 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Metz6/21/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Edward Kurt Metz pled no contest to felony driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) and felony driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent or higher (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)). He also pled guilty to a misdemeanor, driving with a suspended license with two prior convictions. (Veh. Code, § 14601.5, subd. (a).) He contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying probation and sentencing him to state prison. We find no abuse of discretion in the sentencing and affirm.
I. FACTS
Because of the guilty and no contest pleas, we take the facts from the probation report.
On November 5, 2000, a Daly City Police Officer stopped appellant for running a red light. Appellant could not produce a driver's license, registration, or proof of insurance, but did produce a California ID card and a pink slip for his car. The officer smelled alcohol on appellant, who "admitted to drinking one or two beers that night." Appellant told the officer he was feeling the effects of alcohol and should not be driving. The officer ran a computer check and discovered that appellant's license had been suspended.
The officer performed two field sobriety tests. Appellant "performed below satisfactory level." The officer conducted two preliminary alcohol screening tests, which showed appellant's blood-alcohol level was .137 and .141 percent. The officer arrested appellant for driving under the influence , driving with a 0.08+ percent blood-alcohol level, and driving without a license. Subsequent chemical tests revealed a blood-alcohol level of .11 percent.
Although only 42 years old when the probation report was prepared in September 2001, appellant had a 20-year criminal history. He suffered his first conviction, of Penal Code section 148, in 1981. Since that time he suffered several more convictions, including four for driving under the influence -one a felony. His driver's license had been revoked or suspended 10 times since 1991, the latest effective March 29, 2001.
At the time of the present offense he was on probation in Marin County for battery on a cohabitee. (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (e).) Although it is not clear whether the battery was alcohol-related, appellant's girlfriend told him he could not return to their home until he received treatment for his alcoholism. But appellant's performance on Marin County probation was "sporadic" and he was not following the conditions of his probation: appellant "continually offends, has a bad relationship with the Sausalito Police Department, has not entered a batterer's treatment program, nor has he performed his community service duties." Appellant's Marin County case was "currently on bench warrant status."
Appellant was "very candid in his acknowledgement of his alcohol problem." He admits he has a serious problem with alcohol, and that "it has ruined his relationships over the years and has caused him to be violent." He had never been in an alcohol treatment program and was "extremely open" to the idea of entering one. He had applied to and been accepted by the Jericho Project treatment program. Nevertheless "he understands that because of his extensive criminal history a prison sentence is likely . . . ."
While acknowledging that appellant's behavior was "a danger to society," the probation dep
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|