUCTION In 2020, appellant Israel Barrios Alvarez was involved in a traffic accident in which the car he was driving struck another car on the freeway. Responding officers detected the odor of alcohol on appellant’s person and noticed he had red, watery eyes. Field sobriety tests indicated appellant was under the influence of alcohol. In 2021, appellant was convicted at a bench trial of causing an injury while driving under the influence of alcohol within 10 years of two other DUI offenses (a felony) and driving with a license suspended or revoked for a DUI conviction (a misdemeanor).

Imposition of a sentence was suspended, and the court placed appellant on probation for five years, ordering him to serve 30 days in jail. Appellant timely appealed.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, identifying no arguable issues and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record. On June 28, 2022, we notified appellant he had 30 days to submit in writing any issues or contentions he wished us to consider. We received no response.

We have independently reviewed the record and discern no arguable issue. By virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, appellant has received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-279.)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MANELLA, P. J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

CURREY, J.