People v. Jones CA4/1

Filed 8/17/22 P. v. Jones CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D079192

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE398802)

MICHAEL EUGENE JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Patricia K. Cookson, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Justin Andrew Behravesh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Melissa Mandel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Michael Eugene Jones appeals his conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)), driving with a measurable blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more causing

injury (id., § 23153, subd. (b)), and driving with a suspended license (id., § 14601.1, subd. (a)). Jones argues (1) the trial court erred in finding he was not subject to custodial interrogation under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda) when he made incriminating statements about his alcohol consumption during a DUI evaluation; and (2) any portion of the criminal justice administration fee the trial court imposed that was unpaid as of July 1, 2021, should be vacated. We agree with the parties that any portion of the criminal justice administration fee that remained unpaid as of July 1, 2021, should be vacated. As for Jones’s statements, we conclude it is unnecessary to determine whether there was a Miranda violation because any error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore affirm the judgment as modified. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY A. The Collision On the evening of December 22, 2019, Jones was driving on a highway in El Cajon and struck the back of G.S.’s car, causing it to run into a cement divider. According to witness testimony, shortly before the collision, Jones was driving over 100 miles per hour and weaving in and out of traffic. At one point, Jones also leaned his torso out of the driver’s side window and looked backward. After the crash, G.S. exited his car on the left shoulder and crossed the highway because he feared his vehicle might be on fire. Jones also stopped on the shoulder and began taking items out of his car and crossing the multi- lane highway. When California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Luke Murillo responded to the collision, he approached Jones on the highway’s left shoulder and asked him for identification. Officer Murillo also observed that