People v. Haulcy CA4/1

Filed 12/13/24 P. v. Haulcy CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082828

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN348873)

ERIC ALLEN HAULCY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed. Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Liz Olukoya, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted defendant Eric Allen Haulcy of driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 1)

and driving with greater than .08 blood alcohol level causing injury (id., subd. (b); count 2). It found multiple enhancements true, and Haulcy

admitted a strike prior (Pen. Code,1 §§ 667, subd. (b), 1170.12 & 668), a serious felony prior (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 668 & 1192.7, subd. (c)), and two prison priors (§§ 667.5, subd. (b) & 668). The trial court sentenced Haulcy to 22 years in prison. Haulcy would be resentenced twice, finally receiving a 14-year eight-month sentence. The subject of this appeal is the second resentencing hearing occurring in August 2023, and how the trial court applied section 1385. Haulcy makes two contentions about the trial court’s decision. First, he argues there is a lack of substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that dismissal of the great bodily injury and/or multiple victim enhancements would “endanger public safety.” (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2).) Second, Haulcy argues the court erred when it did not “afford great weight” to his evidence supporting one or more of the enumerated mitigating circumstances, which would have resulted in a further reduction to his sentence. (Ibid.) We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that dismissing any of the enhancements in this case would “endanger public safety.” (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2).) Because striking an enhancement would not, in these circumstances, be in “furtherance of justice” (id., subd. (c)(1)), we deem it unnecessary to decide Haulcy’s second contention. We therefore affirm the resentencing order.