People v. Rodela CA4/3
Filed 6/28/16 P. v. Rodela CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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). The opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G050734
v. (Super. Ct. No. 13WF0674)
NAHIN ROSALES RODELA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lance Jensen, Judge. Affirmed. Daniel R. McCarthy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, Kristen Chenelia and Parag Agrawal, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *
A jury convicted Nahin Rosales Rodela of driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher. (Veh. Code, § 23152, subds. (a) & (b); all statutory citations are to the Vehicle Code unless noted.) Rodela contends the prosecutor engaged in improper argument by referring to permissive statutory inferences (§§ 23152, subd. (b), 23610) as presumptions. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm.
I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 16, 2013, shortly before 9:00 p.m., Huntington Beach Police Officer Mark Van Meter spotted a vehicle traveling in the dark with its head and tailights off. The car, driven by Rodela, weaved and drifted within its lane. Van Meter turned on his emergency lights. Rodela pulled into a gas station and Van Meter advised Rodela why he stopped him. Rodela responded he did not know his lights were off. A strong alcoholic odor came from the vehicle, and Rodela had bloodshot, watery eyes. Van Meter ordered Rodela out of the car and directed him to sit on the curb. The officer smelled alcohol on Rodela’s breath and watched him stagger towards the curb. Rodela explained he had suffered a recent back injury and had trouble standing. Rodela stated he had come from Seal Beach, approximately 10 miles away. The primary route included poorly lit areas where a driver would typically know if he were driving without headlights. Rodela admitted consuming two glasses of wine earlier in the day but felt “100 percent” at the time of the stop. But his speech was slurred and he believed the current time was between 11:30 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. although the actual time was 9:03 p.m.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)