Kurt Erlenbach

From the Miami New Times:

Minutes after Carlos Bertonatti drunkenly killed a cyclist on the Rickenbacker Causeway, an officer clocked him topping 80 mph as he tore down Crandon Boulevard and dodged traffic with a bicycle wedged under his fender.
His blood alcohol content at the time was at least .122 -- well over the legal limit of .08.

So says a previously unreleased police report and toxicology analysis which prosecutors have prepared for Bertonatti's defense team, and which Riptide recently obtained.

Bertonatti's lawyer, Leonard Sands, declined to comment for this story.

Police say that Bertonatti, an aspiring musician with a long record of bad driving, swerved his 2007 Volkwagon into the bike lane just after 8 a.m. on January 17. He struck Christophe Le Canne, a 44-year-old South Miami resident, who died soon after on the pavement as passing bikers tried to save him.

Minutes later, a Key Biscayne cop, Felix Huertas, spotted Bertonatti's car with "extensive front end damage" fly past the 600 block of Crandon Boulevard. Huertas says he flipped his lights on, and that Bertonatti tried to flee.

"Upon seeing my lights activate, (Bertonatti) began to increase his speed in excess of 80 miles per hour, almost colliding with slower moving traffic ahead of him," Huertas writes in the report.
Huertas followed Bertonatti back to his condo on Grapetree Drive and arrested him.

As we've reported before, Bertonatti refused to believe he'd killed a cyclist, yelling, "You're lying to me ... cops do that stuff all the time!"

Officers later forcibly strapped Bertonatti to a stretcher so they could get a blood sample.

The resulting toxicology tests, which Riptide has also obtained, confirms our earlier report that his BAC was .122 -- a level that an adult man his size would need to drink six beers in an hour to reach.

Bertonatti tested negative for pot, cocaine, and a battery of other drugs.

The next hearing in Bertonatti's criminal trial is set for May 3. He has pleaded not guilty to counts of DUI manslaughter, vehicular homicide, resisting arrest, and leaving the scene of a fatal accident.

In the meantime, he remains in jail; his initial $100,000 bond was revoked when authorities learned he'd lied about owning multiple passports.

Brontide

This person needs to be incarcerated for life. He is obviously a threat to himself, other, and has already taken a life despite multiple run ins with the law. A sociopath with no concern for others or for lying when it suits him.

Digital_Cowboy

Do we know for sure that it was his car that he was driving or was it someone else's car? Given that his family knew of his LONG history of not obeying at least the various traffic laws shouldn't they also be held accountable for his actions for allowing him to continue to drive without a valid driver's license?

Where were they? Also shouldn't whoever served him also be held accountable? Why didn't they call a cab for him instead of allowing him to drive home himself?

Also IF as early reports have it that he is married why was he out in a bar/night club fighting with a girlfriend? Why was he texting her while he was driving? Where is his wife? What does she think of all of this?

But most importantly how is Chris' family doing? How are they holding up, and is there anything that the cycling community can do for them? I know that nothing that we do can or will bring him back. But is there anything that the cycling community can do for his family?

Does anyone know if his ghost bike has been returned to it's spot, or located to another nearby location?

Digital_Cowboy

And I seriously doubt that he will ever change.

He needs to serve the maximum sentence that the court can award for each offense that he is charged with. As well as having each sentence served consecutively NOT concurrently. Plus he should NOT get any time off for "time served" while he is awaiting trial, nor should he get any time of for good behavior. He should have to do the full sentence for each offense. And when he has served is time he needs to be deported back to Venezuela. And barred from re-entering the US for any reason.

Kurt Erlenbach

Lots of questions, there DC. I read somewhere that the ghost bike had been put back - other than that I don't have the answers.

Regarding the sentencing, when that point comes, he's looking at a maximum of about 61 years (30 + 30 + 1) with a minimum of around 17, I think from my prior calculations, if he is convicted as charged. Like it or not, he will get credit for time served. If he is in jail for a year before sentencing, he gets a year credit, then he must do a minimum of 85% of the remaining time. He certainly would be deported upon conviction.

Digital_Cowboy

That's good to hear about the ghost bike.

Would that deportation happen before or after he has served his sentence? Hopefully after he has served his sentence.

Kurt Erlenbach

After.

cudak888 

Re: Ghost bike:

https://miamibikescene.blogspot.com/2...e-is-back.html

Thanks to all the complaints sent to the Country, the memorial was re-positioned in a proper, highly visible location.

-Kurt

Digital_Cowboy

Good, he needs to do as much time as possible. And the more that is learned about him the less I like him.

Digital_Cowboy

I just went there, and sent them an e-mail thanking them for restoring it, and for mounting up where it should hopefully be up high enough that vandals won't mess with it.

Laserman

These are things that might be important in a civil suit for wrongful death but have no validity in a criminal trial. I certainly would not want to accept liability for the actions of some of my relatives.

DX-MAN

DC, I was surprised to get this story via e-mail before I even got on this site; maybe my comments over there had something to do with that....

Missed the 'married' part the first time around, but it's irrelevant; he doesn't have near enough character to maintain a marriage, anyway.

Glad the memorial is set; there needs to be awareness of that, every bit as much attention as what Carlito's getting.

