 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Roach6/29/2004
irst, with a sinister smile, he desired to place Alarcon in immediate fear and to harm him, after which he assaulted Alarcon using his van. Defendant continued smiling while he held Alarcon against the wall. Second, after hitting Alarcon, defendant decided to flee the scene, but not because of the assault. In fact, defendant testified he did not believe at that time he had hit Alarcon. Rather, he left because he knew he had been drinking at the airport. He did not want to "stick around and get in trouble for that if didn't hit him." Defendant thus entertained multiple objectives that were not merely incidental to each other. Substantial evidence supports the trial court's decision not to stay sentencing on both the assault with a deadly weapon conviction and the hit and run conviction.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment as follows: (1) denote defendant's conviction on count one was under Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a) (not subd. (b)); and (2) denote the enhancement on count four was imposed pursuant to Vehicle Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a) (not subd. (c)). The trial court shall forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
RAYE, J.
MORRISON, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|