People v. Lustre CA6

Filed 7/18/25 P. v. Lustre CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H051612 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 23CR04290)

v.

BRYAN PEREZ LUSTRE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Bryan Perez Lustre (Perez) appeals from a judgment entered after conviction following a jury trial. Appointed counsel for Perez filed a brief asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Perez was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief but has not responded. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Perez, we affirm the judgment. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The district attorney charged Perez by information with felony driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (Veh. Code,1 § 23152, subd. (a); count 1);

1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Vehicle Code.

felony driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher (§ 23152, subd. (b); count 2); and misdemeanor driving on a license suspended for a prior DUI conviction (§ 14601.2, subd. (a); count 3). On counts 1 and 2, the information alleged enhancements that Perez had incurred three or more DUI convictions within 10 years (§ 23550, subd. (a) (hereafter § 23550(a)) and had driven with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 percent or higher (§ 23578). Prior to trial, Perez told the trial court he wished to represent himself, but withdrew the request before the court ruled on it. A few months later, Perez again requested to represent himself, but withdrew that request prior to the court ruling on it. Perez’s jury trial took place from October 23 through 26, 2023.2 The trial court bifurcated the trial into two phases: one on the substantive counts and the section 23578 enhancement and one on the section 23350(a) enhancement alleging prior DUI convictions. At Perez’s trial on the substantive counts, the evidence established the following facts: On May 7, Officer Scott Alameda of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) got off work around 1:00 a.m. As he was driving home in his personal car, he saw an SUV driving without its headlights on and with its left wheels on top of the raised, concrete median. The SUV was traveling about five miles per hour in a 35 mile-per-hour zone. The SUV did not stay in its lane but moved in a “serpentine manner.” Alameda began to follow the car. The SUV made a left turn without stopping through an intersection that had a stop sign. Alameda called CHP and requested a unit to “perform