Court Opinion

ID: 9388857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 20:02:31.836003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:23.340282
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/21/23 P. v. Gallardo CA1/3

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or
ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

         IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                     FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                        A164744
 v.
 ARTURO FLORES GALLARDO,                                                (Sonoma County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No. SCR747375-1)
           Defendant and Appellant.

         Arturo Gallardo was sentenced to a six-year prison term after entering
a plea of no contest to committing a lewd act upon a child. (Pen. Code, § 288,
subd. (a); subsequent statutory references are to this code.) On appeal,
Gallardo contends the sentencing court (1) abused its discretion by denying
Gallardo probation, and (2) misapplied a statutory presumption to impose a
lower-term sentence when “psychological, physical, or childhood trauma” was
a “contributing factor in the commission of the offense” (§ 1170,
subd. (b)(6)(A)). We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.
                        FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
I. Gallardo’s Conviction
         In February 2021, sixteen-year-old Jane Doe made a police report that
Gallardo sexually molested her on multiple occasions when she was four.
Doe reported that the incidents occurred when Gallardo was married to Doe’s

                                                               1
aunt, who babysat Doe at Gallardo’s home while Doe’s parents were at work.
Gallardo would wait until Doe’s aunt was busy in another room or away from
the home and then call Doe into a separate room and tell her he had “an itch
on his genitals.” Doe recalled that she scratched Gallardo’s genitals, but she
did not recall him touching her inappropriately. Initially, Doe stated that she
did not want to pursue criminal charges, but a few days later Doe’s parents
requested that the police initiate a criminal investigation. Subsequently, Doe
gave police a more detailed report of what Gallardo did to her. He would ask
Doe to join him in a separate room, pull down his sweatpants, expose his
genitals, and then “have [her] ‘scratch’ his erect penis.” Doe estimated that
she and her young siblings were left in the care of their aunt on three or four
occasions, and each time Gallardo used the fact that Doe was a helpful child
to seek her help in scratching his itch. The interactions lasted 10 to 15
minutes, and afterward he always told her to wash her hands.
        From the police station, Doe made pretextual calls to Gallardo on two
consecutive days in June 2021. During the second call, Doe asked if Gallardo
remembered lowering his pants and underwear, exposing himself and having
Doe touch his penis with her hand. Gallardo responded, “ ‘Well, I think it is
coming to my memory something like that, but not very good.’ ” Doe said she
remembered it happening more than once and Gallardo acknowledged that
he did “ ‘offend’ ” her and make her touch him “ ‘like two times.’ ” When Doe
asked what he did to offend her, Gallardo responded he made her “ ‘touch his
penis, nothing more.’ ” Gallardo denied that he ever touched Doe
inappropriately, saying he was “ ‘not capable of that.’ ” He asked Doe to
forgive him before God and asked for “ ‘a million pardons’ ” for what he had
done.

                                        2
      In July 2021, Gallardo was arrested and interviewed by police
detectives. When asked what had occurred with Jane Doe, Gallardo’s initial
response was that “ ‘a long time ago, I don’t even know why, I made [Doe] an
indecent proposal, that is all.’ ” As the interview progressed, Gallardo made
more incriminating statements, admitting two occasions when he asked Doe
to touch his penis after he lowered his pants and exposed himself to her. He
denied ever touching Doe inappropriately. He stated that he did not know
why he chose Doe or what he was thinking, he understood what he had done
was wrong, and he felt remorse. Gallardo recalled the incidents happening
when he was around 42 and Doe about five. He described how the child’s
hand gripped him for approximately five seconds, and admitted he was
nervous about having Doe touch his penis because someone might see them.
      Near the end of his police interview, Gallardo disclosed that he had
been molested by an uncle when he was 10 and living in Mexico. This
experience sometimes made Gallardo feel the behavior was normal and
caused him confusion. He maintained that the incidents with Jane Doe were
the only time he behaved that way with a child. When Gallardo was told that
Doe was concerned Gallardo had touched her inappropriately, Gallardo
denied this, stating “ ‘No, not her,’ ” and reporting that nothing else happened
aside from Doe touching his bare penis twice.
      Gallardo was charged with two felony counts of committing a lewd act
on a child. (§ 288, subd. (a).) Both charges were accompanied by special
allegations that the victim was under the age of 18 when the crimes occurred,
and that prosecution of these offenses commenced before Jane Doe turned 40
years old. (§ 801.1, subd. (a).) Gallardo pled no contest to count one pursuant
to an open plea agreement, with the understanding that he faced a maximum
eight-year prison term.

