People v. Reed11/16/2004
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen.Code, § 191.5, subd. (d)), driving under the influence of alcohol and causing bodily injury (Veh.Code, § 23153, subd. (a)), driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or greater and causing injury (Veh.Code, § 23153, subd. (b)), with associated enhancements for causing great bodily injury upon more than one victim (Veh.Code, § 23558), personal infliction of great bodily injury (Pen.Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)), and separate prior prison terms served (Pen.Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant admitted allegations of prior felony drunk driving convictions (Pen.Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(4), Veh.Code, § 23152, subd. (b), & Veh.Code, former § 23175), and misdemeanor charges of driving with a suspended or revoked license (Veh.Code, § 14601.5, subd. (a)), driving with a license previously suspended or revoked for driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh .Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)), possession of marijuana while driving (Veh.Code, § 23222, subd. (b)), and possession of an open alcoholic beverage container while driving (Veh.Code, § 23222, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of 15 years to life plus 10 years.
In this appeal he argues that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges on the impermissible basis of group bias, the trial court erred by excluding proffered defense evidence of statements made by one of the victims, the sentence on Count 3 was not properly stayed, and the imposition of upper and consecutive terms upon him violated his right to a jury trial. We conclude that no prima facie case of group bias was established, the evidence of the victims' alcohol consumption offered by the defense was irrelevant, the stay of defendant's conviction on Count 3 need not be amended, and defendant's constitutional rights were not denied by the upper and consecutive sentences. We therefore affirm the judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Between March and September of 2001, defendant "had a relationship" with Annette Wadkins, and lived "on and off" with her. Wadkins testified that as a result of an accident and injury to defendant's spine in 1999, he cannot effectively move his legs from the waist down, and during their relationship remained confined to a wheelchair. Nevertheless, Wadkins observed defendant drive his Ford pickup truck "[m]any times," although it was not equipped with any special hand controls for disabled drivers. Wadkins explained that to drive the truck defendant used his right hand to lift his right leg, then "push down" on either the gas or brake pedal. When defendant's leg was "in a spasm," he could not "move it," and was unable to operate the vehicle. Wadkins also testified that defendant's truck "had a lot of mechanical problems," including "very poor" brakes, and "was not a real safe running vehicle." [FN1]
FN1. Wadkins drove the truck to work once, but due to its unsafe condition she was "afraid to drive it after that."
Beginning on Friday, September 28, 2001, Wadkins and defendant engaged in unrelenting arguments for the next two days. By Sunday morning, Wadkins "took off" for the weekend to go to Yosemite, and decided she "was going to leave" defendant. Defendant feared that Wadkins "was going to leave him," and "started drinking."
*2 Just past noon on Sunday September 30, 2001, defendant drove his Ford pickup truck westbound on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in San Anselmo, en route to his stepbrother's house to borrow money. The traffic was light and the weather was clear. Defendant was driving faster than the posted 30-miles-per-hour speed limit and the flow of traffic, so he made abrupt lane changes as he passed other vehicles.
As defendant approached the intersecti
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|