P. v. Quintero
Appellant Santos Chapa Quintero was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (a); count 1), driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher (Veh. Code, 23152, subd. (b); count 2), and driving with a suspended or revoked license (Veh. Code, 14601.5, subd. (a); count 3). Counts 1 and 2 also included special allegations of three prior convictions for driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher (Veh. Code, 23550 & 23550.5), and of driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.15 percent or higher (Veh. Code, 23578). In a plea deal, he entered a plea of guilty to the count 2 charge of driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher (Veh. Code,
23152,(b)).[1] The court sentenced him to a term of two years in state prison, ordered his drivers license suspended, imposed various fines and penalty assessments, and further pronounced under Section 13386 subdivision (a) of the Vehicle Code that the defendant be ordered to install an interlock device in his vehicle under his custody and control when he resumes his -- when he -- if he obtains a restoration of his license status. When appellants counsel informed the court he believed that the interlock device requirement could be ordered for a period of time of up to three years, the court stated: Because of his long history I think the three year term would be appropriate if he -- when he gets his drivers license back. The abstract of judgment states in pertinent part: Pursuant to 13386(a) VC, defendant ordered to install the interlock device on any vehicle under his custody and control for a period of 3 years. It is this last portion of the sentence that is the subject of this appeal. Appellant contends that the court had authority to order the installation and utilization of an interlock device only for a period of time not to exceed three years from the date sentence was pronounced, regardless of when appellant might once again become licensed to drive. Respondent concedes the error. As Court explain, respondents concession is well taken, and Court direct the superior court to modify its judgment accordingly.
Comments on P. v. Quintero