                                       3
II. Gallardo’s Sentence
      Gallardo’s sentencing hearing was held over two court days in
February 2022.
      A. Evidence Considered by the Court
      Documents submitted for the court’s consideration included a
“Psychosexual Risk Assessment,” the probation department’s presentence
report, sentencing briefs, victim impact statements, and letters expressing
support for Gallardo. No witnesses testified, although a victim/witness
advocate read statements submitted by Jane Doe and her parents.
      Psychosexual Risk Assessment: On December 3, 2021, Dr. Rachyll
Dempsey conducted an “independent psychosexual risk assessment” of
Gallardo to assist the court “in the determination of the appropriateness of a
plea deal pursuant to Penal Code [section] 288.1.” Dempsey conducted a
clinical interview, administered various tests, and reviewed some records,
including the police reports. She reported that Gallardo appeared to be a
good historian and appeared to make a “good effort” to perform when tests
were administered to him, although the Spanish interpreter asked him to
enunciate because he was “ ‘muttering.’ ” Dempsey’s findings included that
Gallardo’s intellectual functioning was poor, and his personality profile was
of a person who needs social approval, and tries to present himself in an
overly favorable light.
      Gallardo’s risk for sex offending was assessed by using the “Hare
Psychopathy Checklist,” a “20-item rating scale for the assessment of
psychopathic traits in adults.” Gallardo’s overall score indicated that his risk
of sexual offending was “in the Low range . . . suggesting no traits in common
with known psychopaths.” According to Dempsey’s report, research
correlates the 20 items included on the Hare checklist “with sexual offending

                                       4
behavior,” by covering “three specific domains: Psychosocial Adjustment,
Sexual Offenses, and Future Plans.” All three areas indicated a low risk for
future sexual violence, Dempsey found. Regarding psychosocial adjustment,
Gallardo had maintained a long-term marriage (although he was recently
separated), had a large support system, and “denied ongoing alcohol use or
drug abuse, a history of mental health issues, or past criminal offenses.”
There was no evidence of a criminal history, or of sexual offenses (aside from
the current offense), and Gallardo reported “pro-social achievable future
plans.”
      Probation Report: On December 15, 2021, the probation department
submitted a 15-page report recommending that the court deny Gallardo
probation, sentence him to a six-year prison term, and require him to register
as a “Tier Two sexual offender.”
      A probation officer interviewed Gallardo on December 7, with the
assistance of an interpreter. Gallardo stated that he was familiar with the
police reports and confirmed that he had admitted “ ‘that the young woman—
the little girl—touched [him] on two different occasions.’ ” Gallardo stated
that he had no idea why he targeted Jane Doe, calling himself “ ‘dumb,’ ” and
stating, “ ‘I do not know what I was thinking.’ ” He denied any other
incidents involving inappropriate contact with children and denied being
attracted to children. He acknowledged that what he had done was wrong
and “ ‘repent[ed]’ ” for what he did.
      Gallardo reported that he was married to Jane Doe’s aunt for 30 years,
they had been separated for approximately two years, and neither had filed
for divorce “yet.” He reported a stable work history and good relationship
with his adult children despite his current situation, and no current or past
problems with substance abuse. Gallardo also reported that he had “no

