Orange County DUI Attorney

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES P. SUBRAMANI, Defendant and Appellant
Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Four
October 31, 1985

The defendant drove his vehicle striking broadside a vehicle injuring the driver and the passenger. Driver suffered minor injuries but passenger sustained substantial injuries. Defendant was charged as follows on V counts, felony driving under the influence and causing injury to the driver (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)); felony driving under the influence and causing injury to the passenger (§ 23153, subd. (a)); felony driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more and causing injury to the driver (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)); felony driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more and causing injury to the passenger (§ 23153, subd. (b)) and misdemeanor driving with a suspended license. Prior to trial, defendant pleaded guilty to count V. Defendant was convicted of both felony and misdemeanor driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more based upon one collision in which two persons were injured. The defendant challenged the judgment.

Issues:

Whether the misdemeanor drunk driving counts must be vacated?
Whether the defendant is being properly charged with more than one count from a single act of drunk driving which caused injury to more than one person?

Discussion:

This court held that the defendant could be charged only with one count of felony drunk driving (i.e., with violations of subds. (a) and (b) of § 23153); the injuries of either or both of the victims could be used as proof of the charge. Here, however, the prosecutor charged separate felony counts for each victim; that was improper. Because the felony convictions involving injury to victim Blackwell (counts II and IV) were properly charged and are supported by substantial evidence, they can stand. The misdemeanor counts (counts I and III) involving Brown are mere surplusage and therefore must be stricken.

This court held that while such dual conviction is proper, dual punishment is prohibited by Penal Code section 654. (People v. Duarte, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at pp. 446-447.) The trial court correctly applied that principle by ordering that the execution of the sentence on one of the felonies (count IV) was to be stayed in accordance with Penal Code section 654.

Conclusion:

This court hence reversed the judgment against defendant only as to the misdemeanor convictions and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. Defendant was properly charged and convicted of felonies for both driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 percent or more.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Originally published here.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.