People v. Farleigh, 060117 SUPAD, 30-2016-00843760

Docket Nº:30-2016-00843760
Opinion Judge:DAVID A. HOFFER Judge.
Party Name:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TAMARA SUE FARLEIGH, Defendant and Appellant.
Attorney:Richard Allen Baylis for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Case Date:June 01, 2017
Court:Superior Court of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TAMARA SUE FARLEIGH, Defendant and Appellant.

30-2016-00843760

Superior Court of California, Appellate Division, Orange

June 1, 2017

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. IRM477178, Harbor Justice Center, Joy Markman, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard Allen Baylis for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

DAVID A. HOFFER Judge.

Defendant/Appellant Tamara Sue Farleigh appeals her conviction of violating Vehicle Code section 22350, the Basic Speed Law.1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 9, 2015, at approximately 4:35 p.m., Officer Cody Bates noticed defendant was smoking and holding the cigarette out of the left window while driving. The officer also saw that she was holding a cellphone in her right hand and looking down at the screen, which was activated. The defendant was traveling 45 miles per hour approaching a busy intersection with numerous restaurants and shops and with no hands on the steering wheel. The officer initiated a traffic stop. The defendant told the officer that she was using her cellphone for GPS navigation.

The officer testified that the weather was dry and clear, there was no water on the roadway, traffic was heavy, and the posted speed limit was 50 miles per hour. Finally, when asked whether the defendant's speed was “appropriate for roadway conditions, ” the officer responded “If you're speaking of the roadway itself and not the conduct of the driver, 45 miles per hour would be appropriate for that roadway.” The officer cited the defendant for violating the Basic Speed Law. On the citation, the officer marked “zero” as the safe speed.

At trial, the court defined roadway as “everything going on, on that road, not whether it's dry, not whether it's heavy or light traffic; everything going on at that time.” The trial court went on to conclude that the way someone is driving can form the basis of a violation of the Basic Speed Law, holding that “I cannot believe that it's reasonable speed for prevailing conditions, i.e., conditions include not just...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP