People v. Coleman CA6


Filed 12/30/20 P. v. Coleman CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H045801 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1365815) v. DANIEL DARNELL COLEMAN, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Daniel Darnell Coleman sped away from police officers who were attempting to conduct a traffic stop and crashed into another car, killing two people. After a jury trial, Coleman was convicted of two counts of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187),1 possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and reckless driving while eluding a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2). He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 60 years to life and a consecutive determinate term of four years. On appeal, Coleman argues that the trial court erroneously refused his request to instruct the jury with a definition of implied malice that would have clarified the language found in CALCRIM No. 520, the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing that his actions after the crash proved he acted with implied malice, and the restitution fine and penalty assessments imposed in his case should be stayed pending a determination of his ability to pay. We affirm the judgment. 1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. BACKGROUND 1. The Information On October 24, 2017, an amended information was filed charging Coleman with two counts of murder (§ 187; counts 1 & 2), a count of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and a count of reckless driving while eluding a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). The amended information also alleged that Coleman had one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). 2. The Trial a. The Car Crash On September 2, 2013, California Highway Patrol Officer Matthew Barge was on duty at approximately 3:17 a.m. He was driving north on Interstate 101, to the south of Interstate 880, when he noticed that a Mercedes-Benz sedan was weaving and traveling over the speed limit. Officer Barge followed the Mercedes as it exited toward the Brokaw Road and North First Street offramp. After the Mercedes turned onto Brokaw Road, Officer Barge attempted to initiate a traffic stop and turned on his overhead lights and forward-facing red and blue lights. Officer Barge’s partner used the police car’s public address system and instructed the Mercedes’s driver to pull over to the right side of the road. The Mercedes started to slow down, but it made a sudden left turn when the upcoming traffic light turned green. The Mercedes then made a left onto First Street from Brokaw Road, running a red light. Officer Barge decided not to pursue …

Original document

Add comment