From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Conatser

Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division One.
Nov 26, 2003
No. A101717 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2003)

Opinion

A101717.

11-26-2003

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODNEY WAYNE CONATSER, Defendant and Appellant.


Defendant Rodney Wayne Conatser pled guilty to manufacture of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced him to seven years in prison. Defendant contends the seven-year sentence was an abuse of discretion, because the sentencing court "failed to accord sufficient weight to mitigating factors, while placing undue reliance on aggravating factors." We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

I. FACTS

Because of defendants guilty plea, we take the facts from the probation report and a supplemental probation report prepared at the courts request.

On October 17, 2002, the Lake County Narcotics Task Force conducted a probation search on the home of a juvenile, S.P. The officers found on the premises S.P., his father Steven P., defendant, and another juvenile named Tanya C. All four were under the influence of methamphetamine.

The probation reports describe S.P. as a juvenile, but give his birth date as February 11, 1982—making him 20 years old at the time of the search.

The officers described the residence as a clandestine methamphetamine lab concealed in a double-wide mobile home in a residential area. The clandestine lab was located within the city limits of Clearlake, less than 100 yards from several open businesses. In the lab and a nearby storage shed, the officers found 79 items of evidence relating to methamphetamine manufacture, including flammable, toxic, reactive, corrosive, and explosive chemicals. Steven P. and defendant used homemade precursors, such as red phosphorus from matches and ephedrine from pseudoephedrine tablets, to make methamphetamine.

The officers concluded the clandestine lab was a sophisticated operation capable of producing one ounce of finished methamphetamine per day. Steven P. and defendant were "sophisticated in their knowledge" of how to obtain homemade precursors "without purchasing commercially manufacture[d] chemicals needed to manufacture methamphetamine." The lab was also "extremely dangerous" because it was close to businesses in a residential area, and because toxic chemicals were "haphazardly strewn throughout . . . ."

The clandestine lab contained many accoutrements of defensive weaponry: a .22 rifle and ammunition, a 12-guage shotgun, a blowgun with darts, a baton, an axe handle converted to a billy club, and "a large and . . . aggressive dog." The rifle and blowgun were accessible to anyone walking in the hallway of the mobile home. The lab was enclosed by a gated fence, and was equipped with a hidden surveillance camera hooked up to a TV monitor in the master bedroom. The camera provided a full view of anyone walking up the driveway to the front door.

The probation departments initial report revealed that defendant, who was 35 years old, had a number of misdemeanor convictions dating from1990. Many of those convictions led to grants of summary probation. The initial report also included a statement from defendant that he "was making dope so [he] could get high" and wanted help to beat his 20-year addiction.

The initial report listed no circumstances in mitigation but four in aggravation: the sophistication of the crime, defendants numerous prior convictions, the fact that defendant had been on summary probation when the crime was committed, and defendants poor performance on summary probation. The report noted defendant had a minimal education, a poor employment history, a lengthy criminal history and a long-term drug problem. Defendant had three children he did not appear to provide for, and a juvenile was present and under the influence at the scene of the crime. The department concluded the upper term of seven years was justified in light of the aggravating circumstances and the lack of mitigation, but recommended the court impose the middle term of five years so defendant would be eligible for the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC).

At sentencing, the court determined that defendant was not on summary probation when the present offense was committed.

The initial report contained only scant factual information on the labs operation, leading the trial court to order the supplemental report. The court wanted more information on the sophistication of the lab, which was a pertinent factor to its decision whether to sentence defendant to the lesser term of five years so he could participate in CRC. The supplemental report included the details set forth above. That report concluded the lab "was sophisticated enough to warrant a circumstance in aggravation."

Defendant filed a statement in mitigation urging the court to find as factors in mitigation that he entered his guilty plea at an early stage of the proceedings; that he was a daily user of methamphetamine; that his prior offenses were all drug- or alcohol-related misdemeanors; and that he was only involved in making methamphetamine for himself and his fellow manufacturers.

At sentencing, the court revealed its thorough familiarity with the facts and circumstances of the case. After a review of the facts, including the sophistication of the lab operation, numerous factors in aggravation, and matters submitted in litigation, the sentencing court denied probation—a decision not at issue on appeal.

With regard to whether to impose the middle term, the court heard argument from defense counsel. The court then acknowledged that the probation department recommended the middle term, but indicated it was not sure it would follow that recommendation. The court acknowledged that defendant had entered his plea early and was not personally armed with a firearm, but suggested he had already benefited from that factor due to the dismissal of the firearm enhancement to the charge of methamphetamine manufacture. The court noted defendant had no priors involving felonies or violence. The court also noted the record did not show defendant had been offered drug treatment programs during prior periods of probation.

But the court also noted defendant was 35 and had never tried to deal with his drug problem. Defendant had numerous prior convictions and performed unsatisfactorily on summary probation. Defendant was involved in a sophisticated lab operation, complete with surveillance system, capable of producing "a significant quantity of methamphetamine." Firearms and other weapons were readily available in the clandestine lab. The lab was located in the business district of Clearlake and presented a danger to the community. Defendant also contributed to the delinquency of a minor who was present at the lab and under the influence.

The court gave defense counsel considerable opportunity to argue in response to the courts comments. The court noted its "substantial concerns about these aggravating circumstances [as] earlier outlined," and sentenced defendant to the upper term of seven years.

II. DISCUSSION

Sentencing courts have broad discretion in weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors and determining the appropriate term of imprisonment. We will not disturb such a sentencing decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. (People v. Avalos (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1582-1583; People v. Lamb (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 397, 401.)

Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the upper term of seven years instead of the middle term of five years, because the court gave insufficient weight to matters in mitigation and too much weight to factors in aggravation. We disagree.

A sentencing court is entitled to give little weight to matters in mitigation or to disregard them entirely. (People v. Salazar (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 799, 813.) Here the trial court did not disregard or minimize defendants proffered matters in mitigation, but clearly considered them in light of the entire case. In particular, the court considered defendants early guilty plea, his drug addiction, and the fact that he wasnt personally armed. The sentencing court simply did not feel these circumstances in any way outweighed the aggravating factors of the sophistication of the drug lab, the presence of firearms and surveillance equipment, the danger to the community, and the presence of a minor.

Defendant argues S.P. was "already delinquent," as if defendants conduct were some sort of harmless error. We reject this argument, and also note that defendant forgets that another minor, Tanya C., was present and under the influence of methamphetamine.

Defendant was actively involved in a dangerous, heavily armed clandestine drug lab using volatile chemicals within the city limits in a well-fortified habitation. We see no abuse of discretion in the imposition of the upper term.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment and sentence are affirmed.

We concur: Stein, J., Margulies, J.


Summaries of

People v. Conatser

Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division One.
Nov 26, 2003
No. A101717 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2003)
Case details for

People v. Conatser

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODNEY WAYNE CONATSER, Defendant…

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

Date published: Nov 26, 2003

Citations

No. A101717 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2003)