                                        5
mental health issues or concerns, and no history of suicidal
thoughts/attempts, hospitalizations, medications, or counseling.” The
probation officer reminded Gallardo that during his police interview he had
stated that an uncle sexually molested him when he was 10, and Gallardo
confirmed this information. “When asked, he indicated he has never sought
counseling for childhood sexual abuse. When asked if he felt he could benefit
from such counseling, he responded, ‘I think so, yes.’ ”
      The department reported that Gallardo was eligible for probation but
did not recommend it. (See Cal Rules of Court, rules 4.413 & 4.414;
subsequent rule references are to these rules.) It listed factors favorable to
Gallardo: a limited prior criminal record (two misdemeanors for driving
without a license); his expressed willingness and apparent ability to comply
with terms of probation; the prospect of adverse collateral consequences; and
his expressions of remorse. Unfavorable factors include that Jane Doe was a
particularly vulnerable victim; Gallardo inflicted emotional injury; the
manner of the crime demonstrates sophistication and planning; Gallardo took
advantage of a position of trust; and his prior performance on probation was
unsatisfactory as he was on probation for the driving violation when he
sustained a conviction for a new offense.
      The report also briefly addresses circumstances in aggravation and
mitigation for purposes of sentencing. (Rules 4.421 & 4.423.) The only
potential aggravating circumstance mentioned pertains to Gallardo’s prior
performance on probation for the driving offenses. Since Gallardo was
unsuccessful in his compliance as to one conditional sentence grant and
successful as to the other, “in essence, these factors in aggravation and
mitigation cancel each other out,” the department opined. The department

                                        6
identified only one circumstance in mitigation, Gallardo’s limited prior
record.
      Ultimately, the department recommended that the court deny
probation and impose a midterm sentence of six years. Despite positive
factors suggesting Gallardo could be successful on probation, and Gallardo’s
minimal record, the department had overriding concerns about “Gallardo’s
actions and level of insight in this case.” At a minimum, there were two
separate incidents involving a four-year-old child, and Doe had reported that
she remembered three or four times. Gallardo was a trusted family member
when he targeted a vulnerable child and lured her into the incidents by
“taking advantage of her innocent desire to be helpful.” When asked about
the impact of his conduct, Gallardo opined that Doe likely did not feel “ ‘all
that well’ ” and her parents felt “ ‘bad.’ ” The department recognized that
Gallardo was “accepting responsibility for his conduct” now that Doe had
brought it to light, but these understatements were significant, the
department believed, when considered in relation to the serious emotional
harm suffered by Doe and her parents. Despite acknowledging what he did
was wrong, Gallardo’s “empathy and insight appear to be limited.”
      The department voiced two additional case-specific concerns. First, it
is difficult to assess whether Gallardo would be a danger to others if not
imprisoned. He was in the community for 12 years after he molested Doe and
there were no additional known victims. But during his police interview
Gallardo told the police that his experience of being molested as a child
sometimes made him believe that such “ ‘behavior was normal, and caused

                                        7
him confusion.’ ” Then again, Gallardo did not even mention his prior
molestation during his risk assessment interview.1
      Second, the department urged the court to consider the method
Gallardo used to persuade “his vulnerable niece to accomplish the
inappropriate touching, which we feel overshows his lack of a prior record
and his mature age.” In this regard, the department observed that “[a]
sexual offense against a child is conduct which warrants punishment at the
state level,” and, given the seriousness of Gallardo’s offense, the department
urged the court to give weight to the request of the victim’s family that
Gallardo receive firm punishment for “sexually victimizing a young family
member.”
      Risk Assessment Addendum: On January 21, 2022, Dr. Dempsey
issued an addendum to her risk assessment of Gallardo, which she prepared
at the request of defense counsel. Dempsey addressed two additional facts
she had not previously considered: Gallardo “denied childhood abuse,
trauma, or neglect” when Dempsey interviewed him, which was inconsistent
with a disclosure he made to police and later confirmed to the probation
officer that he had been molested when he was 10. Further Gallardo had
denied “any history of arrests aside from the current alleged offense” during
his risk assessment interview, whereas the probation report indicates that he
suffered two prior driving-related convictions, as well as a violation of his
conditional sentence grant in one of those prior cases. This additional
information did not significantly impact the risk assessment and Gallardo’s
score remained in the low range, Dempsey reported. Dempsey opined that

