Opinion
F073734
09-25-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASON CHRISTOPHER PACHECO, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. F14907323)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Dennis A. Peterson, Judge. Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.
-ooOoo-
Defendant Jason Christopher Pacheco, Jr., was convicted by no contest plea of assault with a deadly weapon with personal infliction of great bodily injury after he beat a romantic rival with a baseball bat. On appeal, he contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying him probation. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On August 5, 2014, the Fresno County District Attorney charged defendant with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) and unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 2). The complaint further alleged as to count 1 that defendant had personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim (§ 12022.7).
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
On August 5, 2015, defendant pled no contest to count 1 and admitted the great bodily injury allegation in exchange for a maximum term of five years in prison.
On December 2, 2015, the trial court suspended criminal proceedings and ordered diagnostic evaluations pursuant to section 1203.03.
On March 16, 2016, after considering the original and supplemental probation reports and the diagnostic evaluations, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to five years in prison: the low term of two years on count 1, plus the low term of three years on the enhancement.
On May 13, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
FACTS
Until about a week before August 1, 2015, 23-year-old defendant and 19-year-old Rebecca L. (Rebecca) were in a relationship and living together. But on August 1, 2015, Rebecca was out with 22-year-old Jullian H. (Jullian). In the early morning, Jullian drove Rebecca home. He left his vehicle running and walked her to the front door of her residence. As they stood at the door, defendant appeared and began beating Jullian with a baseball bat. Rebecca tried to stop defendant from hitting Jullian, but defendant told her to move and he did not want to hurt her. He repeatedly hit Jullian on the head and body with the bat. Jullian ran across the street to escape defendant. Defendant then got into Jullian's vehicle and drove away.
When the police arrived at approximately 2:57 a.m., Jullian was lying in the front yard across the street. He had sustained an extensive head injury above his eye, which was swollen shut, and his head was bleeding heavily. He told officers defendant had tried to start fights with him in the past. Jullian was taken to the hospital by ambulance.
Officers observed a large pool of blood on the front porch and trails of blood leading to Jullian's location across the street. Near the sidewalk was a broken baseball bat covered with blood.
The attack left Jullian with a fractured skull and damaged eye. He sustained numerous cuts and bruises to his body and large lacerations to his forehead that required sutures.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred by not granting him probation because he had no prior criminal record, the incident was isolated and not likely to recur, he had been diagnosed with a mental health condition that mitigated his criminality, and he had shown significant progress in his efforts to rehabilitate himself while on bail. He argues that despite these facts, the trial court relied on the finding that the offense showed planning and sophistication, a finding he claims was not supported by the evidence.
The trial court has broad discretion in matters involving probation and sentencing, and the party challenging a decision to grant or deny probation bears the burden of establishing the court abused its discretion. (People v. Catalan (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 173, 179.) " 'In reviewing [a trial court's determination whether to grant or deny probation,] it is not our function to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Our function is to determine whether the trial court's order ... is arbitrary or capricious or exceeds the bounds of reason considering all the facts and circumstances.' " (People v. Weaver (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1311 (Weaver), disapproved on another ground in People v. Cook (2015) 60 Cal.4th 922, 934-935.)
California Rules of Court, rule 4.414 provides guidance and factors in determining when probation is appropriate. Factors to consider fall into two categories—those relating to the defendant's crime and those relating to the defendant. (Rule 4.414.) A trial court may also consider factors not listed in the rules if the factors are reasonably related to the court's decision. (Rule 4.408(a).) A judge is assumed to have considered all relevant factors, unless the record affirmatively reflects otherwise. (Rule 4.409.)
All references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.
A trial court is required to state its reasons for denying probation and imposing a prison sentence. (Rules 4.406(b)(2); 4.408(a).) Generally, a court satisfies this obligation when it explains why it favored imprisonment over probation. (People v. Mehserle (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1157-1158.) On appeal, we will find abuse of discretion only where there is not sufficient or substantial evidence to support the court's application of the factors. (Weaver, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 1313.)
