 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall v. Superior Court of San Diegoi County5/29/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Proceedings in mandate after superior court set aside plea and reinstated dismissed counts. Robert F. O'Neill, Judge. Petition granted.
A complaint charged Harley S. Hall with vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence while intoxicated, vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence while intoxicated, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs causing injury and driving with a measurable blood-alcohol level causing injury. Hall entered a negotiated plea of guilty to vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence while intoxicated in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges. There were no deals with regard to sentencing. The court accepted the plea and petitioner was convicted. At the sentencing hearing, the court set aside the plea on its own motion and reinstated the dismissed counts.
Hall seeks writ relief to require the trial court to sentence him on the charge to which he pleaded and prevent it from forcing him to trial on the dismissed charges. He argues the court was without authority to set aside the plea. We conclude the court erred in setting aside Hall's plea and we grant the petition.
FACTS
On January 22, 2002, petitioner, while driving under the influence of alcohol, struck and killed a woman A blood sample taken two hours after the accident showed petitioner had a .17 blood alcohol level. Additionally, petitioner admitted to the police that he was taking prescription anxiety medication that aggravated the effects of alcohol. At the time of the collision, petitioner's driver's license was suspended for a failure to appear for a stop-sign violation. There is no indication petitioner attempted to hide the fact he was driving on a suspended license. The district attorney filed a complaint charging petitioner with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated without gross negligence, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs causing injury and driving with a measurable blood-alcohol level causing injury.
Prior to a preliminary hearing, petitioner reached an agreement with the district attorney and pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated without gross negligence. The agreement included no sentencing restrictions. In exchange, the district attorney dismissed the remaining charges. Petitioner submitted to a probation interview and both sides filed sentencing statements.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court set aside the plea. The court noted at the time petitioner entered his guilty plea, the prosecution represented it was unable to prove gross negligence. The court stated based on the probation report and sentencing statements filed by the parties it had learned facts it should have known at the time it accepted the plea agreement. The court cited the fact petitioner was drinking the night before and the morning of the accident. He was driving on a suspended license. Petitioner knew or should have known he had a drinking problem, that he was taking a prescription medication he knew should not be taken while driving and should not be taken when using alcohol. The court believed gross negligence could be proved and a jury should decide the issue.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. The court denied the motion on October 3, 2002.
DISCUSSION
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.
|
|