People v. Hendrix

Summary

A police officer cited Jeremy Hendrix for rolling through a red light. At the traffic stop, the officer observed that Hendrix, who failed a sobriety test, was drunk and arrested Hendrix for driving under the influence. After Hendrix took a BAC test, he was charged with a DUI and subsequently paid the fine for the red light traffic infraction, "which amounted to a no contest plea and a conviction." Then, a court denied Hendrix's Kellett v. Superior Court motion to dismiss the DUI case finding that it was not barred by Penal Code Section 654, which prohibits multiple punishment and multiple prosecution. Hendrix appeals arguing that because he paid the fine for the traffic infraction, he could not be subsequently prosecuted for the DUI.
Affirmed. Kellett, which interprets Section 654, provides that if the prosecution knows of "more than one offense in which the" same act or course of conduct "plays a significant part, all such offenses must be prosecuted in a single proceeding," absent a prohibited joinder or permitted severance. Further, the "failure to unite such offenses" bars subsequent prosecution where "the initial proceedings culminate in... conviction." In determining whether the same act or course of conduct played a significant role in multiple offenses, People v. Hurtado determined whether evidence needed to prove one offense proved the other. Here, the two offenses in question were a red light infraction and a DUI offense. All that was required to prove the red light infraction was that the defendant rolled through the light. Whereas, all that was required to prove the DUI offense were the officers' observations, the sobriety test, and the BAC test. Hence, because proving each offense required distinct evidence, the offenses were factually distinct. Therefore, Section 654 did not bar prosecution of Hendrix's DUI offense and this court affirmed.
Opinion by Justice Hoch.

— Karen Figueroa