B301540
Cal. Ct. App.Oct 1, 2020Background
- Marco Romero was charged with felony fleeing a pursuing peace officer while driving recklessly (Veh. Code §2800.2) and driving with a suspended license; jury convicted on both counts; Romero admitted a prior strike; sentenced to six years (upper term doubled for strike).
- Facts: officers activated lights and sirens after observing Romero driving without a front plate; Romero initially stopped, a passenger exited, then Romero fled; multiple marked units joined pursuit.
- During the chase Romero committed numerous violations (speeding, running a red light, rolling a stop, unsafe lane changes, passing on right); video evidence captured the conduct; a PIT maneuver ended the pursuit and Romero was arrested.
- At jail Romero admitted he knew he was being pursued and fled because he did not want to go to jail; he was not licensed (license suspended since 2000).
- Romero appealed raising four claims: (1) trial court’s answer to a jury question about the meaning of “willful or wanton disregard” was inadequate; (2) Veh. Code §2800.2(b) and CALJIC No. 12.85 create an unconstitutional mandatory presumption; (3) assessments and restitution fine imposed without ability-to-pay inquiry (Dueñas); and (4) trial court failed to consider a limited probation report before setting restitution fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of court’s answer to jury question about “willful or wanton disregard” | Answer was correct and counsel below chose to ask for a CALJIC reread; any complaint forfeited; no abuse or prejudice | Court’s mid-deliberation response omitted a fuller definition and was inadequate | Forfeited; alternatively no abuse of discretion and any error harmless given overwhelming evidence |
| Mandatory-presumption challenge to Veh. Code §2800.2(b) and CALJIC 12.85 | §2800.2(b) is a valid legislative definition/substantive rule, not an unconstitutional mandatory presumption | §2800.2(b) impermissibly presumes the requisite culpable mental state from three traffic violations | Rejected: §2800.2(b) is a substantive legislative modification of the offense, not an improper mandatory presumption |
| Imposition of court assessments and restitution fine without ability-to-pay finding (Dueñas) | No objection below; in any event Romero failed to show prejudice or inability to pay | Dueñas requires ability-to-pay inquiry before imposing assessments/fine | Forfeited by failure to object; ineffective-assistance claim rejected for lack of prejudice |
| Failure to obtain/consider limited probation report before setting restitution fine (Pen. Code §1203(g)) | Court had duty to obtain report; failure deprived Romero of due process | Court failed to obtain report and thus erred | Forfeited by failure to object; alternatively no prejudice shown and fine within statutory range |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Taylor, 19 Cal.App.5th 1195 (explaining §2800.2(b) is a substantive rule, not an improper presumption)
- People v. Pinkston, 112 Cal.App.4th 387 (majority upholding §2800.2(b))
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (ability-to-pay framework for fines and assessments argued by defendant)
- People v. McCall, 32 Cal.4th 175 (presumptions and due process discussion)
- Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (framework for analyzing presumptions)
- People v. Beardslee, 53 Cal.3d 68 (discretion when responding to jury requests under §1138)
- People v. Thompkins, 195 Cal.App.3d 244 (distinguishable example where a jury response was legally incorrect)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (state harmless-error standard)
- Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (example of improper presumption violating due process)