People v. Lyons CA2/2

Filed 11/8/22 P. v. Lyons CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B315379

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA092829) v.

ANDRE LYONS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Hayden A. Zacky, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon and Anna Rea, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

In an information filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, defendant and appellant Andre Lyons was charged with fleeing a pursuing peace officer while driving recklessly (Veh. Code, § 2800.2) and hit and run driving resulting in injury to another person (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(1)). A jury convicted him of both counts, and he was sentenced to two years eight months in state prison. Defendant appeals arguing that the trial court erred in denying his request for an instruction that voluntary intoxication can prevent a defendant from forming the specific intent to evade the police. We affirm. Because there was no evidence that defendant was intoxicated, much less that any intoxication affected his ability to form the requisite specific intent, we conclude that the trial court did not err. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On May 6, 2019, after receiving a report of a crime, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Officer Brent Lamoureux noticed defendant’s car at a stop sign. Officer Lamoureux activated his overhead lights and stopped the car because it matched the location and description in the report. Officer Lamoureux walked up to the driver’s side window and spoke to the driver (defendant). Defendant’s face looked like he had been in a fight. He had redness around his eyes and scratches, and he was not speaking coherently. Officer Lamoureux ordered defendant to stop and get out of his car. Defendant did not comply. He spoke with Officer Lamoureux for about 45 seconds. During this time, another patrol car approached without blocking defendant’s car. When ordered to get out of his car, defendant said that he was injured and innocent. Defendant asked the two officers if