People v. Amezcua CA2/6

Filed 4/20/15 P. v. Amezcua CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B258312 (Super. Ct. No. 2011024581) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

JAIME MENDEZ AMEZCUA,

Defendant and Appellant.

After the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5),1 appellant Jaime Mendez Amezcua pleaded guilty to two counts of driving under the influence (DUI) with a prior DUI felony conviction. (Veh. Code, §§ 23550.5, subd. (a)(1), 23152, subd. (a).) Appellant admitted one prior prison term (§ 667, subd. (b)) and one prior serious or violent felony conviction ("strike") within the meaning of California's "Three Strikes" law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) The trial court dismissed the strike and sentenced appellant to prison for five years, eight months. Appellant contests the validity of his conviction on only one of the two counts: count 1, committed in July 2011. He argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the results of a test of his blood. We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.

Facts At 2:15 a.m. on July 9, 2011, Officer Rolando Tejeda was dispatched to the scene of a vehicular collision. A Ford Mustang had struck a utility pole and chain link fence. The utility pole had fallen on the Mustang. Both front airbags had deployed. Two persons - Denise Lopez and appellant - were standing nearby. Lopez told Tejeda that she had been driving the vehicle. She said that appellant had stopped to help her and that she did not know him. Appellant told Officer Tejeda that Lopez was his girlfriend. He was a passenger in a friend's vehicle that had been following Lopez's Mustang. When the Mustang collided with the utility pole and fence, "his friend dropped him off and left the collision scene." Tejeda requested the name of the friend, but appellant did not reply. Officer Tejeda noticed that a Blackberry phone on the driver's side floorboard of the Mustang appeared to match an empty phone case that was strapped to appellant's belt. But the position of the driver's seat "was consistent with someone of a short stature," and appellant was about six feet tall. Appellant displayed symptoms of intoxication: an "odor of alcohol, red watery eyes, . . . unstead[iness] on his feet, and slurred speech." Officer Tejeda tried to conduct a field sobriety test, but appellant took "a combative stance" and refused to cooperate. Officer Tejeda concluded that appellant, not Lopez, was the driver of the Mustang and was under the influence of alcohol. Tejeda arrested appellant and advised him that he was required to submit to a chemical test of his blood or breath. Appellant "did not answer." The police communications center informed Officer Tejeda that appellant was on parole. Tejeda transported him to the Ventura County Medical Center. There, appellant refused to consent to a chemical test of his blood or breath. Four officers restrained appellant while a nurse drew blood from his arm. During the procedure,