P. v. Richardson
Filed 1/31/06 P. v. Richardson CA3
Received for posting 5/30/06
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN O. RICHARDSON, Defendant and Appellant. | C048146 (Super. Ct. No. 02F01663) |
Defendant Steven O. Richardson contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial based exclusively on hearsay evidence of juror misconduct. He urges us to reverse his conviction of two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subds. (a) & (b)) because the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the reliability of the hearsay evidence. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
FACTS
A Sacramento County deputy sheriff observed defendant run a stop sign at 4:13 on the morning of January 31, 2002. After stopping defendant, the deputy noticed his speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot, and he smelled like alcohol. Defendant urinated in his pants. A California Highway Patrol officer who was dispatched to the scene conducted a series of field sobriety tests and determined that defendant had been driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or above. He was arrested and eventually underwent a blood test, recording a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent. A jury convicted him of two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol, and the court found true the allegations he had suffered three prior convictions and served three prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)
Defendant petitioned the court twice for release of juror identifying information to investigate the possibility of juror misconduct. The court granted both petitions. Defendant thereafter filed a motion for a new trial supported by a memorandum by the bailiff, a â€
