 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Villegas-Garcia5/10/2004
Defendant pled guilty to a violation of Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (a), leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury to another. The court dismissed the remaining charges of violating Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a), driving under the influence causing injury, violating Vehicle Code section 14601.2, subdivision (a), driving while license is suspended or revoked for driving under the influence, and violating Vehicle Code section 16028, subdivision (a), driving without evidence of financial responsibility, and also dismissed allegations of causing multiple injuries and one prior driving under the influence conviction. The court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years in state prison and imposed a restitution fine of $600. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Defendant's counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant's counsel notes five possible issues in the record that might arguably support the appeal, as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744 (Anders ). We reviewed the record on appeal and find that there are no meritorious issues, including the five Anders issues, to be briefed or argued.
Discussion
The defendant admitted to his probation officer that he was a "little drunk" after drinking six or seven beers. He drove at 65 miles per hour through a stop sign, and his car hit a raised embankment. The collision injured the four passengers in his car, including Alberto Aparicio who sustained a serious leg fracture requiring four surgeries. Defendant said that two of the passengers encouraged him to leave because the police were going to come. Scared, he fled and was arrested over a year later.
Through his attorney, an interpreter, a signed waiver of rights form in Spanish, and questioning by the court, the defendant was fully advised of his rights, the consequences of his plea, including deportation, and waived his rights on the record. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel eloquently sought probation or the mitigated lower term for her client who has two very young children to support. Defendant submitted a written explanation with a remorseful apology, and addressed the court asking for one last chance. The detailed probation report explained why the upper term was recommended. Sonoma County's Treatment Alternatives to Street Crimes (TASC) program denied his application to its alcohol treatment program, citing an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) hold. The court listened to the arguments, considered the mitigating factors, reviewed the documentary evidence including a strong supportive letter from defendant's employer, denied probation and imposed the midterm. The court noted the INS hold, the defendant's recent prior DUI violation one year before when he struck a telephone pole, and the serious circumstances of his present offense.
*2 The record demonstrates that the court exercised its discretion in imposing the sentence. The court adequately explained its reasons for denying probation. No explanation was needed for imposing the middle term. The court imposed a $600 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivisions (b) and (d), which considers the seriousness and gravity of the crime. There was no objection to the amount.
The exclusion of defendant from the TASC program because of his immigration status, and the court's noting the INS hold and its implications did not violate defendant's due process or equal protection rights under the circumstances of this case (see People v. Espinoza (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1074-1076 and cases cited therein.)
Competent counsel represented defendant at all stages of the pro
Page 1 2 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|