P. v. Jaime

Filed 5/9/06 P. v. Jaime CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy M. Casserly, Judge. Affirmed.

A jury convicted Richard Jaime, Jr., of reckless driving to evade an officer. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a).) In a bifurcated hearing, he admitted he had a prior strike. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668.) The court sentenced him to a prison term of four years consisting of a two-year middle term for reckless driving to evade an officer, doubled because of the prior strike conviction. Jaime contends there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction of reckless driving to evade an officer. We affirm.

FACTS

At approximately 9:00 p.m. on April 29, 2004, Oceanside Police Officer Fletcher Stone was driving a marked patrol car with his partner, Officer Matt Bussey, when Stone saw Jaime driving a sport utility vehicle (SUV). The parties stipulated that Stone wanted to talk with Jaime, that Stone made a U-turn, and that it was legal for Stone to stop Jamie to talk to Jamie. Without signaling, Jaime turned into an alley and accelerated. Stone pursued and activated the overhead red and blue lights and the siren. Without stopping, Jaime continued down the alley and eventually stopped at Horne and Bush/Civic Center Streets after another police officer blocked the intersection. During the chase, Jaime drove at a high rate of speed, turned without signaling, failed to stop at stop signs, failed to yield to other traffic and pedestrians, and drove on the wrong side of the road while making a turn.

Appellant did not present any evidence.

DISCUSSION

We affirm a judgment supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576.) Substantial evidence is evidence of legal significance, reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value. (People v. Samuel (1981) 29 Cal.3d 489, 505.) The court must review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment below and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the fact finder could reasonably deduce from the evidence. If the evidence permits a reasonable trier of fact to conclude the charged crime was committed, the opinion of a reviewing court that the circumstances may also be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant reversal. (See Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 318-319.)

Vehicle Code section 2800.2 provides:

" (a) If a person flees or attempts to elude a pursuing peace officer in violation of [Vehicle code] Section 2800.1 and the pursued vehicle is driven in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property, the person driving the vehicle, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or by confinement in the county jail for not less than six months nor more than one year. The court may also impose a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($ 1,000) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($ 10,000), or may impose both that imprisonment or confinement and fine.

" (b) For purposes of this section, a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property includes, but is not limited to, driving while fleeing or attempting to elude a pursuing peace officer during which time either three or more violations that are assigned a traffic violation point count under [Vehicle code] Section 12810 occur, or damage to property occurs."

Jaime argues there is insufficient evidence because the officers' testimony was inconsistent and rebutted by the distance traveled during the pursuit, the length of time of the pursuit, and the computer-assisted dispatch (CAD) report. During trial, the jury heard the testimony of four witnesses, the Oceanside police officers. Officer Stone testified he was driving a marked patrol car when he tried to stop Jaime. Stone made a U-turn. Without signaling, Jaime turned into an alley and accelerated to 60 miles per hour. Stone activated the overhead red and blue lights and the siren. Stone chased Jaime for approximately eight-tenths of a mile. During the chase, Jaime turned without signaling, drove at 80 miles per hour, failed to stop at stop signs, failed to yield to other traffic and pedestrians, and crossed over to the wrong side of the road while making a turn. Jaime ultimately stopped after other officers blocked an intersection.

The testimony of Officer Matt Bussey corroborated Officer Stone's testimony.

Officer Clint Bussey testified he responded to the pursuit call. He blocked the intersection of Horne and Civic Center/Bush Streets just before Jaime stopped. Two additional police cars were blocking the intersection.

Officer Anis Trabelsi testified that he too blocked the intersection of Horne and Civic Center/Bush Streets before Jaime stopped.

Jaime claims that in their testimony, the officers were inconsistent with one another. He is mistaken. On all material issues, Officer Matt Bussey corroborated Officer Stone. Jaime claims the officers' testimony is inconsistent with the audiotape and the CAD report. Again, with the exception of a mistake in the CAD report as to the time of the dispatcher's request that officers join the pursuit and the time of the stop, discussed by Officer Clint Bussey, he is incorrect. Jaime claims that given the distance of the chase and the time the officers chased him, he was traveling 30 miles an hour, not 80. The chase covered eight-tenths of a mile. Without citing the record, Jaime claims it lasted only one minute 24 seconds. The jury heard the witnesses testify, heard the audiotape of the chase on multiple occasions, received a transcript of the audiotape, and viewed the scene. " 'Although an appellate court will not uphold a judgment or verdict based upon evidence inherently improbable, testimony which merely discloses unusual circumstances does not come within that category. [Citation.] To warrant the rejection of the statements given by a witness who has been believed by a trial court, there must exist either a physical impossibility that they are true, or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions. [Citations.] Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends. [Citation.]' [Citations.]" (People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738, 754, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684, fn. 12.) Substantial evidence supports the verdict in this case.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NARES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

McINTYRE, J.

AARON, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Apartment Manager Lawyers.