Recently, a piece of proposed legislation entitled “AB 1462″ would have required a defendant to spend a minimum of 85% of his sentence in jail for a vehicular manslaughter conviction in which a person died. The argument in favor of the legislation was that since a person who is currently convicted of a DUI with great bodily injury must serve a minimum of 85% of their sentence in jail, the same situation should apply to someone who is convicted of a DUI with death which, under the current law, only requires a minimum of 50% of the sentence to be served. The intent of the legislation’s author was to apply the 85% requirement to make the offenses equal in their sentencing application. This legislation is opposed in principle by a Napa DUI attorney, a Santa Rosa DUI attorney and a San Rafael DUI attorney.

Ignacio Hernandez, an attorney who operates a legislative advocacy firm in Sacramento, submitted a letter in opposition and on March 6, 2012, testified in opposition to the legislation, explaining to the Committee how the current law is applied and why the 85% standard should not be applied. Testimony against the legislation was also received by the Legislative Committee Co-Chair, Steve Rease. As a result, the legislation did not pass.

Keeping the 50% minimum standard for a vehicular manslaughter case is a position that is encouraged by Napa DUI attorneys, Santa Rosa DUI attorneys and San Rafael DUI attorneys.

For more information about DUI’s, click here.

A longstanding proposition in criminal law requires an entry into a “building” to satisfy the crime of burglary. In California, Penal Code §459 actually requires the entry into a “building”. Case decisions discussing this issue have generally held that a burglary requires the entry into some type of a structure with four walls and a roof. This argument has been vigorously argued by Santa Rosa criminal defense attorneys, San Rafael criminal defense attorneys and Napa criminal defense attorneys.

In the case of People v. Chavez (2012), the Fifth Appellate District Court agreed that a fenced yard is not a building because it does not have a roof. Other state cases that were cited in the Court’s decision have commonly held that an uncovered yard is not a building in simple burglary cases. This Court’s decision was that the plain meaning of Penal Code §459 supports the idea that a fenced yard is not a building and as such does not satisfy the requirement of entry into a “building”.

A fenced yard cannot also be construed as an appurtenance of a building or something that is an integral part of a building such as a carport which could satisfy the building requirement. The argument to prosecutors from a Santa Rosa criminal defense attorney, a Napa criminal defense attorney and a San Rafael criminal defense attorney is: Don’t charge defendants with the crime of burglary unless and until there is evidence of entry into some type of a”building.” Otherwise, the crime may be a theft or an attempted theft, but not a burglary.

For further information on theft cases, click here.

Penal Code §191.5 defines the crime of gross vehicular manslaughter or vehicular manslaughter as involving someone who is driving under the influence or at a .08 blood alcohol concentration or higher. Vehicle Code §20001(c) establishes an additional five year term of imprisonment in state prison for someone “who flees the scene of the crime after committing a violation of Penal Code §191.5 or Penal Code §192.”

California’s Third District Appellate Court, in People v. Vela (2012), found that the prohibited conduct for this particular enhancement is, in essence, fleeing the scene of the accident. This aspect of the case is often argued by a San Rafael DUI attorney, a Santa Rosa DUI attorney or a Napa DUI attorney. The Court explained that the purpose of the enhancement is not to compel a driver to stop and provide information or render assistance but, instead, is a law that is designed to specifically preserve evidence of driving under the influence and to act as a deterrent in that regard. The Court reasoned that any other holding would allow a defendant to escape punishment by stopping at the scene of the accident and then leaving before the police arrived.

Secondly, the court held that the manner in which a person leaves the scene is irrelevant. Whether they leave on foot or in a vehicle is of little consequence. This is of concern to San Rafael DUI lawyers, Santa Rosa DUI lawyers and Napa DUI lawyers.

The Court of Appeal held that any person who willfully leaves the scene by any method after committing gross vehicular manslaughter is definitely subject to the five year state prison enhancement. This law does not require the defendant actually escape detection or avoid apprehension. The word “flee” in the statute was held to mean “run away from or hasten off”. In this particular case, the defendant was walking quickly away from the accident scene and a police officer had to forcibly bring the defendant to the scene. This constituted sufficient information to sustain the enhancement.

For further information about DUI’s, click here.