People v. Bergstrom CA3

Filed 1/31/23 P. v. Bergstrom CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094353

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20F929)

v.

HAWK BLAZE BERGSTROM,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Hawk Blaze Bergstrom was driving under the influence of alcohol when he collided with the victim’s car and killed her. A jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder. The trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to 15 years to life in state prison. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to consider his service- related alcoholism as a factor in favor of granting probation. Recognizing this issue was

1

not raised at sentencing, defendant alternatively contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude the trial court’s obligations to consider defendant’s military service were not triggered, and reject defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The judgment is affirmed. I. BACKGROUND Defendant drove under the influence of alcohol, veered into the oncoming lane of traffic, and collided head-on with the victim’s car. The victim died due to her injuries. A jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).)1 The probation report noted defendant joined the United States Navy in 1995 and was honorably discharged in 1999. According to the report, defendant was a “ ‘functional alcoholic’ beginning when he was in the U.S. Navy.” Although defendant’s drinking problem worsened after his father’s passing in 2018, he denied it impacted his life until the instant case. The probation report also listed two prior convictions of defendant: misdemeanor petty theft (§ 488) in 1999; and misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI) (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) in 2015. Defendant was granted probation in his DUI conviction. Defense counsel submitted letters from defendant’s friends and family requesting leniency. These letters referred to defendant’s service and his alcoholism, and several echoed that defendant’s drinking worsened following his father’s passing. However, none attributed defendant’s alcoholism to his time in the Navy. At sentencing, the trial court commented the case was “straightforward,” and the sentence was “predictable” based on the totality of the circumstances. Although the trial court concluded defendant was statutorily ineligible for probation, it agreed with the