People v. Landeros CA3

Filed 4/30/14 P. v. Landeros CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C072553

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12F01176)

DAVID BRANDON LANDEROS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant David Brandon Landeros, heavily intoxicated and driving down I Street in Sacramento at a high rate of speed, crashed into two vehicles. After clipping the first car as he passed it on the right, causing minor damage to the tail light, he crashed into a second car that was parked in front of the Sacramento County Jail, sending this car onto the sidewalk and into a tree. Roxanne Contreras and her husband’s grandparents, Manuel and Ernestine Contreras, were in the second car. Manuel and Ernestine sustained serious injuries. Defendant was convicted by jury of causing bodily injury while driving under the influence of alcohol (Count 1), causing bodily injury while driving with a blood- alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more (Count 2), and driving with a suspended license (Count 3). With respect to Counts 1 and 2, the jury found various great bodily injury enhancement allegations to be true and also found defendant caused bodily injury to more than one victim. With respect to Count 2, the jury also found defendant’s blood-

1

alcohol concentration was 0.15 percent or more. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate prison term of 13 years and imposed other orders. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred by allowing a police officer to testify to her opinion that he drove at an unsafe speed and caused the accident because “these issues were for the jury to decide.” We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this testimony. We therefore affirm the judgment. FACTS During the early morning hours of February 11, 2012, defendant left a nightclub in Midtown Sacramento and drove down I Street in a white Mercedes. He was heavily intoxicated and driving at a high rate of speed, “probably like 70” miles per hour, according to David McClure, the driver of the first car he crashed into. McClure was driving a black Mercedes in the middle lane at about 30 miles per hour. As McClure approached 7th Street, defendant passed him on the right and clipped his tail light in the process. McClure “felt like [he] had been hit,” continued through 7th Street, and pulled over to the left side of I Street. Before McClure could park, he witnessed defendant’s car crash into a silver Toyota that was parked in front of the Sacramento County Jail on the right side of I Street. The impact sent the Toyota onto the sidewalk and into a tree in front of the jail. Roxanne Contreras and her husband’s grandparents, Manuel and Ernestine Contreras, were in the Toyota when the accident occurred. They had parked moments before. Manuel was driving; Roxanne and Ernestine were seated in the back seat. All three suffered injuries and were taken by ambulance to University of California at Davis Medical Center. Ernestine’s injuries were the most severe. The treating neurosurgeon explained: “She had a bleed on the right side of the head that was pushing on her brain, and there was quite a bit of swelling from the impact to her brain.” This injury resulted in her being in a comatose state when she arrived at the hospital and required a portion of her