Opinion
A147466
09-21-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD DAVID WATTS, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR1503915)
Appellant Donald David Watts (appellant) appeals from a judgment sentencing him to seven years in state prison based on his guilty plea to vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (b)) and his admission that he left the scene of the crime (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (c)).
All further statutory references will be to the Vehicle Code, unless otherwise indicated.
Appellant's counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised, and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel declared that appellant was notified that no issues were being raised by counsel on appeal, and that an independent review under Wende was being requested instead. Appellant also was advised of his right personally to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he chooses to bring to this court's attention. No supplemental brief was filed by appellant personally.
PROCEDURAL AND MATERIAL FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF CASE
The facts are taken from the preliminary hearing transcript from case No. CR1502632.
At 7:45 p.m. on June 8, 2015, Daniel Pudlicki and his girlfriend, Tuesday Thornton, were crossing Samoa Boulevard in Arcata to watch the sunset. As they were about to cross, Thornton saw appellant's truck a substantial distance away traveling at a high rate of speed, which she estimated at 50 miles per hour in a 35 mile-per-hour zone. Pudlicki was halfway across the street in the pedestrian crosswalk when appellant, driving his Toyota pickup truck, struck Pudlicki on the left side. Pudlicki's head struck the hood of the truck and then the pavement when he landed on the roadway. Pudlicki suffered a severe head wound. He was taken to a hospital, where he went into a coma.
After he struck Pudlicki, appellant stopped the truck, looked back at Pudlicki on the ground, and then continued driving. Appellant drove around the block, returning to the intersection of the collision, looked at Pudlicki, and then sped away. Amanda Forestier and her boyfriend, Aaron Lieberman, were pumping gas at a gas station near the intersection. They looked up after the accident, saw appellant drive away, and took a cell phone video of appellant and his truck when he circled the block and returned. Officers responding to the scene issued a "be-on-the-look-out" for appellant's truck.
A California Highway Patrol officer stopped appellant minutes later as he drove out of Arcata. Appellant's truck had damage consistent with having struck a pedestrian. Officer Falkenstine contacted appellant as the driver and observed objective symptoms of intoxication. He conducted field sobriety tests, including a preliminary alcohol screening test—which registered a 0.14 percent blood alcohol content approximately one hour after the collision—and arrested appellant for driving under the influence of alcohol. Forestier and Lieberman were brought to appellant's location, where they identified appellant and his truck as the driver and truck that struck Pudlicki.
Appellant was taken to a local hospital for a blood draw. Appellant refused consent to have his blood drawn, so the officers obtained a search warrant. Appellant's blood was drawn approximately four hours after the collision. When tested, it reflected a blood alcohol level of 0.09 percent.
On July 2, 2015, Pudlicki died from the traumatic brain injury he sustained when he was struck by appellant's truck.
B. Procedural Background
On June 11, 2015 (before Pudlicki passed away), the Humboldt County District Attorney filed a complaint in case No. CR1502632, charging appellant with driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury, driving with a 0.08 percent blood alcohol content causing injury, and hit and run driving resulting in death or serious bodily injury to another person in violation of sections 23153, subdivisions (a) and (b), and 20001, subdivision (b)(2), respectively. After a preliminary hearing, appellant was held to answer on the first two counts as charged and on the lesser offense to count three of leaving the scene of an accident in violation of section 20001, subdivision (a). The district attorney filed a second amended information in this docket charging appellant with these three crimes. As to the first two counts, the information alleged that appellant refused a chemical test within the meaning of sections 23577, 23578, and 23538, subdivision (b)(2).
After Pudlicki passed away, the district attorney on August 25, 2015, filed a second complaint (case No. CR1503915) charging appellant with vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence, in violation of Penal Code section 191.5, subdivision (b), and alleging that appellant fled the scene of the crime in violation of section 20001, subdivision (c). Appellant waived preliminary hearing on this second complaint. The two dockets were consolidated for trial.
On December 9, 2015, the district attorney filed a consolidated information charging appellant with vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (b)) (count 1); driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage causing injury (§ 23153, subd. (a)) (count 2); driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent causing injury (§23153, subd. (b)) (count 3); and leaving the scene of an accident (§ 20001, subd. (a)) (count 4). As to count 1, the information alleged that appellant fled the scene of the crime (§ 20001, subd. (c)). As to counts 2 and 3, the information alleged that appellant refused a chemical test (§§ 23577, 23578 & 23538, subd. (b)(2)) and that appellant, in committing each offense, personally inflicted great bodily injury upon Pudlicki (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)).
On December 17, 2015, appellant, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, pled guilty to count 1 of the consolidated information, vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (b)), and admitted that he fled the scene of the crime (§ 20001, subd. (c)). The terms of the plea agreement included a sentencing cap on count 1; that is, appellant could be sentenced on count 1 to no more than the midterm of two years in custody. The enhancement carried a mandatory consecutive term of five years in state prison. The case was referred to the probation officer for preparation of a presentence report.
In his statement in mitigation, appellant requested that he be placed on probation. His request was accompanied by dozens of letters describing appellant's positive attributes. The People requested a sentence of seven years in state prison. The probation officer recommended that probation be denied and that appellant be sentenced to seven years in state prison. Attached to the presentence report were over 45 letters and emails describing the devastating loss suffered by the victim's family members and friends and urging the court to impose the maximum term.
Appellant was sentenced on January 15, 2016. The trial court —after stating it had read the presentence report, appellant's statement in mitigation, and all of the letters submitted both by the victim's loved ones and on behalf of appellant— announced its tentative sentence. The court stated it was inclined to follow the recommendation of the probation officer and deny probation, giving detailed reasons based on the Rules of Court governing such decisions. The court then articulated its reasons for imposing the midterm sentence on count 1, plus the mandated consecutive term on the enhancement, for a total sentence of seven years in state prison as authorized by the plea agreement. Having announced its tentative sentencing decision, the court heard from all parties. The People urged the court to carry out its tentative sentence. A victim witness advocate read a letter from Jeffrey Pudlicki, the victim's father. Sandy Pudlicki, the victim's mother, read her own letter and letters from Tuesday Thornton, the victim's girlfriend, and Aaron Pudlicki, the younger brother. Counsel for appellant spoke on his behalf and read a letter from appellant expressing remorse for his conduct. The court then made its final comments and imposed the indicated sentence of seven years in state prison. The court gave appellant credit for 221 actual days, plus 220 conduct credits, for a total of 441 days of presentence custody credits. The trial court also imposed a restitution fine of $2,100, a suspended parole revocation fine of $2,100, a $30 criminal conviction assessment, and a $40 court operation assessment. The court ordered appellant to pay $863 restitution to Sandy Pudlicki and $992.50 to Jeffrey Pudlicki and reserved jurisdiction over any future restitution claims.
On February 8, 2016, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal limited to the sentence and any other matters occurring after the plea.
CONCLUSION BASED ON INDEPENDENT RECORD REVIEW
Upon our independent review of the record, we conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued, or that require further briefing on appeal.
We also discern no error in the plea disposition or in sentencing. The sentence appellant received, and the restitution fines, penalties, and other terms imposed, were consistent with the negotiated plea agreement and supported by the law and the facts. Appellant was at all times effectively represented by counsel.
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Kennedy, J. We concur: /s/_________
Ruvolo, P. J. /s/_________
Streeter, J.
Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------