People v. Simpson

Filed 1/24/14 (reposted same date to correct processing error)

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

This opinion has been certified for publication in the Official Reports. It is being sent to assist the Court of Appeal in deciding whether to order the case transferred to the court on the court‟s own motion under rules 8.1000-8.1018.

CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*

APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) No. BR 050810 ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) (Metropolitan Trial Court ) No. B717240) v. ) ) ERICA SIMPSON, ) ) Defendant and Appellant. ) OPINION )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Metropolitan Trial Court, Deborah Christian, Judge. Reversed. Erica Simpson, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Debbie Lew, Assistant City Attorney, John R. Winandy, Deputy City Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part III.B.

1

I. INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Erica Simpson appeals the judgment of conviction following a court trial for crossing double yellow lines into a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, and for making an unsafe lane change. (Veh. Code, §§ 21655.8, subd. (a), 21658, subd. (a), respectively.) Pursuant to Government Code section 68081, the parties were provided with an opportunity to submit supplemental briefs addressing the issue of whether the trial court violated the separation of powers doctrine or its statutory authority by amending the complaint sua sponte to add the charge of making an unsafe lane change during the trial. As discussed below in the published portion of this opinion, we reverse the judgment of conviction for making an unsafe lane change. The court did not have authority on its own motion to amend the complaint to add the charge. In the unpublished portions of this opinion, we reject defendant‟s arguments that the judgment should be reversed with respect to her conviction for crossing double yellow lines into an HOV lane. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 9, 2012, defendant was issued a citation for crossing double yellow lines into an HOV lane in violation of section 21655.8, subdivision (a). Defendant signed a promise to appear in court on or before June 14, 2012. Defendant requested and was provided a trial by written declaration. The ticketing officer submitted a declaration concerning the infraction. After being found guilty, defendant requested a trial de novo. At the trial de novo on March 11, 2013, Los Angeles Police Department Officer Schoop testified that he observed defendant‟s vehicle traveling southbound on the 405 Freeway north of the Avalon exit. Defendant changed lanes in front of the officer into the HOV lane, crossing over a set of clearly visible double yellow lines which were in good repair. Defendant caused Schoop to brake suddenly in order to avoid a traffic collision.