Court Opinion

ID: 9377451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 20:02:16.885521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:14.239482
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/7/23 P. v. Mal CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                            THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                    (Sacramento)
                                         ----

    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                C096390

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 18FE018526)

           v.

    AVENESH KUMAN MAL,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Avenesh Kuman Mal has asked this court to
conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding none, we will affirm.
                                               I. BACKGROUND
         We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.)
         The amended complaint in this case, deemed an information, charged defendant
with vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1).)1

1   Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
        On September 14, 2018, at approximately 4:15 p.m., a detective with the
Sacramento Police Department heard a loud explosion, saw smoke, and went to
investigate. When he arrived at the scene, he saw two cars that had been involved in a
collision. One of the cars was engulfed in flames; the driver was still in the car and
burned to death.
        The detective and another witness saw defendant standing by his own badly
damaged car, retrieving items from the passenger compartment and putting them in the
trunk. Defendant did not approach the victim’s car. Defendant appeared calm and told
the detective he was the driver of the car.
        At trial, the prosecution presented video evidence taken from the dash cam of
defendant’s car that shows him traveling at a high rate of speed. Just prior to the
accident, the video shows a second car pulling in front of defendant at an intersection
where both cars stopped for a traffic light. When the light turned green, both cars
accelerated quickly and appear to “start racing,” with defendant’s car changing lanes in
an effort to pass the other car. Shortly after defendant moved into the left lane and passed
the other car, defendant broadsided the victim’s car which was turning left in front of
him.
        The event data recorder in defendant’s car shows he was driving between 100 and
109 miles per hour in the five seconds immediately before the crash. He was traveling
108 miles per hour when he applied the brakes on his car 1.5 seconds prior to impact and
79 miles per hour .1 second before impact. The speed limit on the road was 40 miles per
hour.
        An officer with the Sacramento Police Department responded to the scene shortly
after the crash and interviewed defendant. Defendant told the officer he just left work.
As he passed a slower vehicle moving into the left lane, the victim’s car turned in front of
him and he was unable to stop. Defendant said he was driving at 45 to 50 miles per hour.
He told the same story to a second police detective that responded to the scene. When the

                                              2
first police officer told defendant the person in the other car died, defendant had no
visible reaction other than to ask what would happen next and when would he be able to
go home.
       The jury found defendant guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced defendant to
the middle term of four years in state prison, imposed a $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4),
an equal parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), $7,500 in restitution to the Victim’s
Compensation Board (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), a court operations fee of $40 (§ 1465.8), and a
conviction assessment fee of $30 (Gov. Code, § 70373).
       Defendant timely appealed.
                                    II. DISCUSSION
       Defendant’s appointed counsel has asked this court to conduct an independent
review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right
to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed.
More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
       We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

                                             3
                            III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

                                                /S/

                                       RENNER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/S/

EARL, J.

/S/

BOULWARE EURIE, J.

                                   4