Laughlin

People v. Laughlin

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 4th 1020·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 388·40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 737·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2389
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 21, 2006F047242California2,741 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vartabedian, J.

Defendant Johnny Howard Laughlin was convicted by jury of driving with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property while fleeing from pursuing peace officers in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2. In addition, the trial court found that defendant had suffered three prior prison terms. He appeals, claiming the Legislature’s addition of subdivision (b) to section 2800.2 created an unconstitutional mandatory presumption by allowing a finding of willful or wanton disregard based solely on a finding the defendant committed three traffic offenses resulting in violation points, thus relieving the prosecution of its burden of proving willful or wanton disregard. We determine that subdivision (b) does not create an impermissible mandatory presumption. Instead, the statute provides a definition of substantive law.

FACTS

California Highway Patrol officer Jose Meza was on duty, in uniform, driving his marked patrol car when he saw defendant driving a vehicle without wearing his seatbelt. Officer Meza positioned himself behind defendant’s vehicle and activated his lights. Instead of stopping, defendant drove away.

Officer Meza activated more lights and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.