Court Opinion

ID: 9559244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:24:53.945638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:11.636809
License: Public Domain

RICHARDSON, J.
I respectfully dissent and suggest that the majority err in two separate respects. First, they adopt a construction of Penal Code section 1202b which substantially restricts the discretion of the sentencing judge in dealing with youthful offenders, contraiy to the probable legislative intent underlying the section. Second, they compound the error by extending the benefit of their construction of section 1202b to the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that the sentencing judge in very express terms declined to invoke that section to reduce petitioner’s minimum sentence to a bare six months and instead, at the urging of petitioner’s counsel, selected a minimum term of five and one-half years rather than the ten-year minimum otherwise prescribed by law. If, as the majority hold, the judge erred in assuming he had the authority under section 1202b to select a minimum term of five and one-half years, then either petitioner’s sentence should be modified to a ten-year minimum, or else a new sentencing hearing should be held to determine whether or not a six months minimum term should be imposed under section 1202b, thereby preserving the sentencing court’s discretion.
1. Construction of Section 1202b
Section 1202b provides that the sentencing judge “... may, .. . specify that the minimum term of imprisonment . . . shall be six months.” The majority hold that the court lgcked discretion under the section to impose an intermediate minimum term of five and one-half years for the underlying robbery augmented by the firearm-use finding under section 12022.5. In effect, the majority hold that the court had but two options under section 1202b: to sentence petitioner to the full minimum term of ten years (five years for the robbery, and five additional years for firearm use) or, alternatively by invoking section 1202b, to sentence petitioner to a six months minimum term, only, for these violations.
*219An alternative analysis of the language of section 1202b, assisted by an application of ordinary rules of statutory construction, discussed below, lead me to conclude that the section is reasonably susceptible of a different interpretation which is more consistent with the probable legislative intent underlying the section. .Section 1202b expressly permits the sentencing court, in its discretion, to impose a minimum term of six months, a substantial reduction in the term otherwise prescribed by law. By necessary implication, the section being couched in discretionary language, the section empowers the court to impose a minimum term fixed cumulatively at some point between six months and the minimum provided by statute for the underlying offense or offense, as augmented by section 12022.5. It seems to me that section 1202b may quite readily be construed as vesting the court with discretion to select a minimum term for the offenses of not less than six months in duration.
In contending for their interpretation of section 1202b, the majority rely on People v. Chambers (1972) 7 Cal.3d 666 [102 Cal.Rptr. 776, 498 P.2d 1024], which, as I will note, involved a somewhat different problem. In Chambers, the sentencing court invoked section 1202b and, in contrast to the present case, sentenced defendant to a minimum term of six months, notwithstanding his use of a firearm in connection with a robbery. We affirmed the judgment, rejecting the People’s contention that the trial court lacked authority under section 1202b to mitigate or negate the sentencing augmentation of section 12022.5. We noted: “The discretion of the trial court to set a minimum term of imprisonment at six months for youthful offenders remains unimpaired notwithstanding the enactment of section 12022.5. Accordingly, when section 1202b is invoked, the youthful offender’s sentence shall be a minimum of six months to the maximum set by law.” (P. 675.) The majority cite this language in support of petitioner’s contention that once the sentencing court has invoked section 1202b, its authority in all cases is limited to imposing a six months minimum term. However, that issue was not before us in Chambers and, accordingly, the language relied upon is dictum only.
As we noted in Chambers, supra, “Courts have consistently given a liberal interpretation to section 1202b,” in order to serve its purpose of substituting the goal of rehabilitation for that of retributive punishment. (People v. Chambers, supra, 7 Cal.3d 666, at p. 674.) Thus, we must attempt to determine the probable legislative intent underlying section 1202b, given the rehabilitative goal sought to be achieved by adoption of that section.
