Opinion ID: 2252157
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exceeding 100 miles per hour

Text: Next, appellant contends that exceeding 100 miles per hour is a lesser and necessarily included offense of reckless driving and he cannot stand convicted of both. Even though we have reversed the reckless driving conviction and appellant therefore currently does not stand convicted of both charges, we discuss this issue to assist the court on remand, should appellant assert a double jeopardy claim based upon the theory that he has already been convicted of a lesser included offense. (See, e.g., People v. Lohbauer (1981) 29 Cal.3d 364, 372, 173 Cal.Rptr. 453, 627 P.2d 183.) [A]n offense is necessarily included in the charged offense if under the statutory definition of the charged offense it cannot be committed without committing the lesser offense, ... [Citation.] ( People v. Geiger (1984) 35 Cal.3d 510, 517, fn. 4, 199 Cal.Rptr. 45, 674 P.2d 1303; see also People v. Steele (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 212, 217, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 458.) Reckless driving is statutorily defined as driving any vehicle in a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.... (Veh.Code § 23103.) Since one can drive recklessly at speeds below 100 miles per hour, the speeding charge is not necessarily included in the reckless driving charge. Appellant next contends he should not have been separately punished for speeding because exceeding 100 miles per hour and driving recklessly should be considered one act. (Pen.Code § 654.) [2] Since the only conviction is now the speeding conviction, this challenge to the sentence is moot. Nevertheless, the trial court must reconsider the sentence on remand. Under Vehicle Code section 22348, a first violation carries a maximum fine of $500, but appellant was fined $750 for the two counts. The trial court must reevaluate the sentence and decide what fine to impose for the speeding conviction alone.