People v. Ware CA4/2, E080353

Background

Alphonso Ware was serving an indeterminate 17-years-to-life sentence for second-degree murder; released on parole Oct. 9, 2019 subject to special conditions including a prohibition on alcohol possession/consumption and on committing any law violations.
On Aug. 27, 2022, CHP observed Ware weaving and following too closely on SR-91, ordered him off the freeway, and detected a strong odor of alcohol, red/watery eyes, and admitted drinking two 12-oz beers hours earlier.
Dispatch check showed Ware had no valid driver’s license; Ware produced an ID card. He said he was on parole and declined or could not complete field sobriety maneuvers.
Officer obtained voluntary PAS readings (0.162 and 0.176) and later evidentiary breath tests (0.16 and 0.16) before arresting and booking Ware for DUI.
Parole revocation petition alleged violations of Vehicle Code § 23152(a) (driving under the influence) and § 12500(a) (driving without a license); after an evidentiary hearing the court found violations, revoked parole, and remanded Ware to CDCR for reconsideration under Penal Code § 3000.8(h).
Ware appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for DUI and unlicensed driving, ineffective assistance for failure to object to breath/disptach evidence, and that reversal of the DUI finding would require remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for DUI (VC §23152(a))	Court/People: evidence of impaired driving (weaving, unsafe following, improper turn), admissions of drinking, failed FSTs, and breath results supported finding by preponderance	Ware: breath testing procedures (Title 17) were flawed; evidence insufficient to show impairment	Affirmed — substantial evidence of impairment (driving signs, admission, inability to complete tests); breath-test procedural challenges forfeited for failure to object
Sufficiency of evidence for driving without license (VC §12500(a))	Officer relied on dispatch check establishing lack of valid license; admission by Ware supported charge	Ware: officer’s testimony lacked foundation and was hearsay because dispatch info was out-of-court	Affirmed — reliance on dispatch/database was permissible to show probable cause and was not offered for hearsay purpose; Ware admitted he drove without a license; objection forfeited
Ineffective assistance for counsel's failure to object to BAC and dispatch evidence	People: counsel’s tactical decisions presumed reasonable; exclusion would not likely change outcome	Ware: counsel should have objected to preserve errors; failure deprived him of effective assistance	Affirmed — no prejudice shown; admissions and driving evidence made different result unlikely; tactical silence not presumptively deficient
Whether reversal of DUI would require remand for parole reconsideration	People: revocation supported by multiple grounds including unlicensed driving and parole-condition alcohol prohibition	Ware: if DUI finding reversed, remand required because revocation rests on that ground	Affirmed — both alleged violations independently supported revocation, so remand not required

Key Cases Cited

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (due process standards for parole/probation revocation hearings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) (officer may reasonably rely on computerized official records)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (good-faith reliance on erroneous records does not always require suppression)
People v. McNeal, 46 Cal.4th 1183 (2009) (distinction between VC §23152(a) impairment and §23152(b) per se BAC presumption)
People v. Rodriguez, 51 Cal.3d 437 (1990) (standard and discretion in probation/parole revocation)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (harmless error standard)
In re Coughlin, 16 Cal.3d 52 (1976) (probation revocation admissibility of evidence and court discretion)