People v. Reddick, C086057

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtRENNER, J.
PartiesTHE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTONIO WAYNE REDDICK, Defendant and Appellant.
Decision Date06 March 2020
Docket NumberC086057

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANTONIO WAYNE REDDICK, Defendant and Appellant.

C086057

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

March 6, 2020


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. 13F07409)

Defendant Antonio Wayne Reddick side-swiped a van stopped at a Sacramento intersection waiting for the traffic signal to change. Rather than exchange information with the van's driver, defendant took off, running two red lights before crashing into another car entering another intersection. The broadside collision claimed the lives of defendant's two passengers and caused serious injury to the driver of the other car.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, one count of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs causing injury, one misdemeanor count of hit and run with damage to

Page 2

property, and one misdemeanor count of driving without a valid driver's license. The trial court sentenced defendant to a lengthy third strike sentence.

Defendant appeals, challenging the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress warrantless blood draw evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence of driving under the influence, and the denial of a motion for discovery under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). Defendant also challenges his sentence as cruel and unusual, and argues the trial court erred in calculating custody credits. Defendant additionally argues remand is necessary to allow the trial court to exercise its newly granted discretion under Senate Bill No. 1393 to strike a prior serious felony conviction enhancement under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a),1 consider whether defendant would benefit from mental health diversion under section 1001.36, and determine defendant's ability to pay fines and assessments pursuant to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas).

We conditionally reverse the judgment and remand for the trial court to conduct a mental health eligibility hearing and exercise its discretion whether to strike the prior serious felony conviction enhancement pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a). Additionally, though neither party raises the issue, we have identified a sentencing error in the oral pronouncement of judgment; namely, that the trial court improperly severed a great bodily injury enhancement from the count (driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs causing injury) to which it was attached. Accordingly, we shall also remand for resentencing on the great bodily injury enhancement. In all other respects, we affirm.

Page 3

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Accident

A.P. was waiting for a traffic signal at the intersection of Madison and Date Avenues on November 4, 2013, at 10:50 p.m. As she waited for the light to change, a red Neon struck the side of her van while attempting to squeeze between lanes of traffic. The Neon ran the red light and drove down Madison Avenue. A.P. followed in an attempt to obtain the Neon's license plate number.

The Neon turned right onto Auburn Boulevard and pulled over to the side of the road. A.P. pulled in behind, and the Neon took off at high speed. A.P. watched as the Neon ran another red light and slammed into a blue Camry entering the intersection on a green light from the Interstate 80 off-ramp. The Camry went into a ditch. The Neon, which was either smoking or aflame, crashed into a tree.

Paramedics and police officers arrived at the scene and found defendant in the Neon's driver's seat. A woman, later identified as Cherion Robinson, was unresponsive in the front passenger seat. A man, later identified as Gregory Hunt, was lying on the grass nearby, having been helped from the backseat by good Samaritans concerned about the smoking vehicle. Robinson was pronounced dead at the scene. Hunt died as a result of injuries sustained in the crash several days later. The driver of the Camry suffered five broken ribs, a punctured lung, and a dislocated shoulder.

Defendant was extricated from the Neon and placed on a backboard with a cervical collar. Paramedic Joshua Thompson observed that defendant was alert and oriented, but combative. He noted that defendant was trying to rip off his cervical collar and resisting attempts to administer an IV. Thompson wrote, "positive ETOH" in his patient care report, meaning positive for alcohol. During the trial, Thompson testified he would have made such a notation in response to either an admission or an odor of alcohol.

Page 4

Defendant was transported to Mercy San Juan Hospital. Officer John Tennis of the Sacramento Police Department made contact with defendant in the trauma room. When Tennis arrived, defendant was strapped to a gurney, yelling, and attempting to kick medical personnel who were trying to help him. Defendant was so combative that Dr. David Beffa, the attending trauma surgeon, was unable to assess him. However, Dr. Beffa observed that defendant's speech was slurred. Dr. Beffa later explained that defendant's combativeness and slurred speech could have been a reaction to polysubstance abuse. Dr. Beffa ordered sedation to calm defendant down.

Defendant was briefly sedated. When he awoke, he began kicking with such force that Officer Tennis found it necessary to climb on top of the gurney to restrain his legs. Dr. Beffa then gave an order to intubate him, a measure Dr. Beffa would later describe as a "last resort" for patients so combative that medical personnel would otherwise not be able to care for them.

Dr. Beffa examined defendant, who was now unconscious, and determined that he needed surgery for a fractured ankle with exposed bone. A CAT scan showed no evidence of any trauma to defendant's brain.

Defendant's blood was drawn at 12:29 a.m., while he was under sedation. A toxicology screening test conducted at the hospital was positive for alcohol, THC, and methamphetamine. Defendant's blood was later tested by the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office. The tests showed that defendant's blood alcohol level was .09 percent. Defendant's blood also contained Delta-nine THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, at a concentration of 8.9 nanograms per milliliter, and less than .05 milligrams per liter of methamphetamine.

B. The Charges and Trial

Defendant was charged in a fourth amended information with two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (§ 191.5, subd. (a)—counts 1 and 2), one count of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs causing injury (former Veh. Code,

Page 5

§ 23153, subd. (a)—count 3), one count of driving with a blood alcohol level greater than 0.08 percent causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23143, subd. (b)—count 4), one count of misdemeanor hit and run with damage to property (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)—count 5), and the infraction of driving without a valid driver's license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)—count 6). As to counts 3 and 4, the information alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the driver of the Camry. (§§ 12022.7, subd. (a) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) The information further alleged that defendant had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and two prior strike convictions. (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2) & 1170.12, subd. (e)(2)). Defendant pled not guilty and denied the enhancement allegations.

The matter was tried to a jury in May 2017. The central issue at trial was whether defendant was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs at the time of the collision. In addition to the evidence described above, the prosecution relied on expert testimony concerning the effects of alcohol and marijuana on the ability to operate a motor vehicle.

Criminalist Chris Fogelberg testified as an expert in forensic alcohol analysis and the effects of alcohol on a person's ability to operate a motor vehicle. Fogelberg opined that a man of defendant's height and weight with a blood alcohol level of .09 percent would be too impaired to drive safely. However, Fogelberg acknowledged on cross-examination that, in order to extrapolate that person's blood alcohol level at 10:55 p.m. (the time of the collision) from his blood alcohol level at 12:29 a.m. (the time of the blood draw), he would have to assume that the alcohol was fully absorbed in the person's blood stream at the time of the collision. And, Fogelberg allowed, there was no way to know whether alcohol was fully absorbed without knowing that person's drinking pattern, which Fogelberg had not been asked to consider.

Criminalist Craig Triebold testified as an expert in forensic alcohol analysis, forensic toxicology, and the effects of alcohol and drugs on a person's ability to operate a motor vehicle. Triebold analyzed defendant's blood sample and opined that defendant

Page 6

was a habitual user of marijuana, who probably ingested the drug within four to six hours of the time the sample was collected. Triebold was unable to draw any conclusions as to when defendant might have ingested methamphetamine, but noted that a concentration of less than .05 milligrams per liter is "fairly low."

Triebold explained that marijuana use may cause altered judgment and perception, slowed reaction times, and problems with information processing and multitasking, all of which can negatively affect a person's ability to drive safely. However, Triebold acknowledged that he could not draw definitive conclusions about a person's ability to drive from THC concentrations in the blood. Unlike alcohol, Triebold said, there is no linear correlation between blood concentration of THC and degree of impairment, and consequently, no consensus has emerged as to a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT