People v. Coyle

204 Cal.App.3d 1 (1988) 251 Cal. Rptr. 80 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL FRANK ANDREW COYLE, Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. 170302. Court of Appeals of California, Appellate Department, Superior Court, Santa Barbara.

June 21, 1988. [2] COUNSEL

Michael Frank Andrew Coyle, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Thomas W. Sneddon, Jr., District Attorney, and Gerald McC. Franklin, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

STEVENS, P.J.

Appellant was cited for violating Vehicle Code section 27315 (failure to wear a seat belt). After a trial by court, he was convicted and ordered to pay a fine of $15. He appeals.

[3] Appellant raises two arguments: 1) that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt and 2) that the mandatory seat belt law is unconstitutional.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

We first address the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence. (1) When a finding of fact is attacked on grounds that it is not supported by substantial evidence, the power of an appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the findings. The reviewing court looks to the evidence supporting the successful party and must disregard any contrary showing. (In re Cheryl E. (1984) 161 Cal. App.3d 587, 598 [207 Cal. Rptr. 728].)

(2) The evidence in the record shows that the officer who issued the citation testified that he will only cite a person for not wearing a seat belt if he actually sees the person not wearing a seat belt. Appellant in his own testimony vowed that he will never wear a seat belt. At trial he recounted a tragic experience of a friend of his who saw his wife burned to death in an automobile accident because she was unable to free herself from a seat belt. Appellant expressly testified that it should be his "constitutional right" to go through a windshield if he wishes rather than to wear a seat belt.