People v. Randazzle CA5

Filed 11/6/15 P. v. Randazzle CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F068507 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF145781A) v.

CODY RAYMON RANDAZZLE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John S. Somers, Judge. Elisa A Brandes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Amanda D. Cary and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Cody Raymon Randazzle was found guilty of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a), count 1)1 and driving on a suspended license, a misdemeanor (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a), count 2). The jury also found true an enhancement allegation for the personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7), and the court found true allegations for a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c)-(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)), a prior conviction for a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)), and that appellant served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court dismissed one of the prior prison term enhancements and sentenced appellant to an aggregate term of 29 years in prison. Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the jury to continue deliberations after the jury informed the court it could not reach an agreement on the greater crime charged and needed further guidance to proceed. We disagree and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Prosecution’s Case On October 5, 2012, between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., appellant, Chris Brown, Lawrence Johnson, and Amber Henry, were at Brown’s mother’s home. The group played dominoes and began drinking brandy and beer. After a couple of hours, the group decided to drive to appellant’s home. Appellant had consumed between five and six shots of brandy and some beer. Appellant drove Henry’s vehicle, because Henry was too intoxicated to drive. Johnson sat in the front passenger’s seat, Brown was in the backseat on the passenger’s