People v. McCulley CA3

Filed 9/30/25 P. v. McCulley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C102504

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F03538)

v.

LESLIE MARIE McCULLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Leslie Marie McCulley appeals following her conviction for premeditated attempted murder of a police officer. She challenges the trial court’s imposition of the maximum restitution fine of $10,000 (Pen. Code,1 § 1202.4, subd. (b)). She argues (1) the fine is excessive and (2) citing to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, alleges that the court’s imposition of the restitution fine violated the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause. Finding no merit in either contention, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We summarize the pertinent facts from our prior opinion in People v. McCulley (Apr. 21, 2015, C075333) (nonpub. opn.) (McCulley) affirming defendant’s judgment. In May 2012, Sacramento police officers engaged in a high-speed pursuit of a stolen sedan with four occupants. The driver of the sedan drove at excessive rates of speed

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

through residential neighborhoods and a crowded schoolyard, and police twice called off the pursuit due to public safety concerns. At one point, the car abruptly stopped, and two men jumped out. A short time later, officers found the sedan abandoned. (McCulley, supra, C075333.) Another officer saw defendant and a man, whom defendant later identified as her boyfriend Lucas Webb, walking rapidly down a nearby street. When the officer approached them, Webb “immediately became upset and protested that he was not on parole.” Webb made furtive movements with his hands and the officer drew his weapon for safety. Webb fled and the officer followed with defendant trailing the officer. A canine officer arrived and took over the chase. While defendant struggled with other officers who attempted to take her into custody, several gunshots were heard. Webb shot and severely injured the canine who pursued him into some shrubbery, and then Webb pointed his gun at the canine officer and shot. The officer returned fire, killing Webb. When questioned at the scene, defendant initially said she had been driving the sedan during the pursuit and that only she and Webb were in the car. She later admitted that two other passengers had been in the car. Her hands tested positive for gunshot residue. (McCulley, supra, C075333.) During a subsequent police interview, defendant said Webb had previously killed an officer, “had an outstanding warrant and never complied with police efforts to initiate a contact,” an attitude she shared. Defendant later admitted that Webb had been driving during the entire chase, which she concealed from officers to keep Webb from going to prison. She also initially claimed that she had brought the gun with them on the trip, but once she was informed Webb had died, she said the gun was Webb’s. When questioned about the gunshot residue on her hands, defendant claimed she had accidentally fired the gun during the chase. She took it from Webb when he was grabbing for it to prevent him from using it. She then turned around while waving the gun and told the protesting passengers to quiet down. After they had lost the police, she told the passengers to get out