People v. Lara CA5

Filed 3/25/16 P. v. Lara 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F070165 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF148788A) v.

ALFREDO GUERRERO LARA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Lorna H. Brumfield, Judge. Sara E. Coppin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Bernstein, Kathleen A. McKenna and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Smith, J.

Appellant Alfredo Guerrero Lara appeals his convictions on four counts of driving under the influence with prior offenses (Veh. Code, §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23550/count 1; §§ 23152, subd. (b), 23550/count 2; §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23550.5/count 3; and §§ 23152, subd. (b), 23550.5/count 4). Appellant claims his convictions should be reversed due to an alleged violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. Appellant also challenges the imposition of both the upper term of three years on count 4 and a mandatory one-year prior prison term enhancement, asserting that the trial court improperly relied on the same facts to justify both. (Pen. Code, § 667.5.) For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND While on patrol on the morning of June 2, 2013, California Highway Patrol Officer Scott Evans noticed a gray Honda Accord with blue headlights. Recognizing the blue headlights were a mechanical violation, Officer Evans stopped the vehicle. Appellant was the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle. When appellant rolled down his window, Officer Evans noticed a very strong odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle. Appellant had red and watery eyes, and his speech was thick and slurred. Officer Evans asked appellant if he had been drinking. At first appellant said he had a couple of beers, but later clarified that he had consumed four Budweiser beers. Officer Evans then conducted multiple field sobriety tests, including the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the modified Romberg balance test, the one-leg stand, the hand pat test, and the finger count test. Based on Officer Evans’s observations of the testing, he concluded appellant was “definitely showing signs of impairment.” Appellant was arrested and elected to submit a blood sample for testing. The results of that testing showed appellant’s blood-alcohol content to be 0.15 percent. Appellant was tried and convicted on four counts of driving under the influence. He was sentenced to four years on count 4; the upper term of three years on the