P. v. Peters
Filed 2/18/09 P. v. Peters CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHAD WILLIAM PETERS, Defendant and Appellant. | E045850 (Super.Ct.No. SWF017621) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Peter L. Spinetta, Judge. (Retired judge of the Contra Costa Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Mark S. Devore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Chad William Peters appeals his jury conviction for hit and run, a misdemeanor. (Veh. Code, 20002, subd. (a).) We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
By information, defendant was charged with the following two counts: count 1, evading a police officer (Veh. Code, 2800.2), a felony, and count 2, leaving the scene of an accident without giving notice of his name and address (Veh. Code, 20002, subd. (a)), a misdemeanor.
At trial, the victim testified she was driving her car westbound through an intersection while the light was green when she saw defendants red car coming toward her from the right. The red car was traveling kind of fast and she did not think it was going to stop, so she put her brake on a little bit to slow down. The red car hit the front end of her car on the passenger side, and her car was damaged in the collision. She pulled over to the side of the road, got out of her car, and stood there. Defendant pulled his car behind hers, got out, and started coming toward her waiving his arms. He yelled profanities at her and spit at her. Frightened, she got back inside her car to get her cell phone to call police. As she was leaning inside the car to get her phone, she saw defendant leaving without giving her any of his information. She was able to write down his license plate number. She called 911 and was able to give the operator a description of the car and the license plate number.
Before defendant left the scene, another man arrived in a large truck. This man was about six-foot three inches tall and weighed about 300 pounds. With his truck, the man tried to box defendants car in so he could not leave. The man then got out of his truck and walked toward defendants car. Defendant stood up out of his car, and he and the other man started to argue and fight. Defendant then got back into his car and was able to drive away, but the other man followed defendant in his truck.
Shortly thereafter, a police officer stopped defendant. Defendant told the officer there was no traffic accident. Rather, there was a dispute over a near miss and once the argument got heated, he left the scene because of another bystander. The police officer detained defendant, and the victim was able to identify him as the person who hit her car and then left the scene.
During closing arguments, defense counsel argued the evidence showed there was actually no collision, and defendant yelled at the victim because she was the one who ran a red light. Because there was just a near miss and no accident, counsel argued defendant had no legal duty to stay at the scene. Defense counsel also argued defendant left the scene because the other man who tried to block his car was large and intimidating so defendant was afraid for his own physical safety. The jury was instructed on the defense of necessity.
The jury found defendant not guilty of count 1, evading a police officer. (Veh. Code, 2800.2.) However, the jury found defendant guilty of count 2, leaving the scene of an accident. (Veh. Code, 20002, subd. (a).) The court suspended the imposition of sentence for two years and placed defendant on court probation subject to various terms and conditions. As a condition of his probation, the court ordered defendant to serve 90 days in jail on weekends.
DISCUSSION
On May 27, 2008, defendant filed a notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth the facts and procedural history, raising no specific issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. On November 5, 2008, and again on December 18, 2008, we offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he failed to do. We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
RICHLI
J.
GAUT
J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
