 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Watkins6/18/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Roy E. Watkins appeals his conviction following a guilty plea to one count of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs causing injury, a felony (Veh. Code, § 23153) (count 1), and two counts of child endangerment, also a felony (Pen. Code, § 273a). Appellant's counsel filed an opening brief in which she raised no issues and asked this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. Having reviewed the record and finding no arguable issues, we shall affirm.
Statement of Facts
California Highway Patrol Officer Kevin Davis testified that shortly after 5 p.m. on June 26, 2001, he received a call regarding an injury accident on Union Street, a two-lane road in Humboldt County. Appellant, who identified himself as the driver of one of the two cars involved in a collision, was accompanied by his seven- and nine-year-old children, who had been passengers in his car. Appellant smelled of alcohol, his speech was slow and deliberate, he was teetering back and forth, and he was unable to provide a driver's license or proof of insurance. A leather case containing appellant's social security card and more than three grams of marijuana was found nearby. A blood test indicated that appellant had a 0.20 percent blood alcohol level. The driver and passenger of the other vehicle, a Mrs. and Mr. Reed, had been injured and were receiving medical care at the scene when Officer Davis arrived.
When he later interviewed Mrs. Reid, she told him that as she was driving south on Union she saw a maroon car with no head behind the wheel traveling "very fast" in her direction. As the car entered a curve it crossed over into her lane. Ms. Reed was unable to avoid the car and it hit her vehicle "head-on." Ms. Reed suffered injury to two cervical discs, for which she has required continuing treatment and from which she still suffers pain. Mr. Reed's leg was broken and his ankle injured, and he has required multiple surgeries.
On February 15, 2002, appellant was charged by information with the aforementioned three felony counts to which he later entered pleas of guilty (counts 1, 3 and 4), and four other counts: driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)), a felony (count 2); driving with a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)), a misdemeanor (count 5); possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (c)), a misdemeanor (count 6); and failing to provide evidence of insurance (Veh. Code, § 16028, subd. (a)) an infraction (count 7).
Appellant was arraigned five days later and entered a plea of not guilty to all charges and denied all related allegations.
At a hearing on April 8, 2002, appellant moved for replacement of his public defender by another appointed attorney. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) In support of the request, appellant claimed his counsel was "prejudiced against my case" and "did not have his best interests at heart." The bases of these claims were that he believed counsel asked if appellant was "a skinhead" and disapproved of his haircut, which appellant cut as a "symbol of my self baptism." Additionally, appellant had not attempted to negotiate a plea bargain with the district attorney. The public defender advi
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|