People v. Sundar CA3

Filed 2/4/21 P. v. Sundar CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090930

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR186605)

v.

RAJESH KUMAR SUNDAR III,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant, Rajesh Kumar Sundar III, has 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.) Our review of the record has disclosed certain errors associated with defendant’s probation order, including the fines and fees imposed, that we direct the trial court to correct; we otherwise affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 17, 2018, defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) causing injury; driving with a blood-alcohol content of .08 percent or more causing injury; driving with a suspended or revoked license; and operating a vehicle without an ignition interlock device. As to the DUI counts, it was alleged defendant had

1

a blood-alcohol content of .15 percent or more, proximately caused injury to more than one victim, and had a prior conviction in May 2017 for DUI. It was also alleged that defendant had a prior conviction in 2015 for driving with a suspended license. On September 23, 2019, defendant pled no contest to the misdemeanor counts of driving with a suspended or revoked license and driving without an ignition interlock device and admitted the enhancement to the driving on a suspended or revoked license. The remaining counts and enhancements, with the exception of defendant’s DUI prior conviction, were tried to a jury. The People presented the expert testimony of California Highway Patrol Officer Christophre Neilson that the car defendant was driving collided with the back of the victims’ van and that both vehicles were moving at the time of impact. It was his opinion the reported speeds of 80 miles per hour for defendant’s car and 55 to 60 miles per hour for the victims’ van were reasonable estimates of the speed at impact. Officer Neilson interviewed defendant at the hospital where he was being treated for a broken leg. Defendant said he was driving 80 miles per hour and had hit the victims’ van, which was stopped on the freeway with its lights off. Defendant stated he had been returning home from a friend’s where he admitted drinking three beers over a period of eight hours. Defendant smelled of alcohol, had red eyes, and slurred speech, so Officer Neilson administered a field-sobriety test that could be conducted, taking into consideration defendant’s injuries. The results suggested defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Officer Neilson also administered two preliminary alcohol screening tests, which showed blood-alcohol levels of .26 and .25 percent. Neilson arrested defendant and obtained a blood sample, which showed a blood- alcohol level between .224 and .246 percent. Criminalist Joseph John Palecek testified as an expert that someone with defendant’s blood-alcohol content would not be able to safely drive. California Highway Patrol Officer Mike Simpson spoke with the victims, who were on the side of the road embracing one another; one was shaking. Simpson took