People v. Feise CA3

Filed 9/25/25 P. v. Feise CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101541

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20FE003037)

v.

SCOTT LOUIS FEISE,

Defendant and Appellant.

While driving under the influence of alcohol, defendant Scott Louis Feise hit Robert A. and Aaron D. in a head-on collision. Aaron D. suffered a myriad of severe injuries including a shattered femur, knee, shin and ankle; a dislocated foot; and completely torn ligaments on his right leg. After many surgeries and procedures, Aaron D.’s right leg became infected and required a lower leg amputation. Aaron D. became wheelchair bound, required constant assistance, and lost his jobs. A jury found defendant guilty of driving under the influence causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)) and found true that defendant personally inflicted great bodily

1

injury to Aaron D. (Pen. Code,1 § 12022.7, subd. (a)), that he personally inflicted great bodily injury causing Aaron D. to become paralyzed (§ 12022.7, subd. (b)) and that he caused great bodily injury to more than one victim (Veh. Code, § 23558). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of seven years four months, including a five- year enhancement for great bodily injury causing paralysis (§ 12022.7, subd. (b)). On appeal, defendant claims the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the five-year enhancement for great bodily injury causing paralysis rather than the three-year enhancement for great bodily injury. Defendant also contends there was insufficient evidence to support the five-year enhancement. Specifically, he argues that expert testimony was required to prove that Aaron D. was comatose or suffered neurological paralysis and that there was insufficient evidence that the collision caused Aaron D.’s paralysis. Finding no merit to these claims, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Just after 11:00 p.m. on September 25, 2019, Robert A. was driving a van with his cousin, Aaron D., when they noticed defendant’s truck on the road coming toward them. They saw defendant’s truck “zigzag” and “overcorrect” into a ditch before it “flew” toward Robert A. and Aaron D., ultimately hitting their van. When defendant’s truck hit their van, the van went up into the air and spun into a field. Defendant’s truck “bounced off the frame” and then ran over the top of the van causing the roof to cave in while Robert A. and Aaron D. were still inside. Later testing showed that defendant’s blood- alcohol level was 0.221 percent. Robert A. was “slammed” on the left side of his body. He sustained a concussion as well as injuries to his wrist, thumbs, shoulders, chest, knees, and ankles.