People v. Simpson CA3

California Court of Appeal Apr 10, 2015 No. C077154Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's sentencing remarks did not violate the separation of powers, but it struck the unauthorized habitual traffic offender designation and corrected minor errors in the fine and restitution calculations.

Issues

Did the trial court's sentencing remarks violate the doctrine of separation of powers?
Was the trial court's finding that the defendant is a habitual traffic offender authorized?
Did the trial court err in calculating penalty assessments and restitution fines?

Disposition. Affirmed as modified

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court did not indicate its intentions before imposing sentence.”

“A finding designating a defendant as a habitual traffic offender is authorized only for certain convictions involving an iterated alcohol-related offense.”

“The judgment is modified to strike the finding that defendant is a habitual traffic offender and to reduce the state surcharge on the base criminal fine to $96.20.”

Filed 4/10/15 P. v. Simpson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C077154

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F3576)

SCOTT CALVIN SIMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

In exchange for dismissal of the remainder of the charges and enhancements, defendant Scott Calvin Simpson entered a plea of guilty to reckless evasion of a police vehicular pursuit, assault with a deadly weapon (a car), and driving with a level of blood alcohol in excess of 0.08 percent. The trial court sentenced him to state prison for the maximum term specified in the plea bargain (four years).

On appeal, defendant argues the trial court transgressed the doctrine of separation of powers in sentencing, erroneously classified him as a habitual traffic offender, and improperly calculated penalty assessments on his criminal fine. The People concede the second issue. We shall strike the classification, reduce a state surcharge by 80 cents, and affirm as modified with directions to prepare an amended abstract of judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The circumstances underlying defendant’s convictions are not material to this appeal. As reflected in the police report (the stipulated factual basis for the plea), in the early evening of June 9, 2013, a highway patrolman saw defendant driving erratically in his truck, ultimately veering off the interstate and into the perimeter fence. As the officer approached, defendant backed the truck out of the fence and sped back onto the highway. He attempted to outrun the pursuit of another officer at speeds of up to 125 miles per hour. The pursuit left the freeway and continued through residential neighborhoods, defendant violating numerous rules of the road (including steering the truck directly at one of his pursuers and forcing the officer to take evasive action). A breath test indicated a level of blood alcohol in excess of 0.19 percent.

People v. Simpson CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C077154

SCOTT CALVIN SIMPSON,

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

BUTZ , J.

RAYE , P. J.

NICHOLSON , J.

AI Brief