*220In discovering legislative intent, I note initially that the decision to invoke section 1202b is left entirely to the discretion of the sentencing judge as expressed in the following language: “. . . [T]he court may . . . specify that the minimum term of imprisonment. . . shall be six months . ...” (Italics added.) Further, the statute is generally expansive in scope, superseding any otherwise applicable penalty provision. For example, even in the case of multiple offenses, the sentencing court has discretion under section 1202b to impose a cumulative minimum term of six months. One salutary function of the sentencing court’s utilization of section 1202b is to equalize the prison terms of minor defendants committed to the Youth Authority and of slightly older offenders who are imprisoned for the same offense. (People v. McCullin (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 795, 800 [97 Cal.Rptr. 107].)
In enacting section 1202b the Legislature selected the category of youthful offenders for special sentencing treatment. In my view, the twin goals of rehabilitation and equality of treatment are more effectively promoted by a construction of section 1202b which permits courts a wider rather than a narrower range of sentencing discretion. Acceptance of the majority’s construction would require the sentencing court to place every youthful offender in one of only two categories: those who merit only a six months minimum sentence and those who must receive instead the full minimum term otherwise prescribed by law. Such a rigid and fixed interpretation of section 1202b does not comport with sound sentencing policy, as the present case graphically demonstrates.
The record before us discloses that the sentencing judge, benefited by a probation report and his personal observations of petitioner, concluded that although some reduction in petitioner’s minimum term was appropriate, a six months minimum term was far too short in view of petitioner’s amply demonstrated dangerous propensities which I document below. Accordingly, the court chose the middle ground and imposed a minimum term of five and one-half years. This sentence (which, as we will note, was requested by petitioner’s counsel) seems precisely the sort of discretionary determination which courts should be empowered to make in exercising their important sentencing function. (See People v. Navarro (1972) 7 Cal.3d 248, 258 [102 Cal.Rptr. 137, 497 P.2d 481]; People v. Moran (1970) 1 Cal.3d 755, 762; People v. Surplice (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 784, 790-792 [21 Cal.Rptr. 826]; Witkin, Cal. Criminal Procedure (1963) § 614, pp. 605-606; Pen. Code, §§ 12, 13, 1168.) Had the Legislature intended to deprive courts of this reasonable *221discretion to select an appropriate minimum term for youthful offenders under section 1202b, it could easily have so provided in express terms. It did not do so. Given the admonition of Chambers to construe section 1202b liberally with a view toward promoting its primary objective of rehabilitating youthful offenders, I would reject the majority’s restrictive construction of the section.
The sentencing process invokes all of the judge’s sensitivity, intuition, experience and common sense. To an unusual degree it demands qualities of the prophet and seer. It requires an appreciation of human nature and the motivation and weaknesses of mankind, and an ability to project human behavior amidst the variables of time, place and circumstance of the human condition. Finally, it requires a capacity for anticipation based upon the probables. In this most difficult area I think the Legislature intended for courts to possess wider rather than narrower discretion, thus permitting them to tailor and fashion the sentence in accordance with the best insight given to them.
Applying these principles to the case before us, and considering the language of section 1202b and its purposes, I conclude that the self-evident goals of the sentencing judge can and should be given effect. The record is abundantly clear that the court was moved by two considerations in the sentence imposed—a strong feeling that the offense committed was a serious crime, and a desire to extend some leniency, rather than to impose the full ten-year minimum term. The court properly noted these factors appearing in the record. The circumstances of the robbery disclose defendant to be unusually cold-blooded and the underlying offense might well have been a murder (the robbery victim was shot several times despite the fact that he had earlier refused to shoot petitioner when the latter had temporarily lost possession of his gun); petitioner had a serious narcotics problem; and, on another occasion, petitioner had fired a rifle into a crowd after a trivial argument over ownership of a screwdriver. The court observed: “I can’t find any ray of light in this defendant’s background .... [Wjhen it comes to gambling on a situation where my mistake may mean somebody’s life, I’m . . . hesitant [to exercise leniency] especially in a case such as this where the defendant has already demonstrated that he is not in the slightest going to hesitate to fill somebody full of lead.” This statement and others in the record demonstrate most forcefully that the court never would have invoked section 1202b had his sentencing discretion for a first degree robbery conviction with a firearm use been automatically limited to a *222mere six months. Neither of the two sentencing extremes—a six months minimum or ten years minimum—fit the court’s considered judgment as to what was fair and proper. Its choice of a middle ground was well within its allowable discretion. Indeed, it is difficult to discern what serious rehabilitative goal would be served by imposition of a six months’ minimum sentence on a defendant who, during the course of an armed robbery, fired several shots into his victim.
