Opinion
G061941
09-25-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOUIE ROBERT VILLA, Defendant and Appellant.
Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. 20CF2106, Kimberly Menninger, Judge. Affirmed.
Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
GOETHALS, J.
In 2022, a jury found defendant Louie Robert Villa guilty of second degree murder (count 1: Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)); driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol with a prior DUI conviction, causing bodily injury (count 2: Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)); and driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more with a prior DUI conviction causing bodily injury (count 3: Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)). The jury also found true great bodily injury enhancements (GBI: Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)) and a prior DUI conviction related to counts 2 and 3. The trial court then sentenced Villa to 15 years to life on count 1; the court suspended two-year sentences on counts 2 and 3 pursuant to Penal Code section 654, as well as its three-year sentence on the GBI enhancement. Villa now appeals.
We appointed counsel to represent Villa on appeal. After conducting his analysis of potential appellate issues, counsel informed us in his declaration that he reviewed the appellate record and consulted with a staff attorney at Appellate Defenders, Inc., who also reviewed the record. Counsel then filed a brief pursuant to the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, suggesting that he was unable to find an issue to argue on Villa's behalf. While not arguing against his client, counsel set forth the facts of the case and asked this court to conduct its own independent review of the appellate record, which we have done. Counsel also advised Villa of his right to file a written argument on his own behalf; he has not done so. Like counsel, we have been unable to find any arguable appellate issue. We therefore affirm.
FACTS
On July 30, 2020, Villa was driving a silver BMW northbound on Bristol Street in Santa Ana at about 11:40 a.m. Near the intersection of 17th Street, he encountered a black Nissan Infiniti. When the red light at the intersection turned green, both vehicles accelerated. As they approached the intersection of Bristol Street and Santa Clara Avenue, a black Ford Ranger pickup truck traveling southbound on Bristol turned left to eastbound Santa Clara. The BMW struck the Ranger on its passenger side. The driver of the Ranger died as a result of injuries he suffered during the collision.
Villa was also injured. He was therefore transported to UCI Medical Center for treatment. Several blood samples were taken from him at the hospital. All were analyzed, either at UCI or the Orange County Crime Laboratory, to determine their blood alcohol content. Although the test results varied, all of the results indicated Villa's blood alcohol level significantly exceeded the legal limit at the time of the collision.
An investigator from the Santa Ana Police Department subsequently calculated that Villa's speed in the BMW averaged 84 to 88 miles per hour 15 seconds prior to the collision with the Ranger.
The parties stipulated at trial that Villa had pleaded guilty in 2012 to violating Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivisions (a) and (b). The plea form executed by Villa at the time he entered his guilty pleas informed him that "it is extremely dangerous to human life to drive while under the influence of alcohol, or drugs, or both. If I continue to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, and as a result of that driving someone is killed, I can be charged with murder." In August of 2012, following his conviction, Villa attended a class presented by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). At the end of such classes, attendees are informed that impaired driving which results in a death may result in the driver being charged with murder.
DISCUSSION
Although after reviewing this record appointed counsel declined to argue any specific issues on Villa's behalf, counsel has suggested in his briefing that this court, in conducting its independent review of the record, consider these issues: "A. Did counsel provide ineffective service by failing to object to exclusion of argument that the victim's act of turning left in front of oncoming traffic had caused the accident? [¶] B. Did counsel provide ineffective service by failing to argue that the jury should find reasonable doubt regarding implied malice when no evidence established that appellant had planned to drive prior to consuming alcohol? [¶] C. Did the court fail to instruct sua sponte with CALCRIM No. 375 that, as to count 1, the jury could consider appellant's prior DUI conviction for the limited purpose of evaluating appellant's knowledge that his driving posed a danger to human life? [¶] D. Did counsel provide ineffective service by failing to argue that the court had discretion to sentence appellant on count 2 or count 3, as opposed to count 1? [¶] E. Did the court abuse its discretion when it found that appellant's childhood trauma had not contributed to his commission of the offenses charged in counts 2 and 3?"
Generally, "an arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements. First, the issue must be one which, in counsel's professional opinion, is meritorious. That is not to say that the contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a reasonable potential for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment." (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d, 106, 109.)
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this case, and we have found no arguably meritorious issue either among those suggested by counsel or elsewhere. The record before us provides no evidence that counsel's performance fell below the standards required by Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 and its California progeny. We do not believe the court erred in failing to include CALCRIM No. 375 in its instruction package. Nor do we find any indication the trial court abused its discretion at sentencing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, P. J., DELANEY, J.