 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Burke10/3/2002
ial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Burke's request to strike the section 191.5, subdivision (d) allegation. The court considered Burke's history of alcohol-related offenses and the circumstances of the instant offense. It also considered his personal circumstances, including his history of mental illness. The court concluded the need to protect society from the risk that Burke would drive under the influence of alcohol in the future warranted imposition of the section 191.5, subdivision (d) enhancement. Because the trial court reasonably weighed the appropriate factors in denying Burke's request to strike the section 191.5, subdivision (d) allegation, it did not abuse its discretion in finding justice would not be furthered by striking that allegation. (§ 1385, subds. (a), (c)(1); People v. Ortega (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 659, 666; People v. Mack (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1026, 1033-1034.)
DISPOSITION
The appellant's convictions in San Diego County Superior Court Case No. SCN 103402 under Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a) and Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (b) are reversed and the true findings on the section 12022.7, subdivision (a) and section 12022.7, subdivision (b) allegations related to those convictions are stricken. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions that it prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting this modification and to forward a copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
McCONNELL, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|