Styre v. Valverde
Filed 7/25/06 Styre v. Valverde 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
| HAROLD RICHARD STYRE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GEORGE VALVERDE, as Acting Director, etc., Defendant and Respondent. |
F046786
(Super. Ct. No. 04CECG00160)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jane Cardoza, Judge.
Nuttall & Coleman, Roger T. Nuttall and Wesley E. Stupar, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Jacob A. Appelsmith, Assistant Attorney General, Alicia M. B. Fowler and Michelle K. Littlewood, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Procedural And factual HistorIES
Appellant Harold Richard Styre was convicted in October 2003 of driving while under the influence of alcohol. (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b).) The conviction stemmed from a single car accident in which appellant rolled his vehicle. At the scene of the accident, appellant failed several field sobriety tests, and the results of a preliminary screening test measured his blood alcohol content at .08 percent or higher. Appellant initially refused to take a breathalyzer test. Officer Flaherty, the responding officer, informed appellant of California's implied consent law. (Veh. Code, § 23612.) Appellant then agreed to take the breath test. He was, however, either unwilling or unable to supply sufficient air flow. The officer then requested that appellant submit to a blood test, but appellant refused. Flaherty read to appellant verbatim the chemical test refusal form advising appellant that if he refused, his license would be suspended. Appellant continued to refuse and, as a result, the Department of Motor Vehicles (Department) suspended appellant's driver's license for a period of one year.
Appellant appealed the Department's decision and the matter proceeded to hearing. Appellant was represented by counsel. He claimed he was unable to take the breathalyzer test because he had chest pains from his injuries and that he had been â€
