People v. Gonzales6/14/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
A jury convicted Edward Anthony Gonzales of evading an officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), and driving under the influence of a controlled substance (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)). He admitted a prior strike (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12) and serving two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668). The court sentenced him to five years in prison: double the two-year middle term for reckless driving to evade an officer with a prior strike, enhanced one year for the prior prison term. It struck the second prior prison term finding. (Pen. Code, § 1385.)
FACTS
On December 5, 2000, Chula Vista Police officers, in an unmarked police car, saw Gonzales driving 50 to 55 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone. The officer radioed for a marked unit to make a stop and followed Gonzales's vehicle. Gonzales made several sharp turns and exceeded the speed limit. When another officer joined the pursuit, in a marked patrol car with lights and siren on, Gonzales ran a stop sign and accelerated to speeds of 50 to 60 miles per hour in a residential area posted 35 miles per hour. The chase ended when Gonzales crashed into a parked car and a fence. Gonzales ran but was caught. The officer observed that Gonzales displayed drug-use symptoms. A blood sample revealed Gonzales was under the influence of methamphetamine.
During trial, over defense counsel's objection, the People presented evidence that in 1995, Gonzales drove in a reckless manner attempting to evade the police. Gonzales contends this was reversible error.
DISCUSSION
Evidence of other crimes or misconduct is inadmissible when it is offered to show that a defendant had the criminal disposition or propensity to commit the crimes charged. (Evid. Code, § 1101, subd. (a).) However, evidence of other crimes or misconduct by a defendant is admissible if it ' " . . . [tends to] logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference . . . establish any fact material for the people, or to overcome any material matter sought to be proved by the defense.' " (People v. Peete (1946) 28 Cal.2d 306, 315.) Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), codifies this exception to the general rule of inadmissibility by providing for the admission of such evidence "when relevant to prove some fact (such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident . . . ) other than [the defendant's] disposition to commit such [crimes or bad acts]."
" f a person acts similarly in similar situations, it can logically be inferred that he probably harbors the same intent in each instance." (People v. Denis (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 563, 568.) Here, the evidence Gonzales previously drove in a reckless manner attempting to evade the police was relevant to show Gonzales intended to evade the officers when he drove recklessly in December 2000. When the evidence of other crimes or bad acts is admitted solely for its relevance to a defendant's intent, the degree of similarity required is less then that required to show identity through similar past conduct. (People v. Robbins (1988) 45 Cal.3d 867, 880; People v. Nible (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 838, 848-849.)
" f the other cri
Page 1 2 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|