 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Budneam6/10/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
The People of the State of California appeal from the trial court's orders: (1) vacating the judgment based on Siam Budneam's no contest plea to one count of vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, §191.5); and (2) then dismissing the charge against him. (Pen. Code, § 1385.) For the reasons set forth below, we reverse those orders and reinstate the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At 8:45 a.m. on July 5, 1999, Siam Budneam's speeding car crossed over into the wrong side of Normandie Avenue, drove up the curb and onto the sidewalk, where it struck Oscar Maglang. Budneam kept driving until his car hit a brick wall. Maglang died from his injuries. Budneam failed a field sobriety test given by police officers who responded to the incident. His blood alcohol level was .15, nearly twice the legal limit. Budneam admitted to drinking heavily the night before, but said he had stopped nearly six hours earlier. Based on this, his blood alcohol level at the time he stopped drinking could have been as high as .30. Given the time lag between the collision and the blood test, his blood alcohol level at the time Budneam's car struck Maglang could have been as high as .18.
Budneam was charged with one count of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. (Pen. Code, § 195.1.) The sentencing range for this offense was 4, 6 or 10 years. Budneam agreed to plead no contest to the charge in exchange for a maximum term of four years. This allowed the court to choose between probation and a one-year maximum jail term, or the minimum statutory prison term of four years.
At the January 12, 2000, sentencing hearing before Judge Frederick N. Wapner, Budneam's lawyer argued for a probationary sentence, based on the following factors: Budneam's youth; his generally clean criminal record; the fact that he had been sleeping for a few hours after drinking and did not get in his car right after drinking; evidence that he might have been trying to avoid another car that had turned in front of him; evidence that he appeared well coordinated during his field sobriety test; and the fact that bald tires on his car might have contributed to the accident. The prosecution argued for the four-year term, pointing to the following: Budneam had a juvenile drunken driving charge that had been dismissed, resulting in the suspension of his license; Budneam's license had been reinstated just three months before this incident; based on the blood test results and the time the test was given, it appeared Budneam had consumed a great deal of alcohol; he showed no remorse; and he had been driving 65 mph in a 30 mph zone. Judge Wapner agreed with the prosecution and imposed the four-year term.
By January 2002 Budneam had completed his jail term and been paroled. Budneam was a citizen of Thailand and a legal resident of the United States, where he had lived since moving here in 1985, when he was eight years old. Under federal immigration law, his conviction would not be considered a deportable offense if he received less than a one- year sentence. Because a greater term had been imposed, however, his conviction was considered an aggravated felony that called for his mandatory deportation.
On January 7, 2002, Budneam brought a combined petition for habeas corpus and motion to vacate the judgment, contending that he received ineffec
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.
|
|