P. v. Castillo

Filed 2/14/07  P. v. Castillo CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County.  A.  Dennis Caeton and John  F. Vogt, Judges.

            Barbara Coffman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Janis Shank McLean and Melissa Lipon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

            Appellant Bryan Vincent Castillo challenges his conviction for driving under the influence of methamphetamine by arguing the trial court should have excluded from evidence his statement to officers about his methamphetamine habit.  Appellant contends the statement (1) was unduly prejudicial under the applicable provisions of the Evidence Code and (2) its admission into evidence violated his due process right to a fair trial.

            We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statement into evidence and that appellant's constitutional right to due process was not violated.  Thus, the judgment is affirmed.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            An amended information filed December  20, 2005, charged appellant with two counts.  Count 1 charged possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, §  11377, subd. (a)).  Count 2 charged the misdemeanor offense of driving under the influence of a drug (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), and alleged that within the last 10 years appellant suffered a previous conviction for driving under the influence (Veh. Code, §  23540).  Appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges and denied the allegation of a previous conviction.

            On December  21, 2005, the superior court empanelled a jury.  During the afternoon of December  21, 2005, the trial court held an Evidence Code section 402 hearing on defense counsel's objection to the admission of appellant's statement to officers that he was having a hard time getting over a methamphetamine habit.

            Defense counsel asserted that the issue of the case was whether appellant was driving under the influence of methamphetamine and the possession charge was not really going to be contested.  Defense counsel argued that the statement would cause the jurors to conclude appellant was a drug addict, which would cause them to conclude he was a bad person, which would cause them to find him guilty of driving under the influence instead of focusing on the evidence regarding his actual impairment at the time.

            After taking testimony and hearing arguments from counsel, the trial court issued its ruling:

â€