P. v. Estrada
Filed 5/17/06 P. v. Estrada CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. HENRY OSWALDO ESTRADA, Defendant and Appellant. | C049381 (Super. Ct. No. 04F07259) |
As is pertinent on appeal, a jury convicted defendant Henry Estrada of the alternative offenses of causing bodily injury while driving either under the influence of alcohol or with a blood-alcohol level of .08 or greater. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subds. (a), (b).) Sentenced to state prison, the defendant contends the pattern instructions for these offenses omitted an essential element. We shall affirm.
Facts
From across the street and down the block, one witness saw the defendant hit a pedestrian on the sidewalk[1] with his truck's front bumper while exiting a parking lot onto Broadway, and then run over the victim twice with his wheel as the truck went forward and then backed up. Another witness 65 feet down the sidewalk thought that the defendant had backed his truck twice into the visibly inebriated pedestrian,[2] who was on the sidewalk, but did not run over the victim. The police drove by on patrol immediately after the accident. They found the victim already sitting up, straddling the boundary between sidewalk and parking lot, with the truck facing the victim and backing away. The defendant got out of his truck and staggered toward the police, reeking of alcohol. The police did not perform a field sobriety test, because the defendant did not appear to be proficient in English, did not respond to their directions, and was bellicose. Subsequent blood testing showed a blood-alcohol percentage of 0.33 about an hour after the accident.
With respect to both offenses, the trial court instructed that a defendant is guilty when driving a vehicle (whether â€
