Skip to Content
Law Office of Daniel Horowitz Law Office of Daniel Horowitz
Call Us Today! 925-291-5388
Top

A Key DUI Case -- People v. Demacedo

|

A Key DUI Case -- People v. Demacedo

People v. Demacedo (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1249 was decided in late 2025 and it defines the relationship between gross vehicular manslaughter and lesser included and lesser related offenses from the same incident.

This is a highly technical area but it is an important case in terms of what sentence can be imposed.  The entire area of lesser included and lesser related offenses are behind the understanding of not just the generall public but lawyers as well.  This summary of the Demacedo case is primarily for attorneys who are handling a drunk driving case with serious injuries.

Note: DUI, DWI and Drunk Driving all mean offenses committed while driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

 Background Facts

Denis Pereria Demacedo was involved in a tragic drunk driving accident. While driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of at least 0.18 percent—more than twice the legal limit—he crashed his vehicle into another car occupied by four people. Three occupants were killed at the scene, and the fourth, Sarah S., suffered severe injuries but survived.

Procedural History

Demacedo was charged with 10 felonies:

  • Three counts of second-degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a));
  • Three counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a));
  • Two counts of driving under the influence causing injury to Sarah S. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subds. (a) & (b)); and
  • Two counts of perjury (Pen. Code, § 118).

He pled no contest to the perjury charges. A jury convicted him on all remaining counts. In 2014, he was originally sentenced to 47 years and two months to life in prison. On direct appeal in 2018, the Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions with minor corrections to the abstract of judgment (nonpublished opinion, People v. Demacedo (Mar. 16, 2018, A144919)). Following remittitur, he was resentenced in April 2024 to 47 years to life. This appeal followed the resentencing.

Issues on Appeal

Demacedo raised two primary issues:

  1. Whether his convictions for DUI causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subds. (a) & (b)) must be dismissed as lesser included offenses of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)), given that the manslaughter counts involved the three deceased victims and the DUI counts involved the surviving injured victim (Sarah S.).
  2. Whether the trial court erred at resentencing by imposing a lump-sum total of $2,805 in fines and fees without itemizing the amounts and statutory bases.

Court's Analysis and Holding

Issue 1: Lesser Included Offenses (Reviewed De Novo) The court applied the statutory elements test: A lesser offense is necessarily included in a greater offense only if all statutory elements of the lesser are included in the greater (citing People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224; People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731).

Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)) requires: (1) driving in violation of specified Vehicle Code sections (including § 23153), (2) committing an unlawful or lawful act with gross negligence, and (3) proximately causing the death of a human being.

DUI causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153) requires driving under the influence or with elevated BAC and proximately causing bodily injury to another person.

The court held that DUI causing injury is not a lesser included offense of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated when the offenses involve different victims. Key reasoning:

  • One can commit gross vehicular manslaughter by killing certain victims without necessarily injuring a separate surviving victim.
  • The court followed People v. Machuca (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 393, which reached the same conclusion in a nearly identical multi-victim drunk driving scenario.
  • Support was drawn from People v. McFarland (1989) 47 Cal.3d 798 (Cal. Supreme Court), which allowed multiple punishment for manslaughter (death of one victim) and DUI causing injury (separate injured victim) under Penal Code § 654. The court reasoned that if DUI causing injury were a lesser included offense, the proper remedy in McFarland would have been dismissal of the DUI count, not upheld punishment—implying multiple convictions are permissible with different victims.
  • The court rejected Demacedo's reliance on older cases like People v. Givan (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 335 (pre-Machuca and involved concessions/limited analysis) and Wilkoff v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 345 (concerned multiple injuries from a single DUI violation, not death vs. injury distinctions clarified in McFarland).

Thus, multiple convictions were proper because the offenses were predicated on harm to distinct victims.

Issue 2: Fines and Fees The trial court imposed $2,805 in fines and assessments but failed to specify the breakdown or statutory bases in the oral pronouncement, minute order, or abstract of judgment. Both parties agreed this was error. Citing People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 and similar cases, the court found remand necessary for itemization to ensure transparency and proper documentation.

Disposition

The judgment was affirmed as to the convictions and sentence. The matter was remanded solely for the trial court to:

  • Specify the amount and statutory basis for each fine, fee, and assessment;
  • Prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting these details; and
  • Forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

This published opinion clarifies that, in multi-victim intoxicated driving cases resulting in both deaths and injuries, separate convictions for gross vehicular manslaughter and DUI causing injury are permissible when tied to different victims.

Hire the Best DUI Defense Lawyer

Daniel Horowitz is certified by the State of California's board of legal specialization as a criminal defense specialist.  If you see advertisements for the "best lawyer", "best DUI attorney", "Expert in criminal law" these are not the same as advertising as a "specialist".  It is actual an ethics violation to claim to be a criminal defense specialist in California without having that specialist title granted by the state bar following extensive testing and qualification.   You can reach Daniel Horowitz at 925-283-1863