WOODLAND, Calif. — During a complex sentencing hearing Friday in Yolo County Superior Court, Judge Paul Richardson repeatedly adjusted the sentence of an accused individual convicted in connection with the shooting at an inhabited dwelling and the murder of another person, prompting extensive discussion among the court, counsel and probation officials.
Judge Richardson analyzed the charges and noted that the accused was “statutorily ineligible.” He listed the offenses for which the accused was convicted, noting that several would not be used to aggravate. Additionally, he added that the accused “was convicted of other crimes for which consecutive sentences could have been imposed, but for which the court will impose concurrent sentences.”
Deputy Public Defender Richard VanZandt interjected, stating that the accused only “admitted one aggravating factor” and that the “other alleged aggravating factors are no longer in play.” Deputy District Attorney Daniela Dunham agreed with DPD VanZandt, adding that the accused “served a prior prison term.”
Judge Richardson said he believed “the planning wasn’t that substantial,” yet the deceased may have been armed, and a “plan was put in place where a firearm would be produced” that resulted in the death of the victim. He continued, stating that “factors relating to [the accused] are that he was engaged in violent conduct and indicates a serious danger to the community.”
“These aggravating factors, again, are no longer in play,” argued DPD VanZandt a second time. He added that “the court cannot consider them in sentencing.”
Seemingly ignoring DPD VanZandt’s argument, Judge Richardson called on Probation Officer Arthur Arustamyan, who questioned whether the “subjective analysis of the factors and aggravation” were those “substantiated by the [accused’s] record.”
Hearing this, DPD VanZandt asked that the factors “in the sentencing report be stricken as they do not reflect the court record.”
DDA Dunham clarified that if the court was going to use any aggravating factor to impose an upper term on any count, it would be limited to the sole allegation the accused had admitted.
Judge Richardson indicated that the court would impose a “middle-based term” of five years for shooting at an inhabited dwelling.
He continued weighing the enhancements and decided that, for the violation of Penal Code section 187(a), the court would “impose a term of 15 years to life.” He cited Penal Code section 12022.53(f), stating that because one of three firearm enhancements attached to the charge carried the longest penalty, the court would impose “a consecutive term of 25 years to life with the enhancement under 12022.53(d),” while the remaining enhancements would be stayed.
DPD VanZandt said he could not understand how Judge Richardson could not “exercise discretion here and impose a gun enhancement of less than 25 when the law allows for it.” He argued that the law was changed so accused individuals do not “have … long sentences.”
He continued by stating that the jury concluded the case was second-degree murder, indicating that the court was “dealing with 15 to life” and not a 25-years-to-life enhancement. He said he was unable to “reconcile the court imposing an enhancement … that carries 10 more years than the substance of crime” when “there are all kinds of gun enhancements.”
He proposed that the court not impose any gun enhancement because he believed that was “what the case is worth.” He asked the court to look at the case again and “justify some discretion.”
DDA Dunham said the jury found the enhancement of “death with an assault weapon” to be true and that Section 12022.53(f) directs the court to impose the enhancement with the greatest penalty when “choosing between all of the different enhancements.”
She asked the court to follow the law “under the enhancement and the directives of the penal code” because there “wasn’t a dispute of facts … that an assault weapon was used to kill [the victim], and the legislature finds that to be particularly more egregious than other types of firearms offenses.”
Hearing this, Judge Richardson stated that the court “will not exercise to go with lesser included gun charges,” sentencing the accused to a 20-year sentence for “intentional and personal discharge of the firearm,” a 10-year sentence for “use of the firearm during … the commission of a felony,” and a middle-based term of five years for “shooting at an inhabited dwelling occupied building.”
Probation Officer Arthur Arustