Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Songkane Somsanuk

November 30, 2011

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
SONGKANE SOMSANUK, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. 10F01798)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hull , J.

P. v. Somsanuk

CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

After his motion to dismiss on the ground of multiple prosecutions (Pen. Code, § 654) was denied, defendant Songkane Somsanuk pleaded no contest to a wobbled felony, that is misdemeanor failure to stop at the scene of an injury accident (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)). In exchange, one count of driving without proof of financial responsibility (Veh. Code, § 16028, subd. (a)) was dismissed in the interest of justice. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on informal probation for three years. A 90-day disciplinary term was imposed as a probation condition and suspended pending successful completion of probation. Defendant was ordered to make restitution in an amount to be determined and pay a $100 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), a $100 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked (Pen. Code, § 1202.44), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $40 court security fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8). He obtained a certificate of probable cause.

On appeal, defendant contends the bar against multiple prosecutions mandated dismissal of the criminal complaint filed against him. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

On January 23, 2010, around 9:05 a.m., Bonnie and Victor M. were in their truck on southbound Franklin Boulevard. About 15 seconds after they stopped at a red signal for the left turn lane, defendant rear ended the truck. Following the collision, Victor M. made a left turn onto Whitelock Parkway and stopped to wait for defendant. Defendant did not stop. He continued to drive south on Franklin Boulevard. An eyewitness, Sarah G., wrote down defendant's license plate number and provided it to law enforcement. Before the collision, Sarah G. had seen defendant driving fast and weaving in and out of traffic.

The fire department arrived on the scene and medical personnel evaluated Bonnie and Victor M. Bonnie complained of pain to her entire back, and Victor complained of pain to his lower back. They refused medical treatment and indicated that they would seek medical care through their primary care physicians.

Five days later, on January 28, 2010, defendant telephoned the Elk Grove Police Department and provided a statement. Defendant said that while driving on Franklin Boulevard, approaching Whitelock Parkway, he had become distracted and had taken his eyes off the roadway for one second. When he looked back, he saw a truck in front of him. He was unable to stop. After colliding with the truck, he "panicked" and "didn't know what to do." He drove around the corner, parked his car, and walked to his girlfriend's house. He did not have insurance.

Following the accident, Bonnie and Victor M. endured constant back and neck pain. As of February 16, 2010, they were being treated by a chiropractor three times per week.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Penal Code section 654. Specifically, he contends dismissal was required because he already had been convicted and sentenced for offenses that arose out of the same course of conduct--violation of the basic speed law (Veh. Code, § 22350), and failure to provide proof of insurance to a peace officer or collision investigator (Veh. Code, § 16028, subd. (c)). Defendant further urges that the prosecutor in the present case knew, or should have ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.