People v. Coronado CA2/8 ( 2023 )

Filed 6/5/23 P. v. Coronado CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 8.111 5(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, B322761
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. MA080616-01
v.
MERARY JOSEFINA
CORONADO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Robert G. Chu, Judge. Affirmed.
Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
——————————
We review this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.
On June 30, 2022, the People filed an amended information
against appellant. Count 1 charged driving under the influence
of an alcoholic beverage causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153,
subd. (a)). Count 2 charged driving with a .08 percent blood
alcohol content causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)). As
to both counts it was alleged appellant personally inflicted great
bodily injury upon Shauri H. within the meaning of Penal Code
section 12022.7, subdivision (a). It was further alleged as to both
counts that the offenses involved great violence, great bodily
harm, threat of great bodily harm, and other acts disclosing a
high degree of cruelty, viciousness, and callousness, within the
meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1); appellant
engaged in violent conduct that indicated a serious danger to
society (id., (b)(1)); and appellant suffered prior convictions as an
adult that are of increasing seriousness (id., (b)(2)).
On June 30, 2022, the trial court bifurcated the
aggravating factors from the two counts. On July 8, 2022, the
jury found appellant guilty on both counts and found both great
bodily injury allegations true. That same day, appellant waived
her right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors and admitted
an aggravating factor pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule
4.421(b)(2). The People dismissed the remaining allegations.
On July 25, 2022, the court sentenced appellant to a total
term of five years in state prison. This sentence included a
midterm sentence of two years on count 1 plus three years for the
great bodily injury enhancement. The court imposed the same
sentence on count 2 and stayed the sentence pursuant to Penal
Code section 654. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
2
We appointed counsel to represent appellant. After
examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no
issues and asking this court to review the record independently,
citing People v. Wende. On March 14, 2023, we advised
appellant, pursuant to People v. Wende, that she had 30 days
within which to personally submit any contentions or issues she
wished us to consider. Appellant did not file a supplemental
brief.
The evidence at trial established that on the evening of
November 3, 2020, appellant placed several calls to the Kern
County Sheriff’s Department. In response to the first call, five
deputies responded to an apartment complex in Rosamond at
around 11:30 p.m. Appellant was standing on a staircase outside
the apartment building when the deputies arrived. Her speech
was severely slurred. One of the deputies overheard appellant
say she was going to wait in her car for a family member to pick
her up. He heard another deputy tell her that if she drove the
car, she would be arrested. The deputies left the scene as a group
as no crime had occurred.
A short time later appellant called 911 and said she was
going to the Rosamond sheriff’s station with video evidence of a
battery that had occurred. The station was unmanned so
deputies were dispatched to the location. When they arrived, no
one could locate appellant. The deputies tried to call her without
success, so they decided to return to the apartment complex to
find her. She was not there. The third call from appellant asked
for a welfare check, so deputies returned again to the apartment
complex, but appellant was not there. Now it was about
1:10 a.m.
3
About one hour earlier, CHP officers had responded to a
traffic collision on Sierra Highway about 15 minutes from the
apartment complex. Shauri H. was driving her Toyota Yaris
when she was hit by a vehicle driven by appellant. Rescue
personnel cut the car door to extricate Shauri H. from the car.
Both drivers were taken to Antelope Valley Hospital and were
interviewed by crash investigators. Appellant said she saw no
other cars on the highway and only felt the impact of her car
colliding with another car. She stated she had one Truly Hard
Seltzer at 6 p.m. that evening. She said, “it wasn’t like she was
drunk.” However, in the hospital, the interviewing officer could
smell the odor of alcohol on her breath as she was talking,
observed her eyes were red and watery, and heard her slurred
speech. He conducted a series of field sobriety tests which
indicated to him that her blood alcohol content was higher than
.08 percent. Blood drawn at the hospital at 2:33 a.m. showed a
blood alcohol level of .10 percent.
Shauri H. said she saw a car with headlights coming in her
direction. She saw the car pull onto the shoulder and then return
to the highway. Next thing she knew she was trapped in her
crushed car.
The physical evidence at the scene, the damage to both
vehicles, the tire tracks, and both drivers’ statements caused the
investigators to believe appellant’s unsafe turning movement and
impairment by alcohol caused the collision.
Shauri H. suffered a broken wrist, broken ankle, punctured
lung, and broken rib. She could not work at her job as a
pharmacy technician for three months due to her injuries.
We have examined the entire record before us and are
satisfied appellate counsel has fully complied with their
4
responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly
(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
STRATTON, P. J.
We concur:
GRIMES, J.
WILEY, J.
5