From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Skipper

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division
Aug 9, 2023
No. B324362 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2023)

Opinion

B324362

08-09-2023

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAM SKIPPER, Defendant and Appellant.

Miriam K. Billington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Superior Court No. TA155632 Carol J. Najera, Judge.

Miriam K. Billington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

WILEY, J.

After reviewing this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm. Statutory citations are to the Vehicle Code.

An information charged Sam Skipper with one felony count of driving recklessly while fleeing a pursuing peace officer and one misdemeanor count of driving with a suspended license. The trial court dismissed a third count before trial.

At trial, Officer David Castro testified about an evening in August 2021 when he was on helicopter patrol. Castro was called to an intersection where pedestrians and cars congregated as part of a sideshow. He focused on a dark sedan in the middle of the intersection doing "donuts" (driving in circles) with smoke coming from its tires. Instead of using its headlights, the car had two sets of flashing red and blue lights-the kind police use, but civilians may not use. With the aid of the helicopter's spotlight, Castro watched the sedan speed down various streets and run a red light, still with its headlights off.

Uniformed highway patrol officers in a marked patrol car followed the sedan with their emergency lights flashing and sirens blaring. Officer Kyle Goe and his partner tried a traffic stop. But the sedan sped away at about 80 or 90 miles per hour, including through a residential area. The "blacked out" speeding car did not yield to oncoming traffic.

It eventually came to a stop after hitting a dip in the road. Two people got out on the passenger side: a female through the rear door and a male, later identified as Skipper, through the front door. No one else was in the car.

Goe determined Skipper was the driver: the car key fob was in Skipper's pocket, the car was Skipper's car-it had his name ("Skip") on all four sides-and the driver's seat was set back "for a tall person." Skipper is roughly six foot two inches tall; his female companion is almost a foot shorter.

Using personal identifying information Skipper supplied, Goe learned Skipper's license was suspended for driving with excessive blood alcohol.

Officer Kenny Martinez's testimony bolstered Goe's conclusion the sedan was Skipper's. Martinez testified about street racing and tied Skipper to the Instagram username ("Big_Skip23") that appeared on both sides of the sedan. "SKIP" also appeared on the personalized license plate.

The parties stipulated that, as of the date of the incident, Skipper's driver's license was suspended for an arrest for excessive blood alcohol and that he knew of the suspension.

Twenty-five minutes after retiring to deliberate, the jury reached a verdict, finding Skipper guilty of both counts.

On the first count-violating section 2800.2-the trial court placed Skipper on two years of formal probation and ordered him to pay fines and fees, to serve 60 days community labor, and to complete a street racing program and a hospital and morgue program.

On the other count-violating section 14601.5-the court placed Skipper on one year of summary probation and ordered him to pay various fines and fees.

Skipper appealed the court's order, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Appointed counsel examined the record and filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently under Wende. Counsel also advised Skipper of his right to file a supplemental brief for us to consider. Skipper did not file a response.

We have examined the entire appellate record. We are satisfied Skipper's counsel fully complied with counsel's responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)

DISPOSITION

The trial court's order is affirmed.

We concur: STRATTON, P. J. GRIMES, J.


Summaries of

People v. Skipper

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division
Aug 9, 2023
No. B324362 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2023)
Case details for

People v. Skipper

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAM SKIPPER, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

Date published: Aug 9, 2023

Citations

No. B324362 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2023)