Filed 9/18/23 P. v. Ingram CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LATISHA CHERMIE INGRAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D081166

 (Super. Ct. No. SCD282331)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Peter C. Deddeh, Judge. Reversed in part and remanded with directions. 

Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin 

Urbanski, Laura G. Baggett, and Namita Patel, Deputy Attorneys General, 

for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Latisha Chermie Ingram of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, 

subd. (a); count 1); gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. 
2

Code, § 191.5, subd. (a); count 2); driving while under the influence of alcohol 

causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 3); driving with a 

blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, 

§ 23153, subd. (a); count 4); and hit and run with death or permanent injury 

(Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(2); count 5). The jury also found true various 

enhancements as to counts 2, 3, and 4. The trial court sentenced Ingram to 

prison for 15 years to life on count 1 and stayed the sentences for the 

remaining counts. 

On appeal, Ingram contends that counts 3 and 4 are lesser necessarily 

included offenses of count 2 that must be reversed. She also contends her 

counsel provided prejudicially ineffective assistance by failing to raise that 

argument at trial. Respondent agrees that counts 3 and 4 are lesser included 

offenses of count 2 and asks that we remand for the trial court to dismiss 

those counts.

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to the 

California Standards for the Appellate Courts, section 8.1. 

Penal Code section 954 permits an accusatory pleading to charge 

different statements of the same offense. Penal Code section 654, however, 

prohibits multiple punishments for more than one conviction for the same 

criminal act. Thus, a conviction of a greater offense and one or more lesser 

included offenses cannot stand simultaneously. (Rutledge v. United States

(1996) 517 U.S. 292, 307.) A crime is a lesser included offense of a greater 

offense if one cannot commit the greater offense without also necessarily 

committing the lesser offense. (People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 288.) 

Here, the parties concur that gross vehicular manslaughter while 

intoxicated (count 2) necessarily includes the offenses of driving under the 

influence of alcohol causing bodily injury (count 3) and driving with a blood 
3

alcohol level of 0.08 percent or more causing bodily injury (count 4) where, as 

here, each offense involves the same victim. We agree. By its express terms, 

Penal Code section 191.5 applies “where the driving was in violation of 

Section . . . 23153 of the Vehicle Code.” (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subds. (a) & (b).) 

In other words, “[o]ne person who injures a person while driving under the 

influence commits a violation of Vehicle Code section 23153; and if that 

person dies from that injury—whether immediately or sometime later—a 

violation of Penal Code section 191.5 has occurred.” (People v. Miranda

(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1464, 1468.) 

We thus conclude counts 3 (driving under the influence of alcohol 

causing bodily injury) and 4 (driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent 

or more causing bodily injury) are lesser necessarily included offenses of 

count 2 (gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated) that cannot stand. 

Given this conclusion, we need not address Ingram’s claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. 
4

DISPOSITION

We reverse Ingram’s convictions for counts 3 and 4, and remand to the 

trial court with directions to dismiss the convictions for counts 3 and 4 and 

issue an amended abstract of judgment consistent with this opinion and 

forward a copy to the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

HUFFMAN, J.