People v. Stutts CA2/6

Filed 10/15/21 P. v. Stutts CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B304557 (Super. Ct. No. 19CR10690) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

CODY ROSS STUTTS,

Defendant and Appellant.

In November 2019, Cody Ross Stutts ran a stop sign and failed to pull over when a sheriff’s deputy activated his overhead lights. Stutts speeded up, ran a second stop sign, and turned right, driving onto the curb. He accelerated to 60 to 70 miles per hour (mph) on a street with a speed limit of 40 mph. He passed a vehicle by crossing the double yellow lines into oncoming traffic. After the deputy activated his siren, Stutts turned left against a red light onto Highway 135. He drove at 85 mph in a posted 65 mph zone. He yielded to the deputy 1.6 miles after the pursuit began.

After the jury was sworn but before opening statements, the bailiff gave the court a note that Juror No. 3 had concerns about being a juror. After the court and counsel questioned the juror about her ability to understand English, the court declined to discharge her. The jury convicted Stutts of evading an officer by driving in the direction opposite traffic (count 1, Veh. Code, § 2800.4) and evading an officer with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property (count 2, Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)).1 Stutts waived jury trial on the allegation he had suffered a prior “strike” conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol with infliction of great bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a), Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). Following a court trial, the trial court found the “strike” allegation to be true (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (d)(1) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subds. (b)(1) & (c)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). The court sentenced Stutts to state prison for the upper term of three years for count 1, and doubled it based on the “strike” for a total of six years. The court stayed the sentence for count 2 pursuant to Penal Code section 654 and ordered the 90-day jail sentence for count 3 to run concurrently. We appointed counsel to represent Stutts in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief that raises no arguable issues. We advised Stutts that he