Opinion
A153462
09-28-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANNY LOCKETT, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. SCN 223109)
Danny Lockett appeals following his guilty plea to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, causing injury to another while driving a vehicle while intoxicated and failing to stop and report at the scene of an accident causing death. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We have reviewed the record and conclude there are no issues requiring further review. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Lockett was the driver of a car involved in a serious single vehicle accident on the evening of September 21, 2013. Lockett was injured. There were also two passengers in the car. One of them died as a result of the accident and the other had major injuries. There was evidence Lockett had a blood alcohol level of .18 percent that evening following the accident.
An information charged Lockett with one count of murder in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a); one count of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in violation of Penal Code section 191.5, subdivision (a) with a special allegation of a blood alcohol count of .15 percent and higher; driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury in violation of Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a) also with a special allegation of a blood alcohol count of .15 percent or higher; and driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or more and causing injury in violation of Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (b), also with a special allegation of a blood alcohol level of .15 percent or higher.
Lockett moved to suppress evidence derived from his hospital interview by a highway patrol officer and of his blood testing. He argued the hospital interview amounted to custodial interrogation without first informing him of his Miranda rights, and that his blood was drawn in the absence of a warrant or exigent circumstances. The court suppressed part of Lockett's conversation with highway patrol officers, but did not suppress the result of his blood test for alcohol. The court found that the blood test was consensual. Later, Lockett renewed these challenges in a motion filed pursuant to Penal Code section 995 to dismiss the information. He also argued in the motion that there was insufficient evidence of malice to try him for murder. The section 995 motion was denied.
Lockett then agreed to a negotiated disposition. He entered guilty pleas to one count of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in violation of Penal Code section 191.5 subdivision (a) with a special allegation of a blood alcohol count of .15 percent and higher and an additional allegation of multiple victims under Vehicle Code section 23558; one count of driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury in violation of Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a) also with a special allegation of a blood alcohol count of .15 percent or higher; and one count of failing to stop and report at the scene of an accident causing death in violation of Vehicle Code section 20001, subdivision (b)(2). The remaining allegations of the information including the counts of murder under Penal Code section 187, and driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or more and causing injury in violation of Vehicle Code, section 23153, subdivision (b), were dismissed.
The record reflects that Lockett's plea was knowing and voluntary. The disposition called for a nine-year prison sentence composed of the six-year mid-term for vehicular manslaughter, consecutive mid-term sentences of a year each for driving under the influence and the failure to stop and report, and a consecutive year for the multiple injury enhancement. Sentencing was deferred and Lockett was released on his own recognizance subject to certain conditions including his completion of a one year residential alcohol treatment program, his abstinence from alcohol and driving a motor vehicle, and that he not re-offend.
If Lockett was able to successfully complete the terms of his release, the court was to credit Lockett for his program participation and release him to parole at the time of sentencing. He did it.
On December 5, 2017, the court imposed the agreed upon nine-year sentence, credited Lockett with 3,300 days of actual and behavior credits, deemed the sentence served pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (a)(3), and released Lockett to parole. Fines and fees were imposed in lawful measure.
His appeal was timely.
DISCUSSION
Lockett's counsel advised him of her intention to file a Wende brief in this case, and of Lockett's right to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not done so. Lockett was also advised of his right to request that his counsel be relieved. Our review of the record reveals no issue that warrants further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Siggins, P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Pollak, J. /s/_________
Jenkins, J.
Miranda v. Arizona (1967) 384 U.S. 436.