P. v. Rucker
Having considered defendants appeal from judgment on a prior occasion (People v. David Darrell Rucker (March 28, 2001) C032283 [nonpub. opn.] (hereafter Rucker I), this court is familiar with the facts and procedural history which we recount from Rucker I.
Defendant, while driving under the influence, crashed his Chevrolet Blazer into a parked Ford truck. A jury found defendant David Darrell Rucker guilty of driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a)) and of driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or greater (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (b)), with an enhancement for driving with a blood alcohol level of .20 or higher (Veh. Code, 23206.1). The jury also found that defendant committed misdemeanor hit-and-run (Veh. Code, 20002, subd. (a)) while driving on the wrong side of the road (Veh. Code, 21650 ). Because the trial court found that defendant had suffered three prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i)), he was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life in state prison. When sentence was imposed in February 1999, the court also ordered defendant to pay a $10,000 restitution fine.
On the prior appeal, defendant challenged only a jury instruction. Court rejected his contention and affirmed the judgment. On September 28, 2005, more than four years later, defendant sought modification of the restitution fine, claiming insufficient evidence supports a finding of his ability to pay. Defendant claimed that at the prison inmate pay rate, the amount he would pay in restitution in the minimum 16 years on his
25-year-to-life term would not exceed $922.25. On February 22, 2006, the trial court denied the motion, finding that the fine imposed was commensurate with the prison term imposed and that defendant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the amount which does not have to be paid off while defendant is in prison. On March 13, 2006, defendant sought reconsideration. He explained that the sole job he had as a prison inmate was a nonpaying job. He also claimed that prior to his incarceration, he had been unemployed for one year. He noted that even if released at the earliest possible release date, he would be in his sixties and eligible for social security. On March 21, 2006, the trial court denied defendants motion for reconsideration. The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Rucker