People v. Ornelas CA3

Filed 5/28/14 P. v. Ornelas CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C071976

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62112831)

v.

ROBERT JAMES ORNELAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we remand to the trial court to modify the term imposed and stayed (Pen. Code, § 654) on defendant’s conviction in count two. We further direct that the trial court impose the court facilities assessment and court security fee on each of defendant’s convictions. We otherwise affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 31, 2010, while on patrol, Placer County Sheriff’s Deputy Ben Glau pulled into a parking lot and observed a white van pulling into the same lot. The white van stopped in a parking space; Glau stopped as well. As Glau got out of his car, defendant, who had been driving the white van, approached him and asked, “What did I do wrong?” Glau noticed defendant showed signs of intoxication: he was unsteady on his feet and his speech was slow and slurred. Glau also smelled alcohol emanating from defendant. Glau asked defendant if he had been drinking. Defendant admitted to drinking five beers over a two-hour period. Glau contacted the California Highway Patrol to investigate. California Highway Patrol Officer Richard Cruz arrived on the scene and noted that defendant appeared to be intoxicated. Defendant admitted to Officer Cruz that he drank five beers over a period of two and a half hours, and confirmed he was driving the white van. Cruz then conducted field sobriety tests on defendant, the results of which indicated defendant was under the influence of alcohol. An initial breathalyzer test recorded defendant’s blood-alcohol level at .174 percent. Officer Cruz repeated the breathalyzer test two minutes later and the test recorded defendant’s blood-alcohol level at .170 percent. Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. After he was arrested, defendant opted for another breath test to determine his blood-alcohol level. He was thus tested twice more approximately one hour after the first two tests were completed, and both tests showed defendant had a blood-alcohol level of .14 percent. Officer Cruz also learned defendant’s driving privileges were suspended. Eighteen months later, Glau was on patrol in the same area when he saw a van cross over double yellow lines in the road and pull into the same parking lot. Glau pulled up behind the van, made contact with defendant, and asked for his driver’s license. Defendant told Glau his license was suspended. Glau confirmed the suspension and issued defendant a citation.