Court Opinion

ID: 9861483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:05:47.620271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:32.836397
License: Public Domain

COLE, J.,* Concurring.
I also would reverse, but for reasons which differ from those of the majority. The majority places its reliance upon the law of the case. The first Sandoval opinion, quoted by the present majority, explicitly stated that the trial court was apparently aware of its power to consider whether the statutorily mandated state prison sentence might constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Based on this supposition the court, in the *489prior opinion, stated that the trial court at sentencing had determined the question of cruel and unusual punishment adversely to appellant.
Based on the events from which the current appeal has been taken, the prior appellate decision simply was mistaken. Upon the initial remand, the trial judge expressly said that at the earlier sentencing “I was not satisfied that I did have that power [to determine if a prison sentence was cruel and unusual] and then I endeavored to have the appellate court exercise that power, but it’s clear from the decision in this case that the appellate court is putting the ball back into my side of the net and is telling me that it was my obligation to make that determination and make a ruling.” The trial court then proceeded to find that a prison sentence was cruel and unusual in the present case.
The law of the case will be disregarded when necessary to avoid an unjust decision (Searle v. Allstate Life Ins. Co. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 425, 435 [212 Cal.Rptr. 466, 696 P.2d 1308]), so long as that exception rests on a manifest misapplication of existing principles resulting in substantial injustice. That seems to be the situation here, since the prior appellate opinion proceeded under a mistake of fact in assuming that the trial judge had, at the first sentencing, made a conscious decision that to impose a prison sentence would not be cruel or unusual.
Therefore, respondent was entitled to have the trial court determine, after the first remand, whether a prison sentence, as mandated by Penal Code section 1203.066, subdivision (a)(9), is cruel and unusual. The trial court concluded that it was, for the reasons set forth in footnote 2 of the majority opinion, ante, page 486. These reasons focused on the first technique set forth in In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 425 [105 Cal.Rptr. 217, 503 P.2d 921], for determining whether a given punishment is cruel or unusual: an examination of “the nature of the offense and/or the offender, with particular regard to the degree of danger both present to society.” Had it not been for the trial court’s determination, respondent would have faced the statutorily required term of three, six or eight years in prison. (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c).) The first time around, the trial court sentenced respondent to the three-year low term and presumably would do the same thing again.
Nevertheless, the technique used by the trial court is but one means toward resolution of the ultimate question involved in determining whether a sentence is so disproportionate as to be regarded as constitutionally cruel or unusual. That circumstance arises, the Supreme Court teaches us, when the punishment “is so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.” (In re Lynch, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 424.) Such can hardly be said to *490be the case here. Despite the factors mentioned by the trial court, it is clear that the respondent was in a position of special trust vis-á-vis the victim; he was more than 10 years older than the victim and was his adult coach. The sentence imposed is truly a minimum prison sentence. Taking into account the credit of 118 days to which defendant is entitled and the further credits which he can earn in prison, the sentence verges on actual further incarceration of about two years (I have not attempted the exact calculation). I find nothing shocking or offensive to fundamental notions of dignity.
Therefore, I concur in reversing the judgment.
A petition for a rehearing was denied September 15, 1987, and respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied November 25, 1987. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

 Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.