Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/14/68.html
Timestamp: 2019-10-16 11:40:53
Document Index: 361986118

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 11500', '§ 669', '§ 3043', '§ 2', '§ 7', '§ 2', '§ 11910']

People v. Giminez :: :: Supreme Court of California Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › California Case Law › Cal. 3d › Volume 14 › People v. Giminez
(In Bank. Opinion by Burke, J., with Wright, C. J., McComb, Sullivan and Clark., JJ., concurring. Separate dissenting opinions by Tobriner, J., and Mosk, J.) [14 Cal. 3d 69]
Defendant was convicted of narcotics possession (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11500). After defendant refused to accept the conditions of a five-year period of probation, the trial court imposed a prison sentence and directed that it commence upon completion of the term defendant was currently serving for another drug conviction. fn. 1 On appeal, defendant now contends that to so impose a consecutive sentence, after having offered him probation, constituted an abuse of the trial court's discretion. In light of the defendant's lengthy history of narcotics abuse and anti-social behavior we do not believe that the trial [14 Cal. 3d 71] court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably. We therefore have concluded that imposition of a consecutive sentence was not improper.
[1] It is well established that a trial court has discretion to determine whether several sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively. (Pen. Code, § 669; In re Sandel, 64 Cal. 2d 412, 416 [50 Cal. Rptr. 462, 412 P.2d [14 Cal. 3d 72] 806].) [2] It is also the rule that appellate courts do not have the power to modify a sentence or reduce the punishment therein imposed absent error in the proceedings. (People v. Odle, 37 Cal. 2d 52, 57 [230 P.2d 345].) Moreover, such error cannot be predicated on a trial court's determination that several sentences are to run consecutively unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. (People v. Morris, 20 Cal. App. 3d 659, 666 [97 Cal. Rptr. 817]; People v. White, 100 Cal. App. 2d 836, 839-840 [224 P.2d 868].)
The concept of judicial discretion is difficult to define with precision. In the past we have described it as "the sound judgment of the court, to be exercised according to the rules of law." (Lent v. Tillson, 72 Cal. 404, 422 [14 P. 71].) More recently we have said (quoting from another case) that the term judicial discretion "implies absence of arbitrary determination, capricious disposition or whimsical thinking." (In re Cortez, 6 Cal. 3d 78, 85 [98 Cal. Rptr. 307, 490 P.2d 819].) Moreover, discretion is abused whenever the court exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered. (People v. Russel, 69 Cal. 2d 187, 194 [70 Cal. Rptr. 210, 443 P.2d 794]; People v. Fusaro, 18 Cal. App. 3d 877, 894 [96 Cal. Rptr. 368] [cert. den., 407 U.S. 912 (32 L. Ed. 2d 686, 92 S.Ct. 2445)].) [3] However, in the absence of a clear showing that its sentencing decision was arbitrary or irrational, a trial court should be presumed to have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives and, accordingly, its discretionary determination to impose consecutive sentences ought not be set aside on review.
Defendant argues that notwithstanding his prior record, the trial court's decision to impose consecutive sentences must be viewed as an unreasonable and vindictive reaction to defendant's rejection of conditional probation. He contends that the alternatives of probation or consecutive ten-year maximum sentences could not both be appropriate for any one offender and therefore that the trial court's order was essentially arbitrary and not an exercise of discriminating judgment. [14 Cal. 3d 73]
Defendant's reasoning is not persuasive. By initially imposing the search condition as a term of probation, the trial judge demonstrated his belief that defendant should be subject to some substantial control for at least five years. Such a search condition would assist in deterring or discovering subsequent narcotics offenses thereby aiding defendant's rehabilitation and providing protection for the public. (People v. Mason, supra, 5 Cal. 3d 759, 764.) The trial judge could have reasonably concluded that defendant's rejection of the search condition was an indication of both an unwillingness to reform and a desire to return to narcotics use at the earliest opportunity. Under these circumstances, the trial judge may well have felt that a two-year parole ineligibility period (made mandatory by Pen. Code, § 3043 upon the imposition of two or more consecutive sentences; not restricted to narcotic offenses) was necessary to further the legitimate sentencing objectives of rehabilitation and protection of the public. In light of the broad discretion to be afforded trial judges both in sentencing and in granting or denying probation and given defendant's extensive criminal record, it does not appear that the imposition of consecutive sentences in the instant case exceeded the bounds of reason.
