From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bautista

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.
Nov 24, 2003
No. D041296 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2003)

Opinion

D041296.

11-24-2003

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARTHUR BAUTISTA, Defendant and Appellant.


Arthur Bautista entered negotiated guilty pleas to inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), making a criminal threat (§ 422), and vandalism causing $400 or more damage (§ 594, subd. (a)(b)(1)). The court sentenced him to five years four months in prison, consisting of (1) the four-year upper term for inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant, (2) a consecutive term of eight months for making a criminal threat, and (3) a consecutive term of eight months for vandalism (one-third the middle terms). Bautista contends he was denied due process at the sentencing hearing because the court was biased and did not conform to the law.

All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Underlying Facts

Because this matter was resolved by way of a plea agreement, we take the factual background from the probation report.

On July 17, 2002, Bautistas girlfriend and mother of his child, Amanda, visited him at an apartment he shared with David Goode. Amanda was carrying the infant child. Amanda told Bautista she and Bautista were no longer romantically involved. Bautista forced her to the floor, grabbed the child, and pointed a gun at Amandas head saying, "This is the end of all these problems." Bautista lowered the gun and told Amanda he was going to run and take the baby. Raising a fist, Bautista ordered Amanda to sit down. He dropped the child on a chair and began punching Amanda with a closed fist. Amanda told police about prior beatings Bautista had inflicted on her when she was pregnant.

On July 19, 2002, Bautista threatened to kill David Goode, a former friend, and Goodes mother because Bautista suspected Goode of having an affair with Amanda. The same day, Bautista caused over $3,000 damage to a car by scratching it with a key. The victim said he did not know Bautista.

B. Sentencing

The probation department recommended the upper term for inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant with consecutive terms on the other crimes. At the sentencing hearing Goode spoke favorably of Bautista. Amanda also wrote the court seeking leniency. She had married Bautista since the charged crime. Defense counsel argued for probation. The prosecution stated why it supported the upper term and consecutive terms. After defense counsel again asked that Bautista be placed on probation , the court said "unfortunately, this case has the attributes of a classic domestic violence situation that is extremely dangerous."

The court found that Bautista was a "good talker; he knows how to maneuver people." It also found that Amanda did not see the "bigger picture" that Bautista was a danger, particularly to the child. The court stated that it dealt with "dead women and dead babies day in and day out." It found Bautista had repeatedly violated probation as a juvenile, including incidents involving guns, and ultimately ended up in the California Youth Authority. The court found the crime mitigated by no prior adult felony convictions and acceptance of some responsibility. It found the crime aggravated by infliction of great bodily harm and multiple victims. It found Bautista a serious danger to society, his prior performance on probation unsatisfactory, and his crimes of increasing seriousness.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Determination as to the appropriate term is within the trial courts broad discretion (People v. Roe (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 112, 119) and must be affirmed unless there is a "showing that the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice." (People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316.)

B. Analysis

Bautista argues the trial court was so biased against him that it denied him a fair sentencing hearing. We reject this contention.

Bautista correctly notes that due process includes a right to a fair and impartial court. (See People v. Superior Court (Greer) (1977) 19 Cal.3d 255, 266; People v. Hernandez (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 725, 744.) However, we have reviewed the transcript of the sentencing hearing and find the trial court was not biased, but only concerned about the volume and seriousness of spousal and child abuse cases it had seen. There is nothing in the record indicating that this concern caused the court to overstep its discretion in choosing the appropriate term. Moreover, the courts sentence in this matter was well within its discretion.

Section 1170, subdivision (b) provides in part:

"When a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies three possible terms, the court shall order imposition of the middle term, unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime."

California Rules of Court, rule 4.420(b) provides in part:

"Circumstances in aggravation and mitigation shall be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Selection of the upper term is justified only if, after a consideration of all the relevant facts, circumstances in aggravation outweigh the circumstances in mitigation."

"Sentencing courts have wide discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors [citation], and may balance them against each other in qualitative as well as quantitative terms. [Citation.]" (People v. Roe , supra, 148 Cal.App.3d 119.) One factor alone may warrant imposition of the upper term (People v. Kellett (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 949, 963) and the trial court need not state reasons for minimizing or disregarding circumstances in mitigation (People v. Salazar (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 799, 813). "[D]iscretion is abused whenever the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered. [Citations.] [I]n the absence of a clear showing that its sentencing decision was arbitrary or irrational" a discretionary determination should not be set aside on review. (People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72.)

Here, the trial court adopted the recommendations of the probation department. In doing so, it found Bautistas crime aggravated by infliction of great bodily harm, multiple victims, poor prior performance on probation, and the increasing seriousness of his crimes. The court also recognized mitigating factors in deciding Bautistas sentence. The court did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in imposing the upper term or in imposing consecutive terms.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J. and OROURKE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Bautista

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.
Nov 24, 2003
No. D041296 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2003)
Case details for

People v. Bautista

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARTHUR BAUTISTA, Defendant and…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.

Date published: Nov 24, 2003

Citations

No. D041296 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2003)