 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Gomez6/25/2004
The prosecution's complaint charged defendant Cesar Canizal Gomez with one felony count of possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf.Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), one misdemeanor count of driving under the influence (Veh.Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), one misdemeanor count of driving with a blood alcohol level greater than 0.08 (Veh.Code, § 23152, subd. (b)), and one misdemeanor count of driving without a license (Veh.Code, § 12500). The complaint also charged defendant with one prior conviction for driving with a blood alcohol level greater than 0.08 (Veh.Code, § 23152, subd. (b)).
Defendant entered into plea negotiations with the prosecution. As a part of the negotiations, defendant hoped to remain eligible for a diversion program. After the preliminary hearing, but before defendant entered a plea, the prosecution filed an information that contained the same four charges as the complaint. The information also added one count alleging transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf.Code, § 11352), which rendered defendant ineligible for a diversion program. Prior to trial, the court dismissed the transportation count in the interests of justice pursuant to Penal Code section 1385 [FN1].
FN1. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
The People contend the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed the transportation count. We hold that the dismissal order is invalid because the court failed to state the reasons for the dismissal "in an order entered upon the minutes" as required by section 1385. We also conclude that the record is inadequate for us to determine the soundness of the court's order of dismissal. We shall therefore reverse the order of dismissal.
FACTS
While on routine patrol on Freedom Boulevard in Watsonville at about 7:30 p.m. on January 17, 2003, Watsonville Police Officer William Morales observed a blue Oldsmobile driving with its front license plate mounted on the dash and blue "marking lights." Officer Morales decided to stop the car to investigate these Vehicle Code violations. Officer Morales followed the Oldsmobile into a gas station. As Officer Morales drove into the gas station, he saw the driver of the vehicle, who he identified as defendant, and a female passenger get out of the car and walk into the gas station sales area. Officer Morales approached defendant and asked to discuss the Vehicle Code violations with him.
When Officer Morales asked defendant for his driver's license, defendant said he did not have one. Officer Morales smelled alcohol on defendant's breath. Defendant admitted that he had been drinking. The officer conducted several field sobriety tests on defendant, including a field breathalyzer test. The field breathalyzer test indicated that defendant had a blood alcohol level of 0.11. Based on the testing, Officer Morales concluded that defendant was under the influence of alcohol and arrested defendant for driving under the influence.
Other officers arrived. Sergeant Ihlen searched defendant's car and found a bindle containing a white powdered substance in the console between the front seats. Defendant said the bindle belonged to him. The bindle weighed 1.9 grams and tested "presumptive[ly]" positive for cocaine. The officers did another breathalyzer test on defendant at the police station, which showed a blood alcohol level of 0.09 or 0.10.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
*2 The complaint [FN2] charged defendant with one felony count of possessing a controlled substance, one misdemeanor count of driving under the influence, one misdemeanor count of driving with a blood alcohol level greater than 0.08, and one misdemeanor count of driving without a license. The complaint also charged defendant with one prior conviction for
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|