I dissent on the ground that the imposition of a consecutive sentence by the trial court, under the facts of this case, constitutes an abuse of discretion. As explained in the opinion prepared by Justice Friedman for the Court of Appeal: "The trial court's initial and ultimate sentencing choices moved from an extreme of lenience to an extreme of severity, from unsupervised liberty to a deferred imprisonment creating a possibility of a total of 20 years of incarceration and supervised parole. [Fn. omitted.] When each of these extremes is viewed as a means of achieving the goals of criminal sentencing, both could not be 'right' for any one offender. Without adding to the extensive literature on sentencing objectives, we need consider only the objective of protecting the public against the offender's future criminal conduct. Necessarily implied in the judge's resort to unsupervised probation was a finding that public protection demanded no imprisonment or supervision after completion of the indeterminate Sacramento sentence. Necessarily implied in the judge's alternative selection was a finding that public protection required 2 to 10 years of imprisonment and supervision additional to the Sacramento sentence. If the goal of public protection [14 Cal. 3d 74] was satisfied by an order for unsupervised probation, the consecutive prison sentence was harsh and excessive. If the same criterion justified lengthy imprisonment, it utterly vitiated unsupervised probation. No logically relevant sentencing criteria could simultaneously justify both extremes; hence the choice between them had to be personal, subjective and arbitrary.
Thus the majority infer from defendant's refusal to waive his rights under the Fourth Amendment that defendant seeks to conceal criminal activity. I had thought it settled that a court could never draw an inference of criminal conduct from a defendant's assertion of his constitutional right. (See Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [14 L. Ed. 2d 106, 85 S. Ct. 1229].) Indeed we have consistently held that a police officer may not infer from a defendant's refusal to consent to a search that the defendant is concealing evidence of criminal activity. (People v. Wetzel (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 104, 109-110 [113 Cal. Rptr. 32, 520 P.2d 416]; People v. Cressey (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 836, 841, fn. 6 [87 Cal. Rptr. 699, 471 P.2d 19]; People v. Shelton (1964) 60 Cal. 2d 740, 747 [36 Cal. Rptr. 433, 388 P.2d 665]; Tompkins v. Superior Court (1963) 59 [14 Cal. 3d 75] Cal.2d 65, 68 [27 Cal. Rptr. 889, 378 P.2d 113].) Yet the majority would permit the trial judge to draw this same unconstitutional inference.
Prison sentences to run seriatim are the most draconian weapon in the trial judge's arsenal. The record discloses they were imposed almost casually in this instance. Yet the American Bar Association, after an exhaustive study of several years' duration, concluded, inter alia, that the "sentence imposed in each case should call for the minimum amount of custody or confinement which is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant." (ABA Project on Min. Standards for Crim. Justice, Standards Relating to Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures (Approved [14 Cal. 3d 76] Draft 1968) § 2.2.) To apply the American Bar standard, a judge who determines consecutive prison sentences to be necessary for a defendant before him should be expected to explain why such sentences are the minimum amount of custody consistent with public safety, the nature of the crime and the rehabilitative potential of the defendant.
While society looks to imprisonment as a source of protection, the record of prisons in solving or curbing the problem of crime is dismal. And, sad to relate, progress in prison techniques over the past century has been negligible. Shortly after World War I George Bernard Shaw wrote that "Imprisonment as it exists today is a worse crime than any of [14 Cal. 3d 77] those committed by its victims." (Shaw, The Crime of Imprisonment, p. 13.) At mid-century two of the nation's most scholarly wardens, both Californians, warned us of their deep concern. Conditions at San Quentin were described by Warden Clinton T. Duffy as a "nightmare" (Duffy, The San Quentin Story (1950) p. 107), and Warden Kenyon J. Scudder declared we should use "prisons as a last resort" because, he wrote, "Most men come out of these prisons worse than when they entered." (Scudder, Prisoners Are People (1952) p. 227.)
In this context a collision of basic values is inevitable. On the one hand society demands protection from those who trespass upon its peace and security. On the other hand every individual, even a confirmed malefactor, has certain rights in a constitutional order. Use of the doctrine of "the least drastic alternative" is the best technique for the adjustment of such impact. Its rational application preserves both of the conflicting values: the needs of society and the integrity of the constitutional order. [14 Cal. 3d 78]
The United States Supreme Court has often used the phrase "less drastic means" in a First Amendment context. (United States v. Robel (1967) 389 U.S. 258, 268 [19 L. Ed. 2d 508, 516-517, 88 S. Ct. 419]; Shelton v. Tucker (1960) 364 U.S. 479, 488 [L.Ed.2d 231, 237-238, 81 S. Ct. 247]; Wormuth & Mirkin, The Doctrine of the Reasonable Alternative (1964) 9 Utah L. Rev. 254, 267-293; Note (1969) 78 Yale L.J. 464.) The high court used the same expression in Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) 394 U.S. 618, 637 [22 L. Ed. 2d 600, 616-617, 89 S. Ct. 1322], and then spoke of methods that are "necessary" in Dunn v. Blumstein (1972) 405 U.S. 330, 342 [31 L. Ed. 2d 274, 284, 92 S. Ct. 995]. Whatever the precise term adopted, the import of the several formulations is the same: the state must demonstrate that the infringement upon human liberties which occurs is unavoidable if the purpose of the state is to be achieved. (Singer, The Least Drastic Alternative (1972) 58 Cornell L.Rev. 51, 56.)
