P. v. Finch
Filed 5/10/06 P. v. Finch CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL FINCH, Defendant and Appellant. | B184256 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA081184) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
Raul Anthony Sahagun, Judge. Affirmed.
Alan Stern, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Shawn McGahey Webb, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Michael Finch appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of feloniously evading a police officer. He contends Vehicle Code section 2800.2[1] creates an unconstitutional mandatory presumption and the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Michael Finch (appellant) was charged by information with one count of feloniously evading a police officer (§ 2800.2). It was also alleged he had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the â€
