California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Martinez, B287389 (Cal. App. 2019):
The court told defendant, "Although I think you're an abysmal failure as a father, I think in your own way I do think you love your kids [sic]. I don't think you intentionally tried to hurt them, but your behavior was appalling to anybody that would have seen it to the point where an independent citizen called the police because they were worried about your kids." The court selected the high term on the first child endangerment count based on the threat of bodily harm his conduct posed, his callousness toward the children, the children's vulnerability, and his prior prison terms. The court emphasized that there were two separate victims when imposing sentence on the second count, which is a proper basis on which the court may impose a consecutive sentence. (People v. Calhoun (2007) 40 Cal.4th 398, 408.) The court also rejected defendant's request for a concurrent sentence on the probation violation for which he was getting resentenced: "I don't believe that's an appropriate resolution." The court's remarks and sentences clearly indicate that it would not exercise its discretion in defendant's favor when apprised of its discretion. Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed without remand.
Page 16
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
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.