      1Gallardo had reported that if he was released, he planned to live with
his adult daughter, which caused the department some concern as there was
a minor child in the home.

                                        8
omitting information about childhood sexual abuse and his prior criminal
record was consistent with Gallardo’s personality assessment as it could have
been part of an attempt to “present himself in an overly favorable, socially
acceptable light.” Dempsey suggested further that “Gallardo’s rapport with
the male interpreter could have exacerbated this personality tendency,” and
that his response to the probation officer that he could benefit from
counseling was another example of this personality tendency.
      Sentencing Briefs and Arguments: In late January 2022, the
defense filed a Statement in Mitigation of Sentence. Defense counsel
requested that the court grant Gallardo probation, concurring with the
probation report to the extent it finds Gallardo eligible for probation and lists
favorable factors. The defense argued that additional favorable factors not
mentioned in the report include that the circumstances of the current offense
are less serious than other comparable crimes, and that it is not likely
Gallardo will pose a danger to others if he is not imprisoned. The defense
argued further that the probation department did not give sufficient weight
to favorable factors, such as Gallardo’s remorse. Finally, defense counsel
disputed the department’s statement that Gallardo’s prior performance on
probation was unsatisfactory, arguing that a conditional grant is not the
same as probation.
      The defense also requested that if probation was denied, Gallardo
receive a “mitigated” three-year prison term pursuant to an amendment to
section 1170 that went into effect earlier that month, which added section
1170, subdivision (b)(6)(A) (section 1170(b)(6)(A)). Under this provision,
“unless the court finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the
mitigating circumstances [such] that imposition of the lower term would be
contrary to the interests of justice, the court shall order imposition of the

                                        9
lower term if any of the following was a contributing factor in the commission
of the offense: [¶] (A) The person has experienced psychological, physical, or
childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation,
or sexual violence.” (§ 1170(b)(6)(A).) The defense argued that the
molestation Gallardo suffered when he was 10 “clearly qualifies as childhood
trauma,” and that Gallardo’s “childhood trauma clearly was a contributing
factor in his conduct here.”
      The People filed their sentencing brief in February 2022. The People
concurred with the probation department’s recommendation to deny
probation. The prosecutor disagreed with the defense argument that the
circumstances of this crime are less serious than other sex offenses against
children. Like the department, the prosecutor acknowledged factors in favor
of probation but argued they are outweighed by unfavorable factors
delineated in the probation report. The People also concurred with the
department’s recommendation to impose a six-year midterm prison sentence.
But they argued that the report omits applicable circumstances in
aggravation, including that Jane Doe was particularly vulnerable (rule
4.421(a)(3)); the manner of the crime indicates planning (rule 4.421(a)(8));
and Gallardo took advantage of a position of trust (rule 4.421(a)(11)).
      The People also disputed the defense argument that a presumptive
lower term applies pursuant to amended section 1170(b)(6)(A), giving two
main reasons. First, there is no evidence Gallardo suffered a prior childhood
sexual assault aside from his own claim, which he did not even mention when
he was interviewed by Dr. Dempsey. Second, Gallardo said that this
childhood experience caused him confusion, but he did not ever say that it
contributed to the crimes he committed against Jane Doe.

