People v. McDaniel CA3

Filed 8/8/16 P. v. McDaniel CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C080729

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. P15CRF0077)

v.

RANDALL SCOTT MCDANIEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Randall Scott McDaniel guilty of willfully evading an officer and possessing methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. On appeal, he contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Romero1 motion to strike his prior strike. We disagree.

1 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.

1

BACKGROUND A highway patrol officer spotted defendant driving, along with a passenger, in a stolen Subaru Forester.2 The officer called for backup, and when it arrived, the officers attempted a traffic stop. Defendant saw the highway patrol’s flashing lights and accelerated. His passenger asked him to pull over so she could get out, but defendant did not stop. Defendant took the freeway exit and slowed to about 40 miles per hour. He then abruptly accelerated, ran a stop sign, and got back on the freeway. There, he drove at over 100 miles per hour, driving in an “[e]xtremely unsafe” manner “with no regard for [the] safety of anybody else on the road.” The officers finally stopped defendant by using a spike strip. Once apprehended, defendant said he had fled because he had a warrant and did not have a license. Inside the Subaru, the officers found methamphetamine, a spoon, and two syringes. A jury found defendant guilty of willfully evading an officer, possessing a controlled substance, and possessing drug paraphernalia. But the jury acquitted him of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle. The court found defendant had a prior strike for robbery in 1998 and had served four prior prison terms. At sentencing, defendant moved to strike his prior strike. (Pen. Code, § 1385, subd (a); People v. Superior Court (Romero), supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 497.) He argued it was remote, having occurred 17 years ago. He had expressed remorse to the probation officer. He had five children and two grandchildren, motivating him to change his behavior. He could still, absent the strike, receive a substantial sentence of seven years. And he had been acquitted of the auto theft charge.