People v. Mehta CA4/3
Filed 8/11/21 P. v. Mehta 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G058679
v. (Super. Ct. No. 18WF0972)
PRATITI RENEE MEHTA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Julian W. Bailey, Judge. Affirmed. Coimbra Law Firm and Joseph L. Coimbra for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Ksenia D. Gracheva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *
Defendant Pratiti Renee Mehta hit a bicyclist with her Mercedes, causing him to sustain major injuries. She did not stop, attempt to assist him, or call for help; instead, she drove to work and went about her day. That afternoon, after learning the police had photographs of her car, she called the police and claimed she had seen a different car hit the victim. A jury convicted her of a hit-and-run, providing false information to a peace officer, and unsafe operation of a motor vehicle. Mehta claims her hit-and-run conviction fails for lack of sufficient evidence that she knew she hit the victim; she further asserts the trial court judge was biased against her. We reject these contentions for the reasons discussed below and affirm the judgment.
FACTS The accident in question occurred on the morning of March 20, 2018. Mehta, a 33-year-old graduate of the Paul Merage School of Business at the University of California Irvine (UCI), was working as a customer relationship manager at a healthcare company in Irvine. She had a meeting that morning at 9:00 with the company’s key stakeholders to discuss a major project she was managing. Mehta was driving to work in her 2016 Mercedes SLK 300 at about 8:00 a.m.; she was northbound on Santa Ana Avenue in Costa Mesa listening to “pretty loud” music. Mehta noticed a bicyclist passing on her right, traveling in the same direction. She then approached the intersection at Bristol Street, where she planned to turn right, and said she assumed the bicyclist was also about to turn right as she was making her turn. As she turned right onto Bristol, the right rear panel of her car hit the bicyclist, who flew off his bike and tumbled to the ground. The bicyclist suffered a compound fracture to his leg which required surgery. Two witnesses heard the crash and the victim’s screams.
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)