Southern California DUI Lawyers

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES P. SUBRAMANI, Defendant and Appellant
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Four
October 31, 1985

The defendant drove his vehicle striking broadside a vehicle injuring the driver and the passenger. Driver suffered minor injuries but passenger sustained substantial injuries. Defendant was charged as follows on V counts, felony driving under the influence and causing injury to the driver (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)); felony driving under the influence and causing injury to the passenger (§ 23153, subd. (a)); felony driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more and causing injury to the driver (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)); felony driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more and causing injury to the passenger (§ 23153, subd. (b)) and misdemeanor driving with a suspended license. Prior to trial, defendant pleaded guilty to count V. Defendant was convicted of both felony and misdemeanor driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more based upon one collision in which two persons were injured. The defendant challenged the judgment.

Issues:

Whether the misdemeanor drunk driving counts must be vacated?
Whether the defendant is being properly charged with more than one count from a single act of drunk driving which caused injury to more than one person?

Discussion:

This court held that the defendant could be charged only with one count of felony drunk driving (i.e., with violations of subds. (a) and (b) of § 23153); the injuries of either or both of the victims could be used as proof of the charge. Here, however, the prosecutor charged separate felony counts for each victim; that was improper. Because the felony convictions involving injury to victim Blackwell (counts II and IV) were properly charged and are supported by substantial evidence, they can stand. The misdemeanor counts (counts I and III) involving Brown are mere surplusage and therefore must be stricken.

This court held that while such dual conviction is proper, dual punishment is prohibited by Penal Code section 654. (People v. Duarte, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at pp. 446-447.) The trial court correctly applied that principle by ordering that the execution of the sentence on one of the felonies (count IV) was to be stayed in accordance with Penal Code section 654.

Conclusion:

This court hence reversed the judgment against defendant only as to the misdemeanor convictions and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. Defendant was properly charged and convicted of felonies for both driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Originally published here.

California?s Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) law, one of the toughest in the country has been a great success, the California Office of Traffic Safety claims, and has contributed to a significant drop in the number of teens killed in car accidents in the state.

The objective of having the GDL laws is to introduce young drivers slowly to the correct ways of driving responsibly. The law which separates the process that a driver has to go through to be able to hold a full-fledged license into three levels, may have frustrated teen drivers itching to break free of parental controls, but it has definitely kept them a lot safer. The law requires teen drivers to pass through an initial first stage when they can only drive with a parent, after they have reached the age of 15 years and 6 months. This Learner?s Permit must be held for at least six months before they can graduate to a Provisional License which allows them to drive without parental supervision, but forbids them from having passengers below the age of 20 in their car, unless another driver who?s above 25 years of age, is present. A full license is given only when the individual reaches the age of 18, and if he or she has been able to complete the first and second levels of the process.

Now, according to a study conducted by the Auto Club of Southern California, the number of teen car accident fatalities in the state earlier stood at an average of 81.5 at-fault car accidents that caused fatalities and injuries in the age group of 16-year-olds, between the hours of 11 pm and midnight. This was before the GDL laws were passed in 2004 and 2005. In 2006 and 2007, these same numbers were down to 54.

The Office of Traffic Safety is funding a number of other such traffic safety programs aimed at teen drivers, including the ?Smart Start? teen driver safety classes, ?Real DUI trials? in high schools, a seatbelt challenge program to encourage more teens to buckle up (an area where there are still concerns) as well as other programs to boost traffic safety awareness.

It?s gratifying to see that these measures are taking effect, although much more needs to be done. Still, we can take pride in the fact that the state of California is on the forefront of enhancing safety standards, not just for teen drivers, but also adults. The authorities have been seeing a decrease in the number of car accident fatalities involving adults, and now they are noticing the same trend with teen accident deaths.

Originally published here.

A Sudden Silence