Digital_Cowboy

LM,

Do you live with those relatives? Don't forget that it's been reported that Carlos (despite supposedly being married) that he lived at home with his parents. Which could possibly make the responsible for his actions.

CB HI

There are locations that have or are considering laws, that if you knowingly allow a revoked driver to use your car, you are equally responsible for anything that driver does.

Digital_Cowboy

DM,

Like you I was also surprised to have gotten this in my E-Mail before seeing it here. I think you're right as to why we received the notice, because we used our real e-mail addresses. I wonder how many other people did as well.

You're right about that, we need to keep Chris' memory alive and to put a face on "poor, misunderstood" Carlito's victim, to remind that judge and jury that he is/was a human being, a father and a husband.

I'd have to agree with you about his lack of character.

Digital_Cowboy

Good, logically isn't that how it should be? I mean if I am not mistaken it is that way for people who go out drinking, right? The person who served you the alcohol is held responsible for the actions of those who get into their car and drive away drunk.

Spire

Why should the bartender responsible for someone drinking and driving? The person doing the drinking was sober at one point and then chose to drink and drive his car.

I do agree though that knowingly letting someone intoxicated drive your car (or even their own for that matter) should put you on the hook for anything they do.

Laserman

I could be wrong but I got the impression from the reports that I have seen that Carlos was living in his own condo, not with his parents. Even so he is legally an adult and his parents would not be responsible for his actions.
If the car was registered to someone else then, depending on state law, the vehicle owner could be charged if they knowingly allowed him to drive it without a valid licence. Proving they knew he was driving could be difficult depending on how people told their stories. Since no news reports of this have surfaced it would seem to be pure speculation.
Regardless of the proof needed for a criminal trial, a civil trial could find the vehicle owner and the bar owner liable for the accident as well.
Has the place where he had been drinkiing been identified? I don't recall any information on that. If it was a private residence and not a public establishment that may indemnify them from responsibility.

cudak888 

Everything was welded together on that thing. It'll be impossible for vandals to take it apart.

-Kurt

Digital_Cowboy

Because in I think most states now there is a law that make bartenders, and/or the host/hostess of a party responsible if they allow their customers/guests leave getting behind the wheel of a car drunk. As well as if I am not mistaken there are now laws on the books in most states that prohibit bartenders (and probably) the host/hostess of a party from serving a person is obviously already drunk anymore alcohol.

I used to live just a couple of blocks from a nice bar that I would frequent. And even though I walked to it, if when I left I was more then a "little drunk" the bartender would offer to call a cab for me. Fortunately that was SOP for anyone who left that particular bar and should be for any bar.

And I think that is one of the things that the group MADD fought for.

Digital_Cowboy

The impression that I had gotten was that he was headed to the family condo as it seems if I remember correctly that address given was for the condo of his parents. I'll admit that I am no legal eagle or anything. But IF he was living with his parents at the time, and given that I believe it has been reported not only here, but I think else where that he hadn't had a valid license for some time. And his extensive criminal history that (most of which were traffic based offenses with a few other offenses thrown in for "good measure") that it could be argued by the DA that his parents knew of his behavior and being his parents and with him living in their home that they had a responsibility to better control their son.

I think from the way the various articles have read that the car in question is/was his car and/or maybe jointly owned by him and his "wife."

I believe that even if it hasn't been named (and right now I think that it would probably be in the bar/night clubs best interest NOT to be named) that it has been identified as being either a bar or night club.

It is my understanding that the host/hostess of a party like a bartender is responsible for the actions of their guests if they leave their party in an intoxicated state.

Digital_Cowboy

Kurt,

That's good to hear, but as I am sure I don't need to tell you if vandals really wanted to mess with something that they would find a way to do so. It would be nice if they would take that energy and redirect it into a more positive direction.

dougmc

Why? Because this offense is so incredibly heinous that it warrants throwing out existing laws, protocols and sentencing guidelines? I'll agree with you on the maximum sentences, and I'm not sure how decision about serving sentences consecutively vs. concurrently are made, but the rest -- it's like you're just throwing everything against the wall seeing what might stick.

Why put "time served" in quotes? It's literally time served -- in jail. Presumably not a very nice jail, based on what I've heard about Florida. And really, the more important part about that is that it's time gone -- even if he is found not guilty, that time was still spent in jail. (Which may not be such a big deal in this case, but in others -- innocent people can spend a whole lot of time in jail because they can't afford bail, or it's not even offered.)

But guilty or not, credit for time served is only fair. (And really, if not guilty, fair would be to give them that time back. Not that that's really possible, of course.)

sooprvylyn

+1, there is a real problem with attitude in this country regarding legal "justice".

Digital_Cowboy

Because why should pre-trial/trial confinement count towards ones sentence? It should be given no more wight then when a person signs a ticket. As the person has not yet had their day in court, so they have not be tried, and found either guilty or not guilty of anything. It's just pre-trial confinement to ensure that the accused will be present for trial.

But if one hasn't been tried and/or convicted how can they serve time before the punishment is/has been decided? And how many times have we seen people get their sentences reduced to nothing or next to nothing do to time served?

But if they haven't been tried and either acquitted or convicted again how can they serve time when the punishment hasn't even been determined?