California Driving Influence Guilty Plea Lawyers Attorneys

California Driving Influence Guilty Plea Lawyers Attorneys

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHAFRIR Jr., Defendant and Appellant.

COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE

December 29, 2009, Filed

Factual Background:

Defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs causing injury. The San Diego County Superior Court, California, orally pronounced defendant’s sentence as 27 years and eight months in prison, but the minute order and the abstract of judgment in the clerk’s transcript indicated the sentence was 26 years and four months in prison. Defendant appealed.

Issue:

(1)Whether the oral pronouncement of sentence was erroneous?

(2)Whether it was error to impose consecutive sentences?

Observation and Holding:

The instant court agreed with defendant that the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence was erroneous. In its oral pronouncement, the trial court mistakenly stated that one third of the middle term for the violation of Veh. Code, 23153 (driving under the influence of alcohol or

drugs causing injury

), was one year and four months. The middle term for 23153 was two years, and, therefore, one third of the middle term was eight months. The proper calculation under the three strikes law would have been to double eight months – not one year and four months – and impose a sentence of one year and four months for the driving under the influence with injury count. The correct calculation of the term for the 23153 count was reflected in the trial court’s minutes and the abstract of judgment, along with the correct aggregate sentence of 26 years and four months. The instant court rejected defendant’s contention that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences on the manslaughter and driving under the influence with injury counts. It was permissible to impose consecutive sentences in order to make the punishment commensurate with defendant’s degree of culpability.

The correct sentence was reflected in the trial court’s minutes and the abstract of judgment – not in the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence as stated in the reporter’s transcript. As such, the judgment with the sentence of 26 years and four months was affirmed.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the

SRIS Law Group

. They represent the firm s unofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the SRIS Law Group. The SRIS Law Group has offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina &

California

. The firm handles criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration & bankruptcy cases.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com