Opinion
C097878
04-15-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERTO DIAZ MENDOZA, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Super. Ct. No. 22CR002441).
Krause, J.
Defendant Roberto Diaz Mendoza appeals after pleading guilty to three offenses. Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it selected the middle-term sentence of five years in prison for carjacking. Seeing no abuse of discretion, we will affirm.
BACKGROUND
Defendant and two codefendants drove a stolen car to a casino parking lot and pulled up behind a parked car, blocking it into the parking space. Defendant and one codefendant approached either side of the parked car. The codefendant opened the front passenger door, pointed a shotgun at the person in the driver's seat, and demanded he exit the car. Defendant opened the driver's door and pulled the victim out onto the ground. The other codefendant then moved the blocking car, and defendant and the first codefendant drove off in the victim's car.
Sheriff's deputies identified defendant from security video and then found the stolen car used for the carjacking near defendant's parents' home, with the two codefendants in or near the car. Deputies then arrested defendant at his parents' home. He admitted his participation in the carjacking and that he had a pistol in his front pocket that he had not used. When the deputies found the shotgun used in the carjacking, it had a round of ammunition in the chamber. During the booking process at the jail, jail staff found three fentanyl pills in defendant's pocket.
Defendant pled guilty to carjacking, bringing a controlled substance into a jail, and possessing a firearm having been convicted of a felony. In return for defendant's guilty pleas, the prosecution agreed to a maximum sentence of six years eight months in prison, with the trial court to decide the sentence up to that maximum. The prosecution also agreed to dismiss the remaining charges and enhancements.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court considered the probation officer's report and recommendation, the treatment court recommendation, the alternative recommendation for adult felon drug court, and the character reference letters submitted by defendant's family, neighbors, and priest. Defense counsel argued defendant deserved a mitigated sentence because he acknowledged his wrongdoing and cooperated with law enforcement at an early stage of the criminal process, his actions were caused by his use of fentanyl and methamphetamine for which he was willing to seek treatment, and he had substantial support from his family and the community. Accordingly, defendant asked the court to place him on probation and require participation in the drug court program or a residential drug treatment program. If the court was not inclined to grant probation, defendant asked the court to impose the lower-term prison sentence of three years for carjacking.
The prosecution requested the trial court sentence defendant to the middle term of five years in prison for carjacking, plus consecutive sentences for the other two offenses, for a total of six years eight months in prison. In support of this position, the prosecution introduced a certified copy of a record of defendant's arrests and prosecutions and contended that defendant's planning and commission of the carjacking matched the trajectory of his criminal history, which included unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger, burglary, and possessing a firearm having been convicted of a felony. The prosecution argued that this pattern of conduct made defendant a danger to the community.
The trial court first noted that the carjacking was "off-the-hook crazy" and that defendant was lucky nobody got killed. The trial court then considered defendant's prior convictions and the fact that he was on probation for a prior felony at the time of the carjacking. The court acknowledged that the numerous letters indicated defendant had a lot of support, that defendant had previously maintained a period of sobriety and productive employment before getting caught up with the wrong people, and that defendant had taken responsibility fairly early in the proceedings. The court also acknowledged defendant's problem with controlled substances, but found this did not justify pulling somebody out of a car at gunpoint.
The trial court then found defendant ineligible for probation and explained that, even if defendant were eligible, the court would not grant probation because he was too great of a risk to public safety. The court also found the aggravating circumstances far outweighed the mitigating circumstances and, therefore, the middle-term sentence of five years in prison was appropriate. Rather than running the other sentences consecutively as the prosecution requested, the court imposed concurrent sentences for bringing a controlled substance into a jail and for possessing a firearm having been convicted of a felony, for a total sentence of five years.
Defendant appealed the judgment.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the middle-term sentence instead of the lower term for carjacking. Specifically, defendant argues the trial court improperly focused on the sophistication of the crime, failed to acknowledge that a codefendant was "likely the leader," and failed to appropriately weigh defendant's chances of achieving sobriety through a drug treatment program. We see no abuse of discretion.
Defendant does not challenge the evidentiary support for the circumstances relied upon by the trial court. "After a sufficient factual basis to support the circumstances in aggravation or mitigation is found, the court enjoys broad discretion in its sentencing determination." (People v. Hilburn (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 189, 205.) That "discretion must be exercised in a manner that is not arbitrary and capricious, that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the law, and that is based upon an 'individualized consideration of the offense, the offender, and the public interest.'" (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847.) A sentencing court abuses its discretion "if it relies upon circumstances that are not relevant to the decision or that otherwise constitute an improper basis for decision." (Ibid.)"' "[T]he burden is on the party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. [Citation.] In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review." '" (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 376-377.) The court's"' "decision will not be reversed merely because reasonable people might disagree. 'An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge.'" '" (Id. at p. 377.) In other words, "a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it." (Ibid.)
Defendant has failed to establish an abuse of discretion. The trial court did not improperly focus on the "sophistication" of the offense, as the California Rules of Court explicitly establish an aggravating circumstance when "[t]he manner in which the crime was carried out indicates planning, sophistication, or professionalism." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(8).) Nor does defendant cite any evidence to support his contention that "[t]he 'sophistication' in planning the offense was unlikely to have been appellant's, since he was under the influence of both fentanyl and methamphetamine." Defendant had an opportunity to introduce evidence showing that his use of these substances prevented sophisticated planning, but he did not do so.
Likewise, defendant's argument that his codefendant "was likely the leader" does not establish the mitigating circumstance that "defendant was a passive participant or played a minor role in the crime." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.423(a)(1).) This argument lacks merit in any event because defendant carried a gun, grabbed the victim, removed him from the car, and threw him to the ground.
Finally, defendant's argument that "the mitigated term would have given him the chance of achieving sobriety," does not establish an abuse of discretion. The trial court carefully considered and weighed defendant's substance abuse. We cannot say the court's decision not to take a "chance" on defendant achieving sobriety was "so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it." (See People v. Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 377.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Hull, Acting P. J., Mauro, J.