                                       10
      B. The Court Findings and Sentencing Order
      Before announcing Gallardo’s sentence, the court made a record of the
fact that the sentencing law had changed since Gallardo entered his plea.
Pursuant to amendments to section 1170 that went into effect January 1,
2022, the maximum sentence for Gallardo’s section 288 offense was six years,
as opposed to the eight-year sentence contemplated by the parties when
Gallardo entered his plea. The prosecutor opined that the People had the
right to undo the plea bargain due to the change in the law, but advised the
court they would not exercise that right because they felt six years was an
appropriate recommendation for Gallardo’s crime.
      The court denied Gallardo probation after finding that factors in
aggravation outweigh factors in mitigation. The court also found that the
same factors that weigh against granting probation support a midterm
sentence of six years in state prison. In explaining these decisions, the court
found that the probation department did an excellent job in its report of
identifying the relevant factors. The court also stated that it did not conduct
a mechanical analysis based on the number of aggravating versus the
number of mitigating factors, but considered some factors more important
than others. Aggravating factors identified by the court as “overriding” were
the vulnerability of the victim (rule 4.421(a)(5)); that Gallardo inflicted
emotional injury (rule 4.421(a)(4)); and that Gallardo took advantage of a
position of trust (rule 4.421(a)(9)).
      In explaining its decision not to impose the lower term, the court found
that section 1170(b)(6)(A) does not apply in this case. The court based this
finding on the dearth of evidence that the molestation Gallardo “may have”
suffered when he was boy contributed to his commission of the crimes against

                                        11
Jane Doe. The court also found that imposing a midterm sentence under the
circumstances presented was “in the interest of justice.”
                                  DISCUSSION
      Gallardo makes two claims of error on appeal. We address first his
contention that the trial court erred by denying him probation. “A trial court
has broad discretion to determine whether a defendant is suitable for
probation.” (People v. Bradley (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 64, 89.) The “appellant
bears a heavy burden when attempting to show an abuse of such discretion.
[Citation.] To establish abuse, the defendant must show that, under all the
circumstances, the denial of probation was arbitrary, capricious or exceeded
the bounds of reason.” (Ibid.) We find no abuse of discretion on this record.
      Gallardo does not dispute that the decision to deny him probation was
based on a consideration of relevant criteria listed in rule 4.414, but he
contends that the court abused its discretion because it relied on “rote,
general factors” inherent in the nature of Gallardo’s offense, and thus failed
to employ its discretion in an “individualized fashion.” (Citing People v.
Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847 (Sandoval) [discretionary sentencing
decision must be based on “ ‘individualized consideration of the offense, the
offender, and the public interest’ ”].)
      The record shows that the sentencing court based its decision on a
consideration of all evidence submitted by the parties, and that it engaged
with counsel as they argued about that evidence during a two-day hearing.
Moreover, the court relied heavily on the probation report, which contains
detailed discussion of Gallardo, his offense, and the public interest.
Individualized factors that were highlighted in the report include that
Gallardo lacks insight about the serious emotional damage that he caused, it
is difficult to assess the potential danger to the community if Gallardo is not

                                          12
imprisoned, and the method by which Gallardo persuaded his vulnerable
four-year-old niece to participate in his criminal activity was egregious.
Thus, the record shows that denial of probation was based on an
individualized consideration of Gallardo’s case.
      Gallardo’s other claim of error pertains to the trial court’s selection of a
midterm sentence. “In selecting between the middle and lower terms of
imprisonment, the sentencing judge may consider circumstances in
aggravation or mitigation, and any other factor reasonably related to the
sentencing decision.” (Rule 4.420(d).) The sentencing court has wide
discretion in weighing the relevant factors. (People v. Avalos (1996) 47
Cal.App.4th 1569, 1582.) However, the court abuses its discretion by basing
its sentencing decision on “circumstances that are not relevant to the decision
or that otherwise constitute an improper basis for decision.” (Sandoval,
supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 847.)
      Gallardo does not dispute that his midterm sentence is supported by
valid circumstances in aggravation. Nor does he attempt to show that the
court abused its discretion by finding that aggravating factors outweigh
factors in mitigation. Instead, Gallardo contends that the court
misinterpreted section 1170(b)(6)(A). As discussed, the trial court found this
statutory presumption does not apply because the fact that Gallardo may
have been abused when he was a child was not shown to be a contributing
factor in the commission of his current offenses. Gallardo contends this
finding is error because (1) it “ignores” evidence in the record, and (2) it
ignores “the plain reading of ‘contributing factor’ in considering the evidence.”
      First, the record clearly shows that Gallardo’s disclosure of childhood
sexual abuse was not ignored by the court or anyone. It was discussed in the
probation report, sentencing briefs, and addendum report, all of which the

                                        13
trial court considered before making its rulings. Moreover, at the sentencing
hearing, defense counsel argued repeatedly that Gallardo’s disclosure that he
was molested as a child made a low-term sentence presumptively appropriate
under section 1170(b)(6)(A). We find no basis for Gallardo’s contention on
appeal that the sentencing court ignored these arguments, when it seems
clear that the court instead rejected them.
      Second, and relatedly, we find no basis for concluding that the trial
court misconstrued section 1170(b)(6)(A). During the sentencing hearing,
defense counsel made essentially the same argument Gallardo presents on
appeal—that Gallardo’s comment to the police that he was molested as a
child and that the experience confused him establishes a causal connection to
the current offense. When defense counsel made this argument, the trial
court expressed doubt about whether the molestation occurred and
questioned whether the alleged incident was contributory in light of the fact
that it was not even mentioned in Dempsey’s report. Later, when sentence
was announced, the court made an express finding that section 1170(b)(6)(A)
does not apply because it is not supported by the evidence. Nothing about the
court’s ruling supports Gallardo’s appellate theory that the court
misunderstood the statute.
      According to Gallardo, the trial court misinterpreted section
1170(b)(6)(A) by finding that it requires “explicit evidence” in the form of an
expert opinion that the abuse suffered by Gallardo was a contributing factor
to his abuse of Jane Doe, and for this reason the court “abdicated” its
discretionary authority to interpret evidence in the record. We disagree with
both prongs of this argument. To be sure, the court emphasized that the risk
assessment makes no mention of a childhood sexual trauma allegedly
experienced by Gallardo, and that the addendum report addressing this

                                       14
matter does not find that it contributed to Gallardo’s commission of the
current offense. Gallardo cannot seriously dispute the relevancy of these
circumstances. Although Gallardo was asked repeatedly why he committed
the current offenses, he never claimed that his childhood experience
contributed to his decision to sexually abuse Jane Doe, and did not think the
experience was even worth mentioning to Dr. Dempsey. Then Dempsey
prepared an addendum, which gave her the opportunity to identify a causal
nexus, and yet she declined to do so.
      Contrary to Gallardo’s appellate claim, the sentencing court did not
abdicate its authority to interpret the evidence before it. The defense theory,
repeated on appeal, is that Gallardo’s statement during his police interview
compels both a finding that Gallardo is a victim of childhood sexual abuse
and an inference that this prior experience contributed to the commission of
the current offense. Rejecting this theory was an exercise of discretion and,
while this court might have reached a different conclusion were it writing on
a clean slate, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in
concluding the factual predicate for section 1170(b)(6)(A) was not established
in this case.
      Finally, even when section 1170(b)(6)(A) applies, “the trial court may
impose a higher sentence if it finds ‘the aggravating circumstances outweigh
the mitigating circumstances [so] that imposition of the lower term would be
contrary to the interests of justice.’ (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6).)” (People v. Gerson
(2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1095.) Here, the trial court made an express
finding that imposing a midterm sentence would serve the interests of justice,
a finding that has not been challenged on appeal.
                                 DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                        15
                                    TUCHER, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

FUJISAKI, J.
PETROU, J.

People v. Gallardo (A164744)

                               16