People v. Velado CA4/3

Filed 5/13/25 P. v. Velado CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G064556

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF2100876)

NEOMI RENEE VELADO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Matthew C. Perantoni, Judge. Affirmed. Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorneys General, A. Natasha Cortina and Melissa Mandel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendant Neomi Renee Velado was convicted of one count of 1 gross vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1); count 1) and one count of hit and run resulting in death (Veh. Code, § 20001, subds. (a), (b)(2); count 2). As to count 1, the jury also found true that defendant fled the scene (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (c)). After defendant admitted aggravating factors, the court sentenced her to nine years in state prison as follows: (1) four years on count 1, plus five years for the hit and run enhancement; and (2) three years on count 2, which was stayed pursuant to section 654. On appeal, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction on count 1 because her actions amounted to ordinary negligence rather than gross negligence. We disagree. Substantial evidence supports defendant’s conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter. We accordingly affirm the judgment. FACTS I. THE INCIDENT In June 2020, defendant had dinner at her mother’s home. Around 8:25 p.m., she exchanged text messages with her boyfriend. In two messages, the boyfriend remarked he knew defendant was drinking. Defendant responded she had not yet and just had a “tall can.” The boyfriend believed the “tall can” referred to “[a]n Arizona.” Before midnight, defendant left her mother’s home and drove to her boyfriend’s home where she lived. On her way there, she struck and