People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 08 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | C088584 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WAYNE EDWARD WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Wayne Edward Williams appeals from his conviction for felony evading a peace officer with willful and wanton disregard for the safety of other persons and property. Defendant first contends the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; we disagree.
Before trial, defendant filed a motion seeking Pitchess1 and Brady2 material in a testifying officer's personnel file. The trial court determined defendant made a sufficient good cause showing only for a Brady review, and after an in camera hearing declined to disclose anything. The People later sought disclosure to the defense of documents in the People's possession (and related to that same officer) that they had classified as Brady material, and the trial court reviewed and disclosed the identified material. Defendant now requests that we review the in camera proceeding to determine whether he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's failure to make a good cause showing for a Pitchess review, and also whether the trial court failed to disclose Brady material beyond that later disclosed at the People's request. Finally, defendant requests that we review the trial court's ruling excluding the disclosed Brady material from use at trial under Evidence Code section 352.3
We conclude defendant suffered no prejudice from his trial counsel's failure to secure a Pitchess review, and we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to make no disclosure after its in camera Brady review. We will affirm the judgment.
At approximately 11:20 a.m., California Department of Fish and Wildlife Game Warden Michael Hampton was in his full duty uniform, which was a green shirt with an external vest carrier containing department patches. His shirt included two patches on each shoulder that were five-inches long. Hampton was traveling southbound on Interstate 5 in heavy traffic; he was driving a green Chevrolet Silverado Fish and Wildlifepatrol truck. The truck had the agency star emblem on the side including the words "game warden" and "law enforcement." Hampton's truck had a siren, and when activated, a bar of lights on his roof that alternated red and blue, flashing wigwag headlights and other flashing white lights in the grill, and solid red and blue lights in the grill. Hampton was traveling in the number three lane along a section of the interstate that had four lanes in each direction.
Defendant approached Hampton from behind, traveling at a high rate of speed, weaving in and out of traffic, and cutting off other cars. He passed Hampton in the number two lane traveling approximately 90 miles per hour. Hampton did not make eye contact with defendant and never saw the driver, but Hampton recorded the license plate on the car. As soon as defendant passed him, Hampton activated his emergency lights and siren. Defendant accelerated and began driving more aggressively, passing some vehicles on the shoulder and cutting off others. After attempting to catch up with defendant for approximately 15 to 20 seconds, Hampton determined it was unsafe to continue the pursuit, and he deactivated his lights, but followed as defendant exited and again entered the interstate at Roth Road, without stopping at a stop sign. Hampton lost sight of defendant's car until he saw defendant driving on a road parallel to the interstate. Hampton saw an unmarked police car pursuing defendant with its forward red light activated.
Manteca Police detective Aaron Montoya saw defendant's car while traveling southbound on Interstate 5, south of Roth Road, in the number three lane. Montoya wore plain clothes and a tactical vest with his police badge affixed to the right side, a police department patch on the left side, and a large police patch on the back. He drove an unmarked black sedan with a siren, wigwag headlights, a solid red lamp near the rear view mirror, and a flashing blue lamp next to the red lamp.
Montoya first saw defendant approach him from behind while driving on the shoulder of the road and "throwing smoke and dust toward the rear of the car." Trafficwas heavy, and other drivers were taking evasive maneuvers to get out of defendant's way. As defendant drew parallel with Montoya while driving approximately 95 miles per hour on the shoulder of the interstate, Montoya activated all of his emergency lights and his siren. Defendant accelerated and moved into a lane, then back to the shoulder.
Manteca Police detective Armen Avakian was also traveling southbound on Interstate 5. He saw Montoya, who was three or four car lengths behind him in the number three lane, activate his emergency lights. Avakian was in plain clothes, wore a beard and was likely wearing sunglasses, and he drove an unmarked pickup truck equipped with tinted windows (but only light, factory-applied tint on the front windshield), a siren, and emergency lights, including a forward-facing solid red light in the windshield, a flashing blue light in the windshield, alternating flashing blue and red lights in the grill, and wigwag headlights. Avakian saw defendant traveling on the shoulder of the interstate at no less than 80 miles per hour. Avakian activated his emergency lights and pursued defendant when defendant passed him. Avakian later recorded defendant's license plate consistently with Hampton. Avakian never saw Hampton's truck. After Avakian activated his emergency lights and siren, defendant did not stop or slow down.
Montoya and Avakian followed defendant when he left the interstate at the Lathrop Road exit. Montoya remained approximately six to eight car lengths behind Avakian. Defendant drove through multiple red lights and stop signs. Once Avakian caught up to defendant, Avakian maintained a distance between his truck and defendant's car of approximately six to eight car lengths, and there were no cars between Avakian and defendant. Montoya momentarily lost sight of defendant and Avakian, but he eventually caught up. Defendant eventually stopped in the driveway of his residence. Montoya arrived seconds after Avakian, and they detained defendant.
At the conclusion of the prosecution's case-in-chief, defendant moved to dismiss the only charged crime: felony evading a peace officer with willful and wanton disregardfor the safety of other persons and property. (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1.) The trial court weighed the evidence and evaluated the credibility of the witnesses, and it found the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defendant testified on his own behalf. Defendant suffers from bipolar disorder, and he does not like being out in public. On the day of his arrest a jury had acquitted him of a criminal charge, and while he was driving he was anxious, distracted, panicked, and overwhelmed. He was driving approximately 90 miles per hour on the interstate when he saw lights behind him, so he exited the interstate at Roth Road. He drove through the stop sign at the end of the Roth Road offramp at approximately 10 miles per hour without stopping.
He got back on the interstate, although he was still panicking. He had difficulty merging into traffic, so he drove on the shoulder of the interstate and passed cars until he could merge. He changed lanes so he could have more space.
Upon exiting the interstate, he stopped in the middle of an intersection. He was having car trouble while driving at slower speeds, so he continued driving approximately 45 miles per hour and up to speeds of 90 miles per hour. He agreed with Avakian's testimony that he drove through intersections at 30, 25, and 40 miles per hour. He finally saw a truck's lights when he was less than a mile from home. He also heard a high-pitched sound coming from the truck, but it did not sound like a police siren. He did not know what to do, so he continued driving home and stopped in his driveway.
While he acknowledged turning at intersections with traffic lights, he testified those lights were still yellow when he drove through them. He acknowledged he drove straight through intersections with solid red lights, and he admitted to speeding and accelerating on the shoulder of the freeway to merge into traffic. He was feeling faint and dizzy when he was driving through the red lights and thought he was having a medical emergency.
The trial court, sitting as the factfinder, found defendant guilty of evading a peace officer. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for five years.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because none of the officers who pursued him satisfied each of the elements of the charged offense. We disagree.
To assess the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the whole record to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence to support the verdict--i.e., evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value--such that a reasonable trier of fact could find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396.) In applying the standard, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the finder of fact could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. (...
To continue reading
Request your trial