 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Mack1/8/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
A jury found defendant Jimmy Ray Mack guilty of evading a peace officer while driving with a "willful or wanton disregard" for the safety of persons or property. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); further section references are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise specified.) The trial court sentenced him to the low term of 16 months in state prison, doubled to 32 months based on the finding that defendant has a prior serious felony conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12)
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by (1) failing to instruct the jury sua sponte with definitions of all the Vehicle Code violations upon which the prosecution relied, in part, to establish the willful or wanton disregard element of the charged offense, and (2) not instructing sua sponte with CALJIC No. 17.01 to the effect that, in order to find defendant guilty, the jurors had to agree unanimously on which three Vehicle Code violations he committed for purposes of finding a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. Finding no prejudicial error, we shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant was driving his car with his headlights off shortly after midnight on July 30, 1999. Sheriff's Deputy Alan Humphrey noticed and initiated a traffic stop. Defendant stopped on Edison near Ball Way and turned on his headlights. However, as Humphrey walked from his patrol car toward defendant's car, defendant sped away with his tires squealing. Humphrey got back into his patrol car and chased defendant.
While evading Deputy Humphrey on Edison, defendant drove entirely on the wrong side of road. He ran the stop sign at the intersection of Edison and Morse as he turned left onto Morse at a high speed, with tires squealing and the car's rear-end sliding. Defendant turned off the headlights just before turning or as he turned onto Morse, apparently in an effort to lose the pursuing officer.
Defendant then turned onto Lerwick, losing some control of his car as he went around the corner and ending the turn on the wrong side of the road. He sped down Lerwick while straddling the center line, and ran the stop sign without slowing down at the intersection with West Country Club Lane.
Defendant next made a fast turn onto East Country Club Lane, again with the tires squealing and the car's rear-end sliding. When defendant turned into a dead-end alley or driveway between two four-plexes, he hit a parked car and skidded to a stop.
When Deputy Humphrey stopped behind defendant's car, defendant backed it into the patrol car. He then got out and ran toward the four-plex, but was spotted by a sheriff's helicopter and was then apprehended nearby.
Defense witness John Grant testified he purchased defendant's car from a tow yard about 40 days after defendant was arrested. He drove the car for about three weeks before getting rid of it because it needed expensive repairs, which he could not afford. Grant stated the car was a "piece of junk" with dangerously slow acceleration. It took five to seven minutes to reach 40 m.p.h., and one-and-a-half to two miles to reach 50 m.p.h. The car was able to reach only 25 to 35 m.p.h. while merging on to the freeway. Grant also testified the car had defective steering, would veer spontaneously into the oncoming lane, and wa
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|