People v. Spharler CA3

Filed 12/14/22 P. v. Spharler CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095867

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21CR-002430)

v.

BRANDON LYLE SPHARLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Brandon Lyle Spharler pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence; he also admitted a prior strike. The trial court sentenced him to 15 years in prison, including the 10-year upper term on the vehicular manslaughter conviction. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the upper term and refusing to strike the five-year enhancement under Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). We affirm.

1

BACKGROUND1 While driving his vehicle, defendant struck two pedestrians, killing one and seriously injuring another. Defendant remained at the scene until law enforcement officers arrived. Defendant appeared to be under the influence and could not complete a field sobriety test. The responding officer retrieved a text message from defendant’s phone which asked for an individual to bring defendant additional drugs before he was sent to jail. Defendant confirmed he recently used methamphetamine and heroin; the responding officer arrested him. Defendant pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a))2 and driving under the influence. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (f).) Defendant admitted a prior serious felony conviction and agreed to a lid of 15 years in state prison. The probation report identified numerous prior convictions in aggravation, and satisfactory prior performance on probation in mitigation. At sentencing, defendant argued for probation so he could return to a residential treatment program that would aid him in maintaining sobriety. Alternatively, if the court decided to impose a prison sentence, defendant argued the trial court should strike the prior serious felony enhancement and leave him with a 10-year prison term for the vehicular manslaughter count. Defendant specifically argued that he was remorseful and previously completed drug court, but he lacked access to residential treatment programs during COVID. The trial court asked whether defendant’s argument applied to sentencing as well and defendant answered affirmatively. After considering the arguments of both parties and reviewing the probation report, the court denied defendant’s requests.