 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Leep1/14/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
William Leep pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury to another (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)) (count one); driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 causing bodily injury to another (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)) (count two); and hit-and-run driving resulting in injury to another (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)) (count three). He admitted allegations that as to count one, he refused to submit to a chemical test (Veh. Code, § 23577); as to counts one and two, he caused bodily injury to more than one victim and was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol within the previous seven years (Veh. Code, §§ 23558, 23540); and as to all counts he personally inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). Leep further admitted he suffered one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and one prior serious and/or violent felony conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i)). The court sentenced Leep to a total prison term of 13 years.
Leep contends the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5 and in imposing "dual" sentencing enhancements under sections 677, 12022.7 and Vehicle Code section 23558. In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, he contends his guilty plea and conviction were the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, and that he was denied due process in his sentencing because the trial court was influenced by the presence of numerous uniformed law enforcement officers in support of the victim and her family during his sentencing hearing. We affirm the judgment and deny Leep's petition for habeas corpus.
FACTS
At approximately 6:15 p.m. on September 16, 1999, John Oswald reported to California Highway Patrol Traffic Officer Lana Andrews he had witnessed a major traffic collision and saw the suspect driver, later identified as Leep, leave accident's scene. Oswald told Officer Andrews he followed Leep to a house and spoke with him, and that Leep appeared intoxicated. Oswald led Officer Andrews and three other officers to the house. Officer Andrews was aware from radio calls that the suspect had been driving a white or tan sedan, possibly a BMW or Audi.
After arriving at the house, Officer Andrews looked though a window into the garage and observed a light-colored BMW with fresh collision damage. One of the officers, a deputy sheriff, walked to the back of the house and found Leep stepping out a sliding glass door into the back yard, talking on a telephone. The deputy sheriff identified himself and asked Leep to walk to the front of the house. Leep cooperated with the deputy sheriff, telling him he had been home since 3:00 p.m., then stating he had been home for five hours and his car was not there.
When Leep approached the front of the house with the deputy sheriff, Officer Andrews observed he showed signs of intoxication. As she put it, "He was unsteady on his feet. He had to keep moving around. In other words, he was shuffling his feet. He couldn't stand in one position for any length of time. He had a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath, and his speech was thick and noticeably slurred." Leep claimed he had been home for the last four hours and had had nothing to drink.
California Highway Patrol Sergeant Patrick Symonds a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|