People v. Garcia

• Decision Date: 22 August 1989
• Citation: 214 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1,262 Cal.Rptr. 915
• Parties: 214 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dorothy GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. A. 27238. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California
• Court: California Superior Court

Page 915

262 Cal.Rptr. 915

214 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dorothy GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant.

Crim. A. 27238.

Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California.

Aug. 22, 1989.

Samuel J. Saltalamacchia, Artesia, for defendant and appellant.

Ira Reiner, Dist. Atty., Donald J. Kaplan and Brent Riggs, Deputy Dist. Attys., for plaintiff and respondent.

HINZ, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of attempted driving under the influence (Pen.Code, § 664; Veh.Code, § 23152, subd. (a)). The sole issue raised on appeal is whether this offense exists under California law.

We first consider the language and intent of the penal statutes governing attempted crimes. Pursuant to Penal Code section 664, ¹ "Every person who attempts to commit any crime, but fails, or is prevented or intercepted in the perpetration thereof, is punishable, where no provision is made by law for the punishment of such attempts, as follows: ..." (Italics added.) Section 1159 provides as follows: "The jury, or the judge if a jury trial is waived, may find the defendant guilty of any offense, the commission of which is necessarily included in that with which he is charged, or of an attempt to commit the offense." (Italics added.) (See People v. Meyer (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 496, 506, 215 Cal.Rptr. 352.) These sections clearly apply to attempted crimes that are not specifically made punishable by provisions of the Penal Code.

Construction of the language of sections 664 and 1159 is governed by section 4. Section 4 provides that the provisions of the Penal Code "are to be construed according to the fair import of their terms, with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice." The "fair import" of the phrase "any crime" as used in section 664 is that the provision is not limited in its application to crimes made punishable by the Penal Code. Section 1159 likewise contains no language limiting its application to crimes made punishable by the Penal Code.

The attempt provision is equally applicable, for example, to crimes made punishable by the Health and Safety Code. In People v. Siu (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 41, 271 P.2d 575, the defendant was convicted of an attempt to violate Health and Safety Code section 11500 (now Health and Saf.Code, § 11350), possession of narcotics. In People v. Meyer, supra, 169 Cal.App.3d 496, 215 Cal.Rptr. 352, the defendant was convicted of an attempted violation of Health and Safety Code section 11104 (sale of methylamine). The attempt statute also applies to violations of the Vehicle Code. For example, in People v. Lesara (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1304, 254 Cal.Rptr. 417 and In re Curt W. (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 169, 182 Cal.Rptr. 266, the defendants were convicted of attempted unlawful taking of a vehicle.

In People v. Meaders (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 1155, 1159, 197 Cal.Rptr. 1, the court succinctly stated the purpose of the attempt statute as follows: "And it cannot be doubted that the purpose of the law of attempt is both to penalize conduct which would have been harmful if not fortuitously prevented, and to permit intervention by law enforcement personnel before the harm has occurred."

Some states have made attempted driving under the influence a crime by specific statute. (See, e.g., Kan.Stat.Ann. § 8-1567 (1987); Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 29, § 1312 (West Supp.1988); Md.Transp.Code Ann. tit. 21, § 21-902 (Michie 1957-1987); N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 265:82 (Supp.1988); Vt.Stat.Ann. tit. 23, § 1201 (1987).) The statutes of these states establish that there is no legal infirmity in punishing attempted driving under the influence.

Cases from other jurisdictions also support the existence of the crime of attempting to drive while under the influence. (See, generally, 61A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 630, pp. 356-357; 7A Am.Jur.2d, Automobiles & Highway Traffic, § 300, p. 484; Annot. (1956) 47 A.L.R.2d 570, 590, § 8.) The most instructive case is Commonwealth v. Underkoffler (1938) 32 Pa.D. & C. 183. In this Pennsylvania case, defendant was charged with the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The defendant was found not guilty of this offense, but guilty of an attempt to commit the offense.

The court held that the attempt statute was "very broad in its terms and includes all felonies and misdemeanors." (Underkoffler, supra, 32 Pa.D. & C. at p. 183, italics added.) The court observed, "No reason has been pointed out to the court why this particular misdemeanor should be exempted from the provisions of that act. We have found no decision, nor even any intimation, in any reported case that any felony or misdemeanor is exempt from its provisions. A separate indictment or count charging attempt is not required: [citation]." (Id. at pp. 183-184.)

Appellant has cited no authority for the proposition that attempted driving under the influence is not a crime in California. Given the clear and unambiguous language of sections 664 and 1159, attempted driving under the influence is a crime under California law.

Appellant did not raise the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence in this case. The sole contention on appeal is that attempted driving under the influence is not a California crime. It is obvious from a review of the evidence why appellant did not raise the issue of its sufficiency.

The officers first saw appellant's vehicle stopped in the number one or fast lane with its flashers on. The officer asked appellant what was wrong, but she did not respond. He noticed that her car was rolling backwards and told her to put the brake on. Appellant just stared out of the window of her automobile as she was rolling backwards. Appellant was trying to start the vehicle. The car was in neutral, and the engine was turning over. The vehicle continued to roll as she attempted to start the car. The officer told her to put the brake on a second time. At that point appellant put the gear shift into the park position and the car immediately stopped.

Based on her poor performance on the field sobriety tests at the scene, the officer formed the opinion that appellant was under the influence. The two breath tests each registered a reading of .13 percent. Based on appellant's conduct, all the tests and the officer's opinion, it is clear that she was under the influence. Finally, appellant testified that if she had started the car, she would have driven it home.

With respect to the element of "driving," "a 'slight movement' of the vehicle constitutes direct evidence that the vehicle was being 'driven.' [Citation.]" (People v. Wilson (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 8, 222 Cal.Rptr. 540.) Two police officers testified that appellant's vehicle rolled fifteen to twenty feet in their presence. This was sufficient evidence that appellant "drove" the vehicle.

There was also circumstantial evidence that appellant drove the car to the location in which it was found by the arresting officer. "[T]he element of 'driving' may ... be established at trial through circumstantial evidence.... [Citations.]" (Wilson, supra, 176 Cal.App.3d Supp. at p. 9, 222 Cal.Rptr. 540.)

In People v. Wilson, supra, police officers found the defendant's vehicle parked at an angle on the shoulder of a freeway. A portion of the vehicle was in the number three lane of the freeway. The engine was running, the lights were on, and the vehicle was in park. Defendant, the sole occupant of the vehicle, was asleep behind the steering wheel. The court found there was sufficient circumstantial evidence that defendant drove the vehicle to the location in which it was found. (176 Cal.App.3d Supp. at pp. 7-8, 222 Cal.Rptr. 540.)

In People v. Hanggi (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d Supp. 969, 70 Cal.Rptr. 540, the defendant was found "seated in his automobile, which was...