People v. Allan CA2/1

Filed 2/18/16 P. v. Allan CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B262611

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA088339) v.

EDWARD DANIEL ALLAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Steven R. Van Sicklen, Judge. Affirmed. Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Idan Ivri, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

Edward Allan pleaded no contest to one count of felony reckless driving causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23105, subd. (a)) and admitted personally inflicting great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)).1 He was sentenced to an aggregate term of six years in state prison, consisting of the high term of three years, plus an additional three years for the great bodily injury enhancement. Appellant appeals the sentence, contending the trial court abused its discretion by using the facts underlying the enhancement to impose the upper term for the offense, and then imposing an additional term for the enhancement, resulting in an improper dual use of facts. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On August 28, 2013, approximately 6:30 p.m., Maximiano Rocha was driving to work when he was struck from behind by a gray Toyota driven by appellant. Appellant fled the scene, driving approximately 60 miles per hour and running stop signs as Rocha followed. When the Toyota turned down a dead-end alley, Rocha noted its license number. Rocha saw the Toyota reverse to exit the alley. As the vehicle backed up, it struck a 10-year-old boy wearing a karate uniform who had just stepped out of the building. The impact pushed the child against the building, and a light broke off the Toyota. Appellant drove away without stopping or attempting to render aid. The child suffered a major laceration and an avulsion to his right leg, from the buttocks to the ankle. At the time of the preliminary hearing, the boy had undergone five surgeries, including major skin grafts, and was scheduled for six weeks of hospitalization. By the sentencing hearing, he had had eight surgeries, was continuing to experience pain and burning, and was having problems at school. Police interviewed appellant following his arrest on September 6, 2013. Appellant admitted he had been involved in two collisions on August 28, 2013, and had not stopped