People v. Burke CA3

Filed 11/21/25 P. v. Burke CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102091

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24CF01991)

v.

ERIC TYLER BURKE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Eric Tyler Burke appeals his conviction for driving under the influence causing great bodily injury. Defendant claims the trial court erred by not imposing probation, not imposing the low term, and not dismissing his sentence enhancement in the interests of justice. We affirm because defendant’s claims are forfeited for failing to object at the trial court and for failing to make a cognizable argument on appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We base our recitation of the facts on defendant’s probation report, which he stipulated to as being the factual basis for his plea.

1

On February 22, 2024, around 11:00 p.m., defendant was arrested for suspected driving under the influence. During the arrest, officers discovered defendant had consumed cannabis recently and had a blood-alcohol content of 0.312 percent. Defendant was arrested and booked into the Butte County jail. Defendant was released from jail at 12:05 a.m. the next day, February 23, 2024. Later that day, around 4:00 p.m., defendant once again drove while under the influence. This time defendant ran a stop sign and struck another vehicle, which the 91-year-old victim was driving. The victim suffered a broken sternum. Defendant fled the scene, leaving the keys to his home at the scene of the crash. Law enforcement officials later spoke with defendant at his home. Defendant said he had not been driving the vehicle, even though no officer had yet asked him about the accident. Officers later determined defendant was under the influence of cannabis and had a blood-alcohol content of 0.283 percent. Defendant pled no contest to a felony count of causing injury while driving under the influence and a misdemeanor count of driving under the influence, and defendant admitted a special allegation of causing great bodily injury attached to the felony count. At sentencing on September 18, 2024, the trial court stated its intended ruling was to impose the middle term for the felony conviction. In response, defendant’s counsel asked the court to impose probation because defendant lacked a criminal history, was responsible for financially supporting his children, had recently obtained sobriety, and the probation report determined he was suitable. The court acknowledged counsel’s argument and that this was defendant’s first felony, but ultimately was unconvinced this was an “unusual case” as required under California Rules of Court, rule 4.413 (rule 4.413), because of the short time between instances of driving while under the influence, and that “even if [d]efendant were not presumptively ineligible for probation, probation would be denied due to the nature, seriousness and circumstances of this case.”