Limiting the sentencing court’s freedom of choice to one extreme (six months) or the other (ten years), might very well drastically curtail the utilization of section 1202b, thus thwarting a valid legislative purpose in authorizing some degree of leniency. While it is true that the Adult Authority stands as a further safeguard against the premature release of a dangerous offender, we may not ignore the direct relationship between the sentence and action by the Adult Authority. The sentencing court might reasonably fear that the imposition of a mere six months minimum term would influence the Adult Authority’s decision in fixing the offender’s actual term. It has been observed that the court’s invocation of section 1202b “. . . serves as a recommendation as well as an authorization to the parole board to give serious consideration to granting an early release on parole.” (Cal. Criminal Law Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1969) § 23.58, at p. 516.) Further, the minimum term imposed will bear directly on the timing of the offender’s eligibility for parole. (Pen. Code, § 3049.) Thus, the court, if denied reasonable discretion, might well conclude that the safest course under the circumstances would be to refuse altogether to invoke section 1202b, rather than risk the offender’s premature release.
I note, in comparison, that a trial court’s decision whether to grant probation, or to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences, are matters of broad discretion which will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. (People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72 [120 Cal.Rptr. 577, 534 P.2d 65]; People v. Ingram (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 435, 439-440 [77 Cal.Rptr. 423], app. dism. and cert. den. 396 U.S. 116 [24 L.Ed.2d 311, 90 S.Ct. 399]; see People v. Rojas (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 819, 827-829 [31 Cal.Rptr. 417].) Reasonable flexibility and latitude in the reduction or mitigation of an offender’s punishment is necessaiy. The sentencing court is in the best position to know the precise nature of the offense or offenses and, assessing the likelihood of the offender’s prospective rehabilitation, to fashion an appropriate sentence. Similar considerations affect the court’s sentencing function in the context of *223sections 1202b and 12022.5 where the offender’s youth and the use of a firearm combine to add complexity to the court’s task.
The principal thesis of the majority is that section 1202b was enacted (1) to restore equality between those offenders and juvenile offenders committed to the California Youth Authority and (2) to give to the Adult Authority greater discretion over youthful offenders. Respectfully, it is suggested that the majority are manifestly wrong in both aspects of their argument. If equality of treatment were the sole or primaiy purpose of the section, it would have been served much more easily by the simple device of restoring to age 23 eligibility for admission to the Youth Authority, as was the case prior to the 1944 legislation referred to by the majority.
Furthermore, as is apparent from the veiy language of section 1202b, the Legislature vested in the courts (and not in the Adult or Youth Authorities) the power to decide whether to reduce the minimum term prescribed by law for youthful offenders. The majority concede, as they must, that the section empowered the courts to choose between a ten-year and a six months minimum sentence, a choice which will directly affect the term-fixing discretion of the Adult Authority. Since the courts hold discretionary authority over such a wide range of minimum sentences, it is wholly unreasonable to adopt a construction which denies courts authority to act within that wide range. Such a fixed and rigid interpretation would be not only wholly inconsistent with the well established principle of broad discretion vested in the sentencing judge (see Cal. Criminal Law Practice, supra, p. 134; Witkin, Cal. Criminal Procedure (1963) § 614, p. 606; People v. Giminez, supra, 14 Cal.3d 68, 72), but would perpetrate the anomolous result of permitting the judge to impose punishment at either of the extreme ends of the sentencing spectrum but deny him exercise of any informed judgment at any point in between. This cramping and confining judicial posture cannot have been legislatively intended for those charged by law with exercising the important and difficult sentencing function to which I have previously alluded.
