People v. Sutton CA5

Filed 10/11/13 P. v. Sutton CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F065080 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF138447A) v.

DEON SHONTEL SUTTON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Sidney P. Chapin, Judge. Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Robert C. Nash, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Franson, J.

Defendant Deon Shontel Sutton was convicted of driving under the influence and driving without a valid license. His only contention in this appeal is that this court should review the record of the in camera proceedings that were held pursuant to his Pitchess motion1 and determine whether any discoverable material was withheld. We have done so and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. We will affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORIES A car driven by Sutton was pulled over by police for not making a full stop at a stop sign. A passenger dumped some clear liquid out the window as the officers approached the car. The officers found a partially full bottle of rum in the car’s center console. Asked for his license, Sutton produced only a California identification card. He smelled of alcohol, his eyes were bloodshot, and his speech was slurred. An officer administered three field sobriety tests to Sutton, the results of each of which were consistent with impairment by alcohol. A breath test administered at the scene and a test of a blood sample taken about an hour afterward at a hospital both indicated a blood alcohol level above the legal limit, 0.08 percent. The district attorney filed an information alleging three counts: (1) driving under the influence with a prior felony conviction for driving under the influence during the previous 10 years (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23550.5); (2) driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more with a prior felony conviction for driving under the influence during the previous 10 years (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (b), 23550.5); and (3) driving without a valid license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). The information also