 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Garcia5/14/2003
h. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) and driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or more (count 2 - Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)). On July 20, 2001, defendant pleaded guilty to count one, and received a suspended sentence and informal probation. Count two was dismissed.
On July 27, 2001, the Monterey County District Attorney filed a felony complaint that charged defendant with hit and run with injury (count 1 - Veh. Code, § 20001) and wrong way driving on a freeway (count 2 - Veh. Code, § 21651, subd. (c)). Following defendant's arraignment and waiver of a preliminary hearing, an information was filed on September 7, 2001.
Both sets of charges were alleged to have occurred on July 14, 2001. On September 17, 2001, defendant moved to dismiss the latter charges on the grounds that the prosecution was barred under the double jeopardy clause and section 654. On November 1, 2001, the trial court denied the motion.
Defendant pleaded guilty to the hit and run charge with the understanding that the remaining charge would be dismissed and she would receive a grant of felony probation. On December 14, 2001, the trial court sentenced defendant to the agreed upon term. The trial court stayed defendant's 120-day jail term pending resolution of this appeal. On January 7, 2002, the trial court granted defendant's application for a certificate of probable cause.
III. Discussion
Defendant contends that the instant case falls within section 654's prohibition against multiple prosecutions, because the misdemeanor and felony offenses comprised a single course of conduct and the prosecution knew or should have known that additional charges were warranted.
Section 654 provides, in relevant part, that when an "act or omission . . . is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law," an "acquittal or conviction and sentence under any one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other."
In Kellett v. Superior Court (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822, our Supreme Court interpreted the prohibition against multiple punishment under section 654 to include a prohibition against multiple prosecution under certain circumstances. In Kellett, the police arrested the defendant, who was standing on the sidewalk with a gun in his hand. On the same day, he was charged with exhibiting a firearm in a threatening manner, a misdemeanor. (Id. at p. 824.) A month later, in a second proceeding dating from the same disturbance and involving the same firearm, the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by an ex-felon. (Ibid.) The defendant pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge and brought a motion to dismiss the felony weapons charge as barred by section 654. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant sought a writ of prohibition to prevent trial on the felony charge. (Ibid.)
The Kellett court explained the parameters and the rationale of section 654's bar against multiple prosecutions. "Section 654's preclusion of multiple prosecution is separate and distinct from its preclusion of multiple punishment. The rule against multiple prosecutions is a procedural safeguard against harassment and is not necessarily related to the punishment to be imposed; double prosecution may be precluded even when double punishment is permissible." (Id. at p. 825, internal citation and quotation marks omitted.) The court also explained that the joinder of related offenses, which is permitted under section 954, prevented harassment, avoided repetition of evidence, and saved the state and the defendant time and money. (Id. at p. 826, fn. 3.) Thus, the court reasoned that " f needless harassment and the waste of public funds are to be avoided
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|