People v. Valdez

189 Cal. App. 4th 82, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 670, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1749
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedOctober 12, 2010
DocketG042837
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 189 Cal. App. 4th 82 (People v. Valdez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Valdez, 189 Cal. App. 4th 82, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 670, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1749 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Opinion

MOORE, J.

In a prosecution for violation of Vehicle Code 1 section 20001, subdivision (a), commonly referred to as a hit and run but more accurately described as fleeing the scene of an injury accident, will the injuries suffered in the accident and not aggravated in any manner by defendant’s failure to thereafter stop and render assistance support a Penal Code section 12022.7, *85 subdivision (a) great bodily injury enhancement? That Penal Code section requires infliction of great bodily injury in the “commission of a felony or attempted felony.” The existence of an injury suffered in a traffic accident is a condition precedent to the imposition of a duty imposed upon a driver by section 20001, subdivision (a) and section 20003, subdivision (a) to stop and render aid. Thus, section 20001 makes criminal the flight from the accident, not the accident. As the defendant in this case was not committing or attempting to commit a felony at the time of the accident, the injury suffered during the accident was not inflicted in the course of the commission of a felony or attempted felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.7.

I

FACTS

The information charged defendant Victor Valdez 2 with being an unlicensed driver (§ 12500, subd. (a); a misdemeanor) and with fleeing the scene of an injury accident (§ 20001, subd. (a)). The information also alleged defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)) during the commission of the felony. The jury found defendant guilty of the charged offenses and found true the great bodily injury enhancement. The count sentenced defendant to state prison for a term of four years four months, consisting of 16 months (low term) for the violation of section 20001, subdivision (a) plus three years for the enhancement.

David Wiesen heard a collision outside his home on Malvern Avenue in Fullerton on February 14, 2008, about 9:30 or 9:45 in the evening. The collision did not sound like cars colliding. He looked out his window and saw a female in the middle of the street with grocery bags strewn across the street. Once outside, he immediately recognized the woman as a neighbor, Kaitlin Lyons. Wiesen did not think Lyons was conscious.

Anthony Diaz, a police officer with the Fullerton Police Department, determined Lyons had been struck by a vehicle and began a search for the vehicle. He located the vehicle within an hour. The driver’s side fender was damaged and the driver’s side windshield was broken to the extent it would have been difficult to see out of it. Inside the vehicle, Diaz found an envelope addressed to “Victor Valdes.” Defendant’s college photo identification was in the glove compartment.

Officer Brandon Clyde contacted the registered owner of the vehicle who stated he lent the car to Victor Valdez and that Valdez was paying off the vehicle. It was “quite a few months later” before police made contact with defendant.

*86 In June 2008, defendant telephoned Clyde. Defendant “turned himself in” on June 19. He admitted hitting Lyons during questioning by the police: “[0]ut [of] nowhere like I just saw like the lady, she was crossing the street. And then I saw her looking at me like she saw me and then I’m all, I thought she was going to stop but I saw like she kept like walking so I was losing my speed and then I just started like, like swerving little by little, like that way. But I guess she didn’t, she never stopped and then she like just kept on walking and walking and then I just like less and the last thing I did was, like I just tried to swerve but she hit the comer of my car. And that’s how she got hurt.”

Defendant told Clyde that after he hit Lyons, his foot was on the gas pedal and he kept on going. He made a right turn at the comer, made another right turn at the next street light, and parked the car.

The parties stipulated Lyons suffered the following injuries in the accident: “1) Fractures to her left eye orb, left cheek, right scapula, right clavicle, five ribs, and left hip joint, as well as a chipped sacrum; 2) bmised liver and spleen; and 3) brain injuries.”

II

DISCUSSION

Section 20001, subdivision (a) requires the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in the injury or death of another to “immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident and . . . fulfill the requirements of Sections 20003 [3] and 20004. [4] ” The driver’s duty to stop *87 and fulfill the requirements of sections 20003 and 20004 applies “whether or not he is responsible for the accident. [Citation.]” (People v. Bammes (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 626, 632 [71 Cal.Rptr. 415].) “Although a violation of section 20001 is popularly denominated ‘hit-and-run,’ the act made criminal thereunder is not the ‘hitting’ but the ‘running.’ The legislative purpose of sections 20001 and 20003 is to prevent the driver of a vehicle involved in an injury-causing accident from leaving injured persons in distress and danger for want of medical care and from attempting to avoid possible civil or criminal liability for the accident by failing to identify oneself. This duty is imposed upon drivers whether or not they are responsible for the accident itself. [Citations.]” (People v. Corners (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 139, 148 [221 Cal.Rptr. 387]; see People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1123, fn. 10 [43 Cal.Rptr.2d 681, 899 P.2d 67].)

Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (a) creates a three-year enhancement for “[a]ny person who personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice in the commission of a felony or attempted felony . . . .” (Italics added.) Defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury during the traffic accident and does not argue otherwise. The Attorney General does not contend the injuries were aggravated by defendant’s flight, the criminal act. The issue then is whether defendant was engaged “in the commission of a felony or attempted felony” at the time of the traffic accident that caused the injuries in this matter. The only felony alleged to have been committed is defendant’s subsequent flight from the scene.

The issue in this case has not been decided in the present context. Appellate courts have, however, addressed and decided this issue in situations analytically indistinguishable from the present one. (People v. Wood (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 862 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 115] (Wood); People v. Braz (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 425 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 531] (Braz).) We agree with the reasoning and conclusions reached in those decisions.

In Braz, the defendant was charged with violating section 20001, subdivision (a). The information also alleged Braz inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Mack CA3
California Court of Appeal, 2021
People v. Dimacali
California Court of Appeal, 2019
People v. Dimacali
244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 268 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2019)
People v. Nuno
California Court of Appeal, 2018
People v. Nuno
236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 578 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2018)
People v. Martinez
394 P.3d 1066 (California Supreme Court, 2017)
People v. Segura CA2/6
California Court of Appeal, 2016
People v. Wilkins CA2/8
California Court of Appeal, 2016
P. v. Garcia CA2/4
California Court of Appeal, 2016
People v. Amaya CA2/3
California Court of Appeal, 2016
People v. Gosai CA1/3
California Court of Appeal, 2015
People v. Cowart
238 Cal. App. 4th 945 (California Court of Appeal, 2015)
People v. Elder
227 Cal. App. 4th 411 (California Court of Appeal, 2014)
People v. Martinez
California Court of Appeal, 2014
People v. Canela
California Court of Appeal, 2014
Corenbaum v. Lampkin
California Court of Appeal, 2013
Carter v. Lampkin
California Court of Appeal, 2013
People v. Calles
209 Cal. App. 4th 1200 (California Court of Appeal, 2012)
People v. L.K.
199 Cal. App. 4th 1438 (California Court of Appeal, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 Cal. App. 4th 82, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 670, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-valdez-calctapp-2010.