In the probation officer's report prepared on September 17, 2015, the officer recommended denying probation. The officer noted that pursuant to section 1203, subdivisions (e)(2) and (e)(3), defendant was not eligible for probation unless his case was found to be an unusual one where the interest of justice would best be served by a grant of probation. To this point, the officer noted that defendant was youthful and had no significant criminal record. (Rule 4.413.) But the officer listed the following aggravating circumstances: (1) the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other facts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness; and (2) the defendant engaged in violent conduct that indicated a serious danger to society. (Rule 4.421.) In mitigation, the officer noted: (1) defendant had no prior record, or an insignificant record of criminal conduct, considering the recency and frequency of prior crimes; and (2) defendant voluntarily acknowledged wrongdoing before arrest or at an early stage of the criminal process. The officer found no mitigating factors relating to the crime. (Rule 4.423.)
The officer recommended denying probation based on the severity of the crime, the extent of the injuries sustained by the victim, and the callousness displayed during the commission of the crime. The officer recommended the mitigated term of two years, plus the three-year enhancement, based on defendant's lack of prior convictions and his early admission.
After defendant underwent diagnostic evaluations, the probation officer prepared a supplemental report on March 3, 2016. In it, the probation officer summarized three recent developments. First, following a diagnostic study, Warden Felix Vasquez recommended that probation be denied due to the nature and seriousness of his offense. Vasquez noted, however, that if probation were granted, defendant would not pose a significant risk to the community.
Second, according to a mental health evaluation conducted by staff psychologist Dr. C. Mathews, defendant was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and he presented with impulsive and aggressive behavior that might constitute a risk to the general public. Mathews noted that if probation were granted, defendant should continue his mental health treatment, participate in anger management classes, and attend a substance abuse program.
Finally, according to the "Institutional Staff Recommendation Summary," correctional counselor Hewitt recommended that probation be granted, and that defendant participate in drug and mental health treatment.
Considering these evaluations, the probation officer again recommended that probation be denied and defendant be committed to prison for two years, plus the three-year enhancement.
At the sentencing hearing on March 16, 2016, after hearing arguments from both counsel and statements from defendant and his family, the trial court stated:
"All right. Well, in this particular case, of course, as I think everybody has noticed, the Court's in a very difficult position in that I understand the equities on both sides. I understand that we have a victim who was—has suffered great injury. And as [defense counsel] stated, this is a true victim. He's completely innocent as far as his involvement in the case. Obviously [the prosecutor] has indicated that but for the grace of God, this could have been a homicide case. There's the deserving facts that the defendant had—apparently had armed himself and even though in a crude type of fashion, did appear to lie in wait for the alleged victim to make an appearance in this particular case.
"The Court's also well aware now of the defendant's bipolar disorder. The Court is concerned because there is a split of opinions in the diagnostic [evaluations] done in this particular case. And of course, as noted by [defense counsel], the warden at Wasco indicated defendant should be not granted probation or there was a difference of opinion about that from the experts of Wasco.
"I've heard the members of the family and I understand their understanding here, and in one sense I would say that the defendant is a good candidate for probation because he's got this tremendous support system available to him. But on the other hand, the Court is faced with the grim reality of the fact that there was a brutal and violent assault on an innocent party and it's really a case where the Court finds it's a difficult situation for the Court to make a ruling on, because as a human being, as a person, I have a certain amount of sympathy and compassion for [defendant]. I certainly wish him well. But on the other hand, the Court has to look at the realities of this situation, the plea agreement that was made in this particular case, and the fact that even after diagnostic [evaluations] it's the Probation Department's opinion anyway that the defendant should—that the Court should sentence the defendant to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
"And if the facts were slightly different, I think the Court would be granting probation in this particular case, but the fact that the defendant
was, if not stalking, at least there was some degree of planning that was involved in the assault that occurred here, which is behavior that the Court can't ignore. And in every other regard it would be the Court's wish to provide for a probationary term, but I just can't quite reach that point.
"Therefore, the Court's going to follow the recommendation of the Probation Department. The Court's denying probation. The defendant is committed to the state prison for the mitigated term of two years enhanced by three years for the infliction of great bodily injury pursuant to 12022.7(a) for an aggregate term of five years."
On this record, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation, even if it was a "difficult" case. There was ample evidence to support the court's thoughtful analysis and factual conclusion that defendant planned the attack and lay in wait for the innocent victim, that defendant committed the attack with brutality, and that the victim was gravely injured. In spite of defendant's lack of prior convictions and his early admission, the court was fully justified in denying probation and imposing the mitigated prison term.
For the first time on appeal, defendant contends the federal due process clause required the trial court to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor. Defendant forfeited this issue (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 355), and it is nevertheless without merit.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.