People v. Bates CA3

Filed 8/28/20 P. v. Bates CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C090918

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18CR000335)

ANDREA LEE BATES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Andrea Lee Bates asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Based on our review of the record, we will modify the judgment to dismiss count one as contemplated by the parties’ plea agreement. Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment as modified.

1

I Defendant drove in the wrong lane towards oncoming interstate traffic in February 2018. She collided with another vehicle, injuring the other driver. After the accident she left her vehicle and went into a nearby vacant field where officers arrested her. The People charged defendant with driving under the influence causing injury within 10 years of another driving under the influence offense (Veh. Code, §§ 23153, subd. (f), 23560 -- count one), hit and run driving resulting in injury to another person (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(1) -- count two), and driving the wrong way on a divided highway causing injury (Veh. Code, § 21651, subd. (c) -- count three). The trial court declared a doubt as to her competency under Penal Code section 13681 and suspended criminal proceedings. After considering the evaluations of two psychiatrists, the trial court found defendant competent to stand trial and reinstated the proceedings. At the preliminary hearing in May 2018, the prosecutor dismissed count one and defendant was held to answer on counts two and three (which were renumbered in the subsequent information as counts one and two, respectively). The information further alleged that defendant inflicted great bodily injury on the victim. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court held a hearing regarding defendant’s eligibility for pretrial diversion under section 1001.36. In January 2019, the trial court found defendant met her prima facie burden for section 1001.36 diversion eligibility and scheduled a further hearing, but defendant withdrew her petition for diversion in May 2019. In September 2019, defendant made a Marsden motion2 to relieve her appointed counsel. After a closed hearing, the trial court denied the motion.