What is the test for a claim of lack of notice?

Within this portion of his brief, defendant argues that the application of section 2800.2, subdivision (b) to his case violated his right to notice, because the information charged him with a violation of section 2800.2, subdivision (a). But subdivision (b) does not set forth a separate offense, it provides alternative definitions of "wanton disregard" as that term is used in subdivision (a). Further, it does not appear defendant raised a notice objection in the trial court, and, as the Attorney General points out, the preliminary hearing evidence included testimony about traffic violations and property damage, thereby alerting defense counsel to a possible theory the People could invoke. (See People v. Manning (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 159, 165 ["it is not the complaint but the totality of the evidence produced at the preliminary examination that notifies the defendant of the potential charges he may have to face"].) Therefore we reject the claim of lack of notice.