Opinion
A131805
01-24-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARIA R. LOPEZ-NUNEZ, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR583967)
Defendant Maria Lopez-Nunez appeals from a judgment and sentence following her no contest plea to a misdemeanor count and conviction by jury on a felony count. Defendant's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that we conduct an independent review of the record. Defendant was informed of her right to file a supplemental brief and did not file such a brief. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) We have conducted the review requested by appellate counsel and, finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.
Factual and Procedural History
Defendant was charged in an amended information with one felony count of leaving the scene of a fatal accident (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)) and one misdemeanor count of vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence (§ 192, subd. (c)(2).)
All statutory references are to the Vehicle Code unless otherwise noted.
Defendant pled no contest to the misdemeanor manslaughter count prior to trial. The following evidence was presented at trial:
Just prior to the accident, the victim was stopped at a red light facing the eastbound direction. Defendant was stopped across the intersection, facing westbound. When the light turned green, defendant made a left turn in front of the victim, who crashed his motorcycle into the passenger side of defendant's vehicle. The motorcycle was thrown into the air and the victim was thrown onto the ground. Three witnesses, who observed the accident, testified that after the collision the vehicle drove away from the intersection. The motorcyclist died as a result of the collision.
A detective testified that left-hand turns were permitted at the intersection only when a green arrow traffic signal was illuminated. The witness, who was also stopped at the red light in the westbound direction, testified that the traffic signal turned green only and no left-turn arrow was illuminated.
After the police arrived, a driver of another vehicle approached an officer and stated that she had followed the vehicle and knew where it had gone. The officer followed that witness to a motor home park approximately one-half to three-quarters of a mile away. Based on the witness's identification, the officer detained defendant's vehicle. As the officer approached the driver's side of the vehicle, he noticed that both the driver, whom he identified as defendant, and a passenger, had shattered glass all over them. He also noticed that the male front passenger was bleeding from his right ear and had blood on his clothing. The officer also noticed that the right side of the vehicle had been crushed as a result of an apparent collision.
Defendant admitted to the officer that she had just been involved in a accident and claimed she left the scene because she was frightened. When interviewed again a short time later, defendant explained that she believed that the green light permitted her to make the left-hand turn and she did not stop because her passenger had been injured and she wanted to get him help for his injuries.
Defendant testified on her own behalf, reiterating her belief that she believed the green light permitted her to turn left. As she made the turn, the motorcycle approached her from her right side at a high rate of speed, then she heard and felt the impact. As she looked at her passenger, she noticed that he was covered in blood, appeared unconscious and was making a moaning noise. She testified that although she initially stopped her vehicle briefly, all she could think of was the need to obtain help for her passenger.
The jury found defendant guilty of the felony hit and run count. The court placed defendant on probation on the condition that she serve 365 days in the county jail, 90 days of which were suspended, and other terms and conditions, including the term that she complete 200 hours of volunteer work. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Discussion
Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause with respect to her no contest plea to the misdemeanor charge. Thus, any challenge to the validity of her plea is not cognizable on appeal. (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1088.)
The jury was properly instructed pursuant to CALCRIM No. 2140 that "To prove that the defendant is guilty . . . , the People must prove that: [¶] 1. While driving, the defendant was involved in a vehicle accident; [¶] 2. The accident caused the death of someone else; [¶] 3. The defendant knew that she had been involved in an accident that injured another person or knew from the nature of the accident that it was probable that another person had been injured; [¶] AND [¶] 4. The defendant willfully failed to perform one or more of the following duties: [¶] (a) To stop immediately at the scene of the accident; [¶] (b) To provide reasonable assistance to any person injured in the accident; [¶] (c) To give to the driver or occupants of any vehicle collided with or any peace officer at the scene of the accident all of the following information: [¶] • The defendant's name and current residence address; [¶] • The registration number of the vehicle she was driving; [¶] AND [¶] • The names and current residence addresses of any occupants of the defendant's vehicle who were injured in the accident. [¶] (d) When requested, to show her driver's license to the driver or occupants of any vehicle collided with or any peace officer at the scene of the accident." Substantial evidence supports defendant's conviction on the felony count.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant. Defendant was represented by competent counsel throughout the proceedings.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
____________
Pollak, J.
We concur:
____________
McGuiness, P. J.
____________
Jenkins, J.