People v. Brewer CA2/6 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/14/24 P. v. Brewer CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 8.1115(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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B328708
(Super. Ct. No. 21F-08933)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)
v.
MELISSA BREWER,
Defendant and Appellant.
Melissa Brewer appeals the judgment entered after a jury
convicted her of leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, §
20001, subd. (a), count1), two counts of presenting a false or
fraudulent insurance claim (Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (a)(1), counts
2 & 4),1 two counts of preparing a false or fraudulent insurance
claim (§ 550, subd. (a)(5), counts 3 & 5), and misdemeanor
reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 23103, subd. (a), count 6).
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal code.
Appellant was sentenced to four years eight months in
state prison, consisting of a consecutive term of eight months as
to count 1, three years as to count 2, and a consecutive term of
one year as to count 4. Counts 3 and 5 were stayed pursuant to
section 654. Appellant was also sentenced to 180 days in county
jail as to count 6.
Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court
should have stayed imposition of the sentence as to count 4
pursuant to section 654. We affirm.
Facts
On March 23, 2021, appellant recklessly drove her vehicle
southbound on the 101 freeway in the area of Avila Ridge before
she collided with a motorcycle operated by James Hayes. Several
witnesses called 911 and stopped to render aid. Appellant did not
stop. Hayes suffered an open fracture dislocation of his left ankle
and multiple abrasions. He died prior to trial.2
On March 28, 2021, appellant filed an electronic claim with
her insurance company for damages to her car. In her claim,
appellant indicated that her “vehicle went off the road, went into
a ditch or rolled over.” She also indicated there were no
passengers and no injuries.
On April 4, 2021, appellant sent an electronic
communication to her insurance company, stating: “‘I’m having
some stiffness in my upper body and neck. And I went to the
chiropractor on Friday, April 2nd, and it’s still pretty
uncomfortable. I just wanted to notify you that I’m going to be
making another appointment on Monday, April 5th. I will keep
you updated on the outcome. Thanks, Melissa Brewer.’”
2 According to the prosecutor, Hayes died a week after the
accident due to complications from his injuries.
2
Discussion
Appellant contends the trial court should have stayed the
sentence as to count 4 because the insurance fraud convictions
connected with the April 4, 2021 conduct were part of the same
course of conduct as the insurance fraud convictions connected
with the March 28, 2021 conduct. We disagree.
“Section 654 prohibits punishment for two offenses arising
from the same act or from a series of acts constituting an
indivisible course of conduct.” (People v. Sok (2010) 181
Cal.App.4th 88, 99.) “‘Whether a course of criminal conduct is
divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the
meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the
actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the
defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not
for more than one.’” (People v. Britt (2004) 32 Cal.4th 944, 951-
952.)
If, on the other hand, a defendant harbored “‘multiple
criminal objectives,’ which were independent of and not merely
incidental to each other, he may be punished for each statutory
violation committed in pursuit of each objective, ‘even though the
violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise
indivisible course of conduct.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Harrison
(1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335; accord People v. Vu (2006) 143
Cal.App.4th 1009, 1033.)
The trial court has wide latitude in making the factual
determination whether section 654 applies in a given case. We
will not reverse its findings if there is any substantial evidence to
support them. (People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139,
1143.)
3
Here, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s
implied finding that appellant harbored separate intents and
objectives in her commission of counts 2 and 4. After presenting
numerous witnesses and evidence at trial, the prosecutor argued
appellant’s intent in filing the March 28, 2021 claim (count 2)
was to fix the damage to her car as quickly as possible to get rid
of any evidence of her involvement in the collision. On the other
hand, appellant’s intent in sending the April 4, 2021
communication (count 4) was to seek reimbursement for her
medical treatment.
Additionally, appellant’s communications were separate in
time, approximately one week apart. The trial court could
reasonably have concluded, based on all of the evidence, that
appellant’s offenses were separate and distinct and did not arise
from a single, indivisible course of conduct.
Appellant’s contention that she should not be punished
twice for the “same loss or injury” is meritless. Further,
appellant’s reliance on People v. Zanoletti (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th
1516 (superseded by People v. Zanoletti (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th
547) is inapposite. Zanoletti involved the appellant’s challenge to
multiple convictions pursuant to section 550, subdivisions (a)(1)
and (a)(5), whereas this case involves appellant’s challenge to
multiple punishments pursuant to section 654.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
CODY, J.
5
Jacquelyn H. Duffy, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
_____________________________
Bases & Bases and Arielle Bases, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Supervising Deputy
Attorney General, and Kathy S. Pomerantz, Deputy Attorney
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.