While the least drastic alternative test has not yet been ordered in criminal cases, an emerging case law and commentary supports the principle. It would seem that if the doctrine applies to losses of welfare benefits, voting rights and teachers' tenure, a fortiori it would be relevant to loss of liberty. [14 Cal. 3d 79]
Again in United States v. Alsbrook (D.D.C. 1971) 336 F. Supp. 973, a district court panel held that failure to sentence youthful offenders to Lorton Youth Center in Virginia on the sole basis that Lorton was overcrowded was an invalid exercise of sentencing power. Instead of approving a more drastic sentence, the court ordered the immediate relief of the overcrowded situation at that institution. The court spoke in terms of the need for rehabilitation and declared that "[t]he Constitution, the Youth Corrections Act, and the conscience of a civilized society require that youth offenders receive firm but effective opportunity for treatment and realistic rehabilitation." The reference to the Constitution and to the "conscience of a civilized society" suggests possible future application of the Eighth Amendment. (See also Robinson v. California (1962) 370 U.S. 660 [8 L. Ed. 2d 758, 82 S. Ct. 1417]; Ralph v. Warden (4th Cir. 1971) 438 F.2d 786; Fulwood v. Clemmer (D.D.C. 1962) 206 F. Supp. 370.)
It appears inevitable to me that courts ultimately will adopt, in one form or another, the doctrine of the least drastic alternative. The doctrine is hardly extreme. The American Law Institute has recommended a [14 Cal. 3d 80] presumption in favor of probation for every offender. (Model Pen. Code (1962) § 7.01.) The American Bar Association has declared that nonconfinement is to be preferred over total or partial confinement "in the absence of affirmative reasons to the contrary." (ABA Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures, supra, § 2.3(c).) In a comment related to its conclusion, the American Bar Association said it "believes that the starting point for every sentence should be probation or some other sentence not involving commitment or confinement, and that the extent to which commitment or confinement is employed in a given case should turn on the appearance of specific reasons which seem to call for that disposition." (Id. at p. 72.)
Sentencing today is an archaic process at best. By application of the rule of the least drastic alternative we can ameliorate somewhat the most flagrant abuses of the sentencing process by requiring the state, functioning through its trial judge, to articulate the rationale for the sentence imposed. If we cannot abolish prisons, as seems clear, we should in good conscience limit their use to the confinement of those errant members of society for whom no other alternative appears feasible. [14 Cal. 3d 81]
FN 1. The trial court was acting under its power of consecutive sentencing set forth in section 669 of the Penal Code. That section provides in pertinent part: "When any person is convicted of two or more crimes, whether in the same proceeding or court or in different proceedings or courts, and whether by judgment rendered by the same judge or by different judges, the second or other subsequent judgment shall direct whether the terms of imprisonment or any of them to which he is sentenced shall run concurrently, or whether the imprisonment to which he is or has been sentenced upon the second or other subsequent conviction shall commence at the termination of the first term of imprisonment to which he has been sentenced, or at the termination of the second or subsequent term of imprisonment to which he has been sentenced, as the case may be ...."
FN 2. A month after his San Joaquin County arrest, while on bail, defendant was arrested in Sacramento County for possessing dangerous drugs (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11910.) After his commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center, defendant was convicted of this second drug offense and sentenced by the Sacramento County Superior Court to state prison for from six months to ten years. It was this prison sentence which resulted in the cancellation of his C.R.C. commitment and the resumption of the San Joaquin County criminal proceedings which are the subject of this appeal.
FN 3. Such a search provision may properly be imposed as a condition to probation where the defendant is a narcotics offender. (People v. Mason, 5 Cal. 3d 759 [97 Cal. Rptr. 302, 488 P.2d 630].)
FN 4. As noted in footnote 2, ante, defendant had been committed to state prison by the Sacramento County Superior Court for another drug offense.
FN 5. Former Health and Safety Code section 11500 provided for an indeterminate sentence of not less than two nor more than ten years.
FN 1. The judge apparently believed he was being magnanimous in informing the defendant of the proposed sentence. At one point in the colloquy, he stated: "At least I am telling you what I propose to do. Perhaps I should not tell you anything and go ahead and do it."