95 Cal.App.5th 681
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In 2017 Suazo, with BAC ~0.14, drove his Ford Focus at high speed off Highway 99, through a chain‑link fence into Garton Tractor Company's yard and heavy equipment; passenger Anna Maria Solorio was ejected and died of blunt force trauma.
- Vehicle data showed speeds ~90–100 mph seconds before impact; brakes/accelerator data indicated no braking in the final seconds; passenger seatbelt was cut away.
- CHP found Suazo hiding in a nearby trailer, with blood on his hands and coherent, responsive statements; field tests and a hospital blood draw confirmed intoxication.
- Suazo had a prior DUI conviction and a suspended license. He was convicted of second‑degree murder (implied malice), gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, DUI causing injury, felony hit‑and‑run, and related counts; court ordered $5,000 restitution to Garton.
- On appeal Suazo challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for implied‑malice murder given his claim he drank without intent to drive and may have driven unconsciously; (2) failure to instruct on voluntary intoxication/unconsciousness for hit‑and‑run and the fleeing enhancement; (3) restitution to Garton; and (4) sought resentencing under SB 567 and AB 124.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for second‑degree (implied‑malice) murder | Evidence (high BAC, planned to drink, knew hazards, highly dangerous driving, coherent post‑crash statements) supports awareness and conscious disregard for life | He drank without intent to drive and then drove while unconscious, so lacked awareness of danger and conscious disregard | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports implied malice (Watson factors present) |
| Instruction on voluntary intoxication / unconsciousness for Veh. Code §20001(a) hit‑and‑run (count 5) and §20001(c) fleeing enhancement | N/A (People opposed) | Requested instructions because intoxication/unconsciousness could negate knowledge element of hit‑and‑run and fleeing enhancement | Rejected: voluntary intoxication/unconsciousness not available defenses to these general‑intent/knowledge offenses under §29.4 and precedent; no instruction required and counsel not ineffective |
| Resentencing under SB 567 and AB 124 | Remand required because amendments restrict upper‑term sentencing and add lower‑term consideration for trauma/youth | Agreed by People that remand is required | Remanded for resentencing consistent with SB 567 and AB 124 |
| Restitution to Garton Tractor Company ($5,000) | Garton is a direct victim; its property was damaged by the means of the criminal conduct so restitution authorized under §1202.4 | Argued Garton not a direct or derivative victim of offenses of which he was convicted | Affirmed: Garton is a direct victim; restitution for damage caused by the means of the crime is authorized (Martinez framework) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (1981) (establishes implied‑malice vehicular‑murder factors and review approach)
- People v. Whitfield, 7 Cal.4th 437 (1994) (discusses voluntary intoxication and implied malice; legislative abrogation noted)
- People v. Martinez, 2 Cal.5th 1093 (2017) (clarifies restitution under §1202.4 for losses caused by criminal flight and losses caused by means of committing the crime)
- People v. Soto, 4 Cal.5th 968 (2018) (interprets §29.4 legislative intent to limit voluntary intoxication defense and policy against excusing poor judgment)
- People v. Mendoza, 18 Cal.4th 1114 (1998) (narrow holding permitting intoxication evidence on knowledge for aiding and abetting)
- People v. Reyes, 52 Cal.App.4th 975 (1997) (held intoxication evidence admissible to dispute knowledge element of receiving‑stolen‑property; discussed and distinguished)
- People v. Berg, 23 Cal.App.5th 959 (2018) (rejected Reyes’ approach on intoxication and knowledge; interprets §29.4 plainly)
- People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (2007) (explains direct vs. derivative victims and restitution principles)