 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Blanco7/5/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Oscar A. Blanco (appellant) was convicted by a jury of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)); gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)); leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)); hit and run driving (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)); driving under the influence causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)); and driving under the influence with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or higher (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (b)). Appellant also admitted that he had three prior convictions for which he had served separate prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5 and Vehicle Code section 23566, and that he had been driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601, subd. (a)). Appellant was sentenced to a term of 19 years to life. He appeals, contending that the court erred in admitting evidence of his prior convictions and evidence that he had not complied with court-ordered education programs; that there was insufficient evidence that he had the requisite mental state to commit murder; that the court erred when it refused to instruct the jury that one of the witnesses had violated a court order and lied about it; that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by eliciting testimony about appellant's prior narcotics conviction; that appellant was deprived of his constitutional rights because certain jurors were dozing during trial; that the court erred in instructing the jury on the basic speed law because there was no evidence that appellant violated this law; and that the court erred in sentencing him to consecutive terms in violation of Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct. 2531.]
FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 13, 2003, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Ronnie King and his wife Mary Crow saw appellant driving down Atlantic Avenue in Long Beach in his red Volvo. He was going very slow and weaving. The car suddenly veered and headed straight for Naomi Hellan (hereinafter referred to as Naomi), who was stepping up onto the curb outside her husband's store. Appellant's car hit Naomi from behind. She was thrown into the air and landed on the curb. Appellant veered to the left, struck the center median, then sped down Atlantic. He made several turns at a high rate of speed, went through a red light, and sideswiped a blue pickup truck at Linden and 57th Street. He then collided with a car driven by Antonio Pinales, which was stopped at a stop sign. He damaged the two doors on the driver's side of Pinales's car. Appellant drove away and Pinales pursued him, blocking appellant's car. By this time King and another driver had arrived at the scene. Appellant got out of his car, staggering. The other drivers made him sit on the curb, and waited for police to come.
Long Beach Police Officer Israel Ramirez responded to the scene where appellant was detained by the other drivers. Appellant staggered when he stood and there was a strong odor of alcohol from his breath. His coordination was poor and he needed assistance to walk to the police car. Officer Ramirez asked appellant twice to take a field sobriety test but appellant refused. Appellant's speech was slurred, his face was flushed and red, his pupils were constricted, and his eyes were watery and bloodshot.
Officer Ramirez spoke to appellant in bo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|