How have courts interpreted the meaning of the word "point" in relation to flight from a police officer?

Defendant's argument misconstrues the meaning of the trial court's statement at trial. Defendant was charged with flight from a police officer in violation of section 2800.2. After the close of evidence, the defense sought a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of misdemeanor flight, in violation of section 2800.1. (See People v. Springfield (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1674, 1679-1680 [noting that misdemeanor flight under section 2800.1 is a lesser included offense of felony flight under section 2800.2].) The trial court found such an instruction unwarranted, stating that what distinguishes a section 2800.1 misdemeanor from a section 2800.2 felony are "points" and/or "property damage." The court's statement was both legally and factually correct. As a legal matter, a defendant who commits misdemeanor flight from a police officer in violation of section 2800.1 is guilty of a felony under section 2800.2 if he does so by driving in a "willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property." ( 2800.2, subd. (a).) Such "willful and wanton disregard" may be proven by showing that during flight the defendant committed "three or more traffic violations that are assigned a traffic violation point" or that "damage to property occur[red]." ( 2800.2, subd. (b).) As a factual matter, there is no dispute that at trial the People adduced evidence that defendant crossed the double yellow lines, exceeded the speed limit, drove

Page 11