California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Smart, A140739 (Cal. App. 2014):
The record reflects the trial judge considered all relevant circumstances brought to her attention by the parties and the probation department. She had reviewed "everything again," including defendant's felony presentence report and a letter submitted by defendant. The trial judge explained, "I was struggling whether or not I was gonna be able to follow that indicated sentence; but based on all that you've done and based on your letter, I am gonna be able to follow that indicated sentence."3 In our view, the denial of defendant's Romero motion was not "an 'arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd' result" under the specific facts of this case. (People v. Gillispie (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 429, 434.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.