 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Lutz5/14/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Defendant Nathan Lee Lutz pled guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter of Robert Moutard while defendant was intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)), and admitted special allegations that he proximately caused great bodily injury to other victims, Casey Bledsoe and Randee Moutard (Veh. Code, § 23558). He was sentenced to the upper term of ten years in prison and ordered to pay victim restitution and restitution fines (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, 1202.45), and his driving privilege was revoked.
On appeal, defendant contends the judgment must be reversed because the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the upper term. We disagree and shall affirm the judgment.
FACTS
The probation report states the following: After arguing with his girlfriend, defendant "took off to get `pills' in Redding." He drove away in a car that did not belong to him, despite the fact that he had been drinking and was told not to drive the car because there was no insurance and it was not registered. While speeding on Interstate 5 at over 85 miles an hour and weaving in and out of traffic, he rear-ended the victims' pickup truck without braking. The impact caused the pickup truck to go off the highway into the center median, where it struck an oak tree, killing one occupant, six-year-old Robert Moutard, and injuring his mother and sixteen-year-old brother. Defendant, who also was injured by the collision, "displayed overwhelming symptoms of alcohol intoxication."
The investigating officer described defendant as belligerent, obnoxious, profane, and uncooperative. A blood sample drawn from defendant approximately 3 hours after the collision revealed his blood- alcohol level was .15 percent at that time. Defendant, a high school drop out, had a history of abusing alcohol and drugs, including methamphetamine, Vicodin and other "`downers,'" and marijuana.
DISCUSSION
The trial court cited four circumstances in aggravation that outweighed the one factor in mitigation (defendant's lack of any criminal record), thus justifying the upper term of ten years for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated: (1) the victim was particularly vulnerable (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3)) ; (2) defendant's driving was "very gross or very reckless" (see rule 4.421(a)(1)); (3) his level of intoxication at the time of the collision was significantly higher than a blood alcohol level of .15 percent (see rule 4.421(a)(1)); and (4) the crime resulted in injury to two other victims (see rule 4.421(a)(1)). In order to apply the multiple victim factor in aggravation, the court struck the two great bodily injury enhancements (Veh. Code, § 23558).
Defendant attacks only two of the aggravating factors, i.e., the vulnerability of the victim who was killed (six-year-old Robert Moutard), and the fact other victims suffered great bodily injury due to defendant's crime (Casey Bledsoe and Randee Moutard).
In defendant's view, "there are simply no facts upon which to base an assessment that [Robert Moutard] was `more' vulnerable" than "the ordinary vehicular manslaughter victim." Defendant also questions whether the trial court can strike an enhancement and use it to aggravate a sentence where "the enhancement arises from the circumstances of the offense, as was the case here, rather than the criminal record of the defendant .
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|