 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Dominguez2/7/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Frank Glen Dominguez appeals following his conviction by a jury verdict of willfully evading a peace officer while driving with willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons and property, and four other misdemeanor violations. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a).)
Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life under the three strikes law after the jury found that he committed two prior serious felonies: a 1988 burglary conviction and a 1993 conviction for shooting at an inhabited dwelling. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 246.) He argues that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We reject this contention and affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 1988, when defendant was 36 years old, a jury convicted him of residential burglary. Defendant masterminded a burglary scheme in which he directed minors to execute burglaries and turn the stolen merchandise over to him. Defendant picked out the residences, instructed the minors, and paid them in drugs or small amounts of cash. He was sentenced to the aggravated term of six years in state prison.
In 1993, defendant was charged with shooting at an inhabited dwelling. Defendant had pulled up outside a residence in a vehicle with blacked-out windows, and fired numerous rounds from a shotgun into the front room of the residence. There was some indication that he had a prior dispute with the resident. Defendant entered a plea of no contest in exchange for a total sentence of four years in state prison.
The current offense occurred on February 7, 2001. At that time, defendant was 49 years old, had been on parole for only a couple of months, and had a parole condition that he abstain from drinking alcohol. Defendant was drinking on February 7 and got into a fight at the home of some friends. The friends called their daughter, Patricia Rhorer, to give defendant a ride home. Rhorer and her boyfriend, Brian Hughes, went to Rhorer's parents' home to try to convince defendant to leave. Defendant was drunk to the point of falling down. Hughes climbed in defendant's truck to drive him home, but defendant pushed him out of the truck and started driving down the street. Rhorer called the police.
Napa police officers Doug Rosin and Brent Potter responded. Rosin was driving a marked police car. The officers saw defendant backing his truck into a driveway. Officer Rosin activated his red light and ordered defendant to stop the vehicle. Defendant did not stop and Rosin was forced to back up to avoid a collision. Rosin activated his emergency lights and siren and pursued defendant.
Defendant fled from the officers at speeds of up to 50 miles an hour over a six or seven block area for a period of approximately six minutes. During that time defendant was weaving, speeding, running stop signs, driving up the center of the road and causing other motorists to take evasive action. Defendant made an abrupt turn into an alley and sideswiped a parked car. At an intersection, defendant collided with an occupied vehicle. Defendant failed to stop and continued fleeing from the police at speeds up to 50 miles an hour in 25 and 30 mile an hour zones.
As defendant drove through another stop sign, he lost control of his truck and crashed into the rear of two parked cars. The impact caused major damage to defendant's truck. The officers approached defendant's
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|