People v. Garza CA5

California Court of Appeal May 4, 2016 No. F070203Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate the defendant's constitutional rights by denying a motion for a continuance to consult an accident reconstruction expert, as the defense failed to establish good cause or demonstrate prejudice.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the defendant's request for a trial continuance?
Did the denial of the continuance violate the defendant's federal constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court’s denial of a motion for continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”

“The party challenging a ruling on a continuance bears the burden of establishing an abuse of discretion, and an order denying a continuance is seldom successfully attacked.”

“we conclude that the trial court’s denial of Garza’s motion for a continuance was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Filed 5/4/16 P. v. Garza 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F070203 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRM031358) v.

RUBEN GARZA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Ronald W. Hanson, Judge. Anne V. Moore, 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, and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J.

A jury convicted appellant Ruben Garza of driving under the influence and causing bodily injury (count 1/Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a))1 and driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or greater and causing injury (count 2/§ 23153, subd. (b)). In a separate proceeding, Garza pled no contest to driving with a suspended license (§ 14601.1, subd. (a)). On August 28, 2014, the court placed Garza on felony probation for three years on the condition that he serve 260 days in custody with credit for time served. On appeal, Garza contends the court abused its discretion and violated his federal constitutional rights to due process and to a fair trial when it denied his request for a continuance. We affirm. FACTS The Prosecution Case On December 28, 2013, at approximately 5:40 p.m., Melissa Ochoa was driving her Dodge Intrepid east on Bellevue Road when she came to a four-way stop at the intersection of Bellevue Road and Highway 59 in Merced County. After stopping, Ochoa continued driving east and was struck by a Ford Explorer driven by Garza that was traveling north on Highway 59 and ran a stop sign at the intersection. Garza’s girlfriend, Diamond Angelo, was a passenger in the Explorer. California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Michael Flores responded to the scene at approximately 6:00 p.m. and found the Ford Explorer blocking the roadway. The Explorer had damage to the front end. The Intrepid had its right side window broken, the front windshield was crushed into the vehicle, and the right side of the car had been pushed about a half-foot into the car.

People v. Garza CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief