 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Chavez6/19/2002
ellant's claim, the multiple punishment bar does not apply to counts 1 and 2. The offenses of driving under the influence of alcohol (count 3) and driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more (count 4) were already completed when he committed the crime of evading the CHP officers, the objective being to escape rather than driving while intoxicated. (See, e.g., People v. Butler (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 469, 471-472, 474.)
Similarly, that crime had been completed prior to his commission of the crime of child endangerment. Arguably, the purpose of appellant's initial act in holding up his daughter in front of the armed officer was to make him take notice that he was willing to endanger his child to escape. (See People v. Chacon (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 52, 66-67 [where assault with deadly weapon committed to gain attention of police to supply truck to facilitate escape, section 654 bars punishment for such assault in addition to punishment for escape by force and violence conviction].) In contrast, appellant's subsequent conduct of holding his daughter with one hand partially outside the car with the driver's door propped open with his left foot while accelerating to 50 miles per hour was both gratuitous and unnecessary. His sentence for his child endangerment conviction was therefore outside the multiple punishment bar of section 654. (See, e.g., People v. Nguyen (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 181, 190-191.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reflect appellant's one-year jail term on count 4 is stayed, and, as modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
We concur:
VOGEL (C.S.), P.J.
HASTINGS, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|