 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Garcia4/23/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Javier Garcia appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and with a blood alcohol level of 0.08% or higher. In a bifurcated proceeding, Garcia admitted he had a prior conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. He was sentenced to a total term of four years in state prison. Garcia challenges the judgment on evidentiary and constitutional grounds. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The only factual issue at trial was whether appellant was driving when he admittedly was under the influence of alcohol.
Prosecution Evidence
The evidence established gas station attendant Subhash Chakravarti was inside the cashier's booth in the early morning hours of January 19, 2001. He noticed a blue car enter the station and head towards the service bay. Chakravarti was counting money and did not notice who was driving the car. He did not see anyone in the passenger's seat. Chakravarti finished counting the money and left the cashier's booth to clean the service bay. Appellant approached on foot and repeatedly asked for directions without listening to Chakravarti's responses. Chakravarti told appellant to leave and returned to the cashier's booth. He saw appellant drive the blue car onto the curb next to the booth. Chakravarti left the booth and raised his hands to stop appellant from hitting some nearby iron bars. Appellant backed up the car away from the curb.
Seconds later, two sheriff deputies pulled into the gas station behind the blue car. They were responding to a radio call of an intoxicated driver in a car matching appellant's. The deputies found appellant in the driver's seat, alone in the car, with the engine running. Appellant told the deputies he was driving alone, became lost, and was looking for a place to get directions to the freeway. The deputies observed appellant displayed the objective signs of alcohol intoxication. They subsequently arrested him for driving under the influence of alcohol. Appellant told the deputies he owned the blue car and was not carrying his driver's license. Appellant recited a driver's license number, which was not his.
Defense Evidence
Appellant did not testify. His brother, Raul Garcia, testified he owned the blue car and had not given appellant permission to drive it that night. Raul's sister telephoned him and he went to retrieve the car after appellant's arrest. When he arrived at the gas station, Raul noticed the right passenger's seat was fully reclined.
DISCUSSION
Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. He asserts three instances of erroneously excluded evidence which, he claims, if admitted, would have created reasonable doubt he was the driver rather than a passenger in the blue car on January 19, 2001. As discussed below, we conclude the court only erred in excluding the "habit and custom" evidence. Nevertheless, the error was harmless. There is no possibility the trial court's evidentiary ruling prejudiced appellant, whether harmless error is judged under the state standard for evidentiary rulings, which we believe is applicable here, or the elevated standard, which is required if a ruling completely prevents appellant from establishing a defense. The evidence appellant w
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|