People v. Ingram CA4/1

Filed 9/18/23 P. v. Ingram CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D081166

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD282331)

LATISHA CHERMIE INGRAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter C. Deddeh, Judge. Reversed in part and remanded with directions. Randall Conner, 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, Robin Urbanski, Laura G. Baggett, and Namita Patel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Latisha Chermie Ingram of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1); gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen.

Code, § 191.5, subd. (a); count 2); driving while under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 3); driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 4); and hit and run with death or permanent injury (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(2); count 5). The jury also found true various enhancements as to counts 2, 3, and 4. The trial court sentenced Ingram to prison for 15 years to life on count 1 and stayed the sentences for the remaining counts. On appeal, Ingram contends that counts 3 and 4 are lesser necessarily included offenses of count 2 that must be reversed. She also contends her counsel provided prejudicially ineffective assistance by failing to raise that argument at trial. Respondent agrees that counts 3 and 4 are lesser included offenses of count 2 and asks that we remand for the trial court to dismiss those counts. We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to the California Standards for the Appellate Courts, section 8.1. Penal Code section 954 permits an accusatory pleading to charge different statements of the same offense. Penal Code section 654, however, prohibits multiple punishments for more than one conviction for the same criminal act. Thus, a conviction of a greater offense and one or more lesser included offenses cannot stand simultaneously. (Rutledge v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 292, 307.) A crime is a lesser included offense of a greater offense if one cannot commit the greater offense without also necessarily committing the lesser offense. (People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 288.) Here, the parties concur that gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (count 2) necessarily includes the offenses of driving under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury (count 3) and driving with a blood