In my view, the special considerations applicable to youthful offenders emphasize the need for a reasonable measure of sentencing discretion in the court. None of the various authorities cited by the majority, including People v. Chambers, supra, 7 Cal.3d 666, and People v. Hicks (1971) 4 Cal.3d 757 [94 Cal.Rptr. 393, 484 P.2d 65], are controlling, for none faced *224the task of determining how much discretion section 1202b vests in the courts.
For all the foregoing reasons, I would conclude that section 1202b empowers the court, subject of course to appropriate appellate review, to sentence a youthful offender to any minimum term between six months and the minimum term prescribed for the offense or offenses of which he was convicted.
2. Petitioner Invited the Error
As previously noted, the sentencing judge made it quite clear at the sentencing hearing that he never would have invoked section 1202b had he understood that his sentencing discretion was limited to a choice between a six months minimum and the full ten-year minimum otherwise prescribed by law. According to the record, the judge was unable to find “. . . any ray of light in this defendant’s background to afford any reasonable expectation that he is going to be anything but in trouble . . . .” Petitioner’s counsel then explained that what he was “. . . asking for is the difference between five years and ten years, in view of his [petitioner’s] age.”
The sentencing judge inquired of counsel whether the six months minimum sentence under section 1202b would apply to the five-year minimum term prescribed for firearm use under section 12022.5. Petitioner’s counsel replied that “The five years would be tacked on on top of that. [1Í] In other words, 12022.5 says ‘upon expiration or termination of the sentence imposed,’ so if you impose six months, then he [petitioner] gets five years on top of that.” Accordingly, the court sentenced petitioner to a term of from five years to life for first degree burglary, with the express proviso that “. . . in connection with that sentence only, the Court will impose the conditions of 1202b of the Penal Code, making the minimum sentence six months. However, the Court additionally imposes the five years provided for in 12022.5 and directs that the commitment specifically indicate that the Court’s direction of invoking 1202b is not to apply to the conditions of section 12022.5 of the Penal Code.”
The majority note that “The court would have been more than justified in refusing to invoke section 1202b at all . . . .” (Ante, p. 212.) They also concede that it “appears” that petitioner invited the court’s *225error in misconstruing the effect of section 1202b. Nevertheless, the majority conclude that since “[a] court is without authority to impose a sentence not prescribed by statute,” (ibid.) the judgment is void to that extent.
To the contrary, I suggest that where, as here, the court has, at counsel’s invitation, entered a defective judgment, the judgment should be set aside in its entirety, and one of two courses followed: (1) either direct entry of judgment in accordance with the probable intentions of the sentencing court (here, imposition of a ten-year minimum sentence), or (2) direct the court to resentence defendant in accordance with law (here, to choose between a six months or ten years minimum sentence). In an analogous situation, where the sentencing court has improperly considered an invalid prior conviction in fixing a defendant’s sentence, we routinely have remanded defendant for resentencing, reconsideration of denial of probation, or redetermination of habitual criminal status. (See In re Woods (1966) 64 Cal.2d 3 [48 Cal.Rptr. 689, 409 P.2d 913]; In re Caffey (1968) 68 Cal.2d 762 [69 Cal.Rptr. 93, 441 P.2d 933]; In re Huddleston (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1031 [80 Cal.Rptr. 595, 458 P.2d 507].) Similarly, where the trial court has failed to exercise its discretion whether or not to strike a prior conviction, the cause is remanded to the court for reconsideration and resentencing (People v. Tenorio (1970) 3 Cal.3d 89, 95, fn. 2 [89 Cal.Rptr. 249, 473 P.2d 993].) Although such a remand probably would be unnecessary in this case, since the judge made it clear on the record that he would under no circumstances impose a mere six months minimum sentence (see In re Huddleston, supra, at pp. 1037-1038), it is, tome, wholly unreasonable that petitioner should gain the benefit of his own invited error and at the same time defeat the sentencing judge’s ability to reconsider the sentence in the light of the majority’s interpretation of section 1202b.
McComb, J., and Clark, J., concurred.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied November 24, 1976. Clark, J., and Richardson, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.