Filed 12/31/20 P. v. Walker CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A155507 v. (Contra Costa County TAMMY LOUISE WALKER, Super. Ct. No. 51802115) Defendant and Appellant. Defendant was convicted of a number of charges, including two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and causing injury within 10 years of another DUI offense, and driving on a suspended license. The jury also found true great bodily injury enhancements. The trial court imposed, but suspended execution of, a six-year prison sentence and placed defendant on probation subject to a number of terms and conditions, including that she wear a SCRAM device at all times, enter and complete a 12-to 18-month alcohol rehabilitation program, waive all credits for time served prior to sentencing, waive her right to appeal, and waive any objection to the court’s imposing the maximum, aggravated sentence for her DUI offenses. The court also made the requisite findings to support the aggravated term, stating as follows: “I’m going to make the finding that the 1 aggravated term in this case is the appropriate, and given the seriousness of the misconduct, the nature of the driving, the devastating nature of the lifetime injuries sustained by our [Highway Patrol] officer in the case, there is no question that this, especially given the history of the defendant, required the aggravated sentence.” The court had considerable reservations about placing defendant on probation and made it clear to her that if she failed, for any reason, to enter and complete the program, the court would revoke probation and remand her to state prison: “[Court]: . . . So, Miss Walker, you understand that I have a very difficult decision in front of me here? “[Defendant]: Yes, your Honor. “[Court]: And you understand that a big part of that decision depends on you, and your willingness and ability to be a successful patient in a treatment program on probation? “[Defendant]: Yes. [¶] . . . [¶] “[Court]: Do you also understand that in the future, if you violate probation, you’ll be back here sitting in the courtroom, probably with your family members[,] asking me to forgive your relapse, you understand that’s a likely scenario? “[Defendant]: Yes, I understand. “[Court]: And do you understand that if I were to give you a chance, that I will absolutely not give you a second chance, no matter how slight that relapse may be? “[Defendant]: Yes, I understand. “[Court]: Okay. So that means if you go and you take some cough medication that’s not permitted under this program, and it gives a positive read on the SCRAM, you’ll be back ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals