Opinion
E075535
04-21-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARTHUR ARMANDO ALVAREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1803144) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Samuel Diaz, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
A jury found defendant and appellant Arthur Armando Alvarez guilty of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), count 1), evading a police officer and driving in willful and wanton disregard to the safety of others (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, count 2), being the driver of an automobile involved in an accident resulting in injury or death and failing to stop at the scene (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a), count 3), unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle with a prior conviction of vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 666.5, subd. (a), count 4), receipt of a stolen vehicle with a prior conviction of vehicle theft (Pen. Code, §§ 496d, subd. (a), 666.5, subd. (a), count 5), driving under the influence (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (f), counts 6-8), and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a), count 9). The jury also found true the allegation the accident in count 3 resulted in death. (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(2).) On the court's own motion, it bifurcated the proceedings as to the allegations of a prior conviction of vehicle theft on counts 4 and 5. Defendant waived a court trial and admitted the priors. The court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life on count 1, plus a total determinate term of three years four months on the other counts.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On the morning of July 7, 2018, a police officer was dispatched to a fast-food restaurant after someone reported seeing a person trying to steal a gray Toyota truck, with a lot of tires in the bed. The officer spotted the truck and attempted a traffic stop. The truck did not stop at a stop sign, so she initiated a pursuit with lights and sirens. She observed the truck go through a red light and get on the 91 freeway. Her dash camera recorded the events, and the video was played for the jury at trial. The video showed the truck driving over 100 miles an hour, driving on the shoulder of the freeway, weaving through traffic, and cutting off other cars. After about seven minutes, the truck got off the freeway and continued driving. The officer could not keep up with the truck and decided to cancel the pursuit for the safety of the public. She was subsequently notified about a collision near the 91 freeway.
Scott L. testified at trial that he was driving on the 91 freeway when he observed a gray Toyota pickup truck, with a bed full of tires, driving at a high rate of speed. He saw the truck zigzagging back and forth from the slow lane to the carpool lane. He made eye contact with the driver of the truck, who passed him going about 100 miles an hour. Scott L. made a lane change to get off the freeway and saw the truck veer from the carpool lane all the way over to the off-ramp, in front of him. As he got off the freeway, Scott L. saw the truck go through a red light at the intersection and T-bone a gold Ford Taurus. After the truck hit the car, it flipped on its passenger side and went up an embankment.
Scott L. stopped his car, ran over to the Ford Taurus, and removed two children and a man from the car. He looked over and saw the truck was on fire. He saw a man in a red shirt climb out of the driver's side window, come around the front of the truck, and try to pull out another man, who was pinned underneath it. The man was unsuccessful and screamed, "No, no, no," and took off running. Scott L. went to the truck to attempt to get the man out, but the man was already dead. Scott L. identified defendant in the courtroom as a person who looked similar to the driver of the truck.
Steve G. was a passenger in a car driving on Central Avenue. He noticed a truck upside down and on fire. He jumped out of the car, ran up to the truck, and saw someone trying to pull the body out of the truck. The person pulling the body out of the truck was pointing up the freeway ramp and yelling that "some guy" was running. Steve G. saw a man "full of blood" running up toward the freeway, so he took off after him. He chased the man to a fence, and when the man tried to jump over the fence, he grabbed him. Steve G. asked the man what happened. The man said the police were chasing him and said, "I ran through the light and hit somebody, and I know I killed somebody."
At trial, a forensic toxicologist who analyzed a blood sample taken from defendant testified that he tested positive for methamphetamines.
The court allowed evidence of defendant's prior conviction of evading a police officer to be admitted at trial pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b), to show his knowledge of the risk of evading police officers and to show the implied malice required for a conviction of second degree murder. The parties stipulated that on October 28, 2009, defendant was convicted of evading a police officer in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2, subdivision (a), and was ordered to serve 120 days in jail, pay fees and fines, and was placed on three years of supervised probation.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and identifying three potential arguable issues: (1) should the trial court have instructed the jury on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense; (2) did the court err when it admitted evidence of defendant's prior felony evading conviction over defense objection; and (3) did the court err in modifying CALCRIM No. 1820. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. McKINSTER
J.