Espinoza

Espinoza v. Shiomoto

Good Law
2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 22·213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 620·7 Cal. App. 5th 515
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 2017E064252California11,947 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McKinster, J.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Bernice Espinoza appeals from the denial of her petition for writ of administrative mandate challenging the one-year suspension of her driver's license by the Department of Motor Vehicles (Department). We conclude the record supports the trial court's implied findings that (1) Espinoza was lawfully arrested on reasonable cause to believe she had been driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), (2) Espinoza refused to submit to and failed to complete a chemical test as required under the implied *625 consent law, and (3) Espinoza was afforded a fair hearing before the Department. Therefore, we conclude the superior court correctly denied Espinoza's petition, and we affirm the judgment.

II.

FACTS

A. Investigation and Arrest.

At 1:40 a.m., on May 15, 2013, Sergeant Temple of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) was on routine patrol in the City of Riverside when he observed Espinoza driving a grey Hyundai and holding a cellular phone to the left side of her face. Espinoza appeared to be in the middle of a conversation, but when Espinoza saw Temple she lowered the phone from her ear. Temple activated his emergency lights, and Espinoza pulled over and stopped…

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.