People v. Hernandez CA2/6

Filed 1/26/21 P. v. Hernandez CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B301559 (Super. Ct. No. 1501098) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

FLORINDA CAMARILLO HERNANDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Florinda Camarillo Hernandez caused a head-on collision while driving intoxicated. Appellant and the two occupants of the other car were seriously injured and had to be hospitalized. Appellant’s two-year-old daughter, who was in the backseat, suffered a shoulder laceration. Appellant’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was .18 percent. She did not remember the collision. Appellant was charged with felony driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a);

count 1); driving with a .08 percent BAC causing injury (id., subd. (b); count 2) and child abuse (Pen. Code, § 273A, subd. (a);1 count 3). As to counts 1 and 2, it was alleged that appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury (GBI) on two victims (§ 12022.7, subd. (a); Veh. Code, § 23558), and that the offenses were violent felonies (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(8)). Count 2 further alleged appellant had a BAC of .15 percent or higher (Veh. Code, § 23578). Appellant pled no contest to the charges and admitted the special allegations. She was sentenced to five years’ probation and ordered to serve 365 days in county jail. Nearly three years later, on August 25, 2018, appellant was again arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Because she had violated her probation terms, the trial court ordered a 90-day evaluation by a prison diagnostic facility pursuant to section 1203.03. Based on that evaluation, the warden recommended a prison sentence, finding appellant “does present an unreasonable burden and or threat to the safety of the community.” The court subsequently revoked probation and sentenced appellant to seven years, four months in state prison, consisting of the lower term of 16 months on count 1, plus three years for each of the two GBI enhancements. The sentence on count 2 was stayed and the sentence on count 3 was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence on count 1. Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her probation and imposing a prison sentence. She also claims the court erred by not striking one of the GBI enhancements. We affirm.