People v. Holyfield CA3

Filed 4/29/15 P. v. Holyfield CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C074672

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11F04348)

v.

JOSEPH HAYES HOLYFIELD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Joseph Hayes Holyfield plead guilty to presenting a false insurance claim (Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (a)(1); count one),1 presenting a false statement in support of an insurance claim (§ 550, subd. (b)(2); count two), hit and run (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a); count three), driving under the influence and causing great bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count four), and misdemeanor making a false report to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) (§ 148.5 subd. (a); count five). Defendant also admitted a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

three great bodily injury enhancements (Veh. Code, § 23558). The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of five years on count one, doubled, and a concurrent term of five years, doubled, on count two, and eight months, doubled for both counts three and four. In addition, the court imposed three four-month terms (one-third the midterm) on the three great bodily injury enhancements. Defendant appeals the concurrent sentences imposed on counts one and two, claiming the sentence violates the prohibition on multiple punishment in section 654. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Responding to a call, CHP officers arrived at the scene of a major collision involving three vehicles, a Kia, Volvo, and BMW. The drivers of the Kia and Volvo remained at the scene, but the BMW had been abandoned. Witnesses identified defendant as the driver of the BMW. The witnesses also told the officers that the BMW had run a red light and collided with the Kia, which then collided with the Volvo. Defendant walked away, looked around, and ran into a nearby tattoo parlor, which he owned. He was on his cell phone while he ran. Moments later he left the tattoo parlor and got into another car and was driven away by Manuel Francisco Sanchez, an employee of the tattoo parlor. Officer Welsh ran the license plate number of the BMW. Christina and Joseph Holyfield were the registered owners and lived at a nearby address. Welsh went to the address as other officers secured the scene. Christina Holyfield, defendant’s wife, answered the door and told Welsh she did not know where defendant was. She also told him the BMW had recently been stolen. Christina later reported the BMW stolen to the Citrus Heights Police Department. As a result of that report, three officers returned to Christina’s house. Officers asked Christina how she knew the car was stolen. Christina did not answer their questions; she just continued denying knowing where defendant was. Officers informed Christina she could be charged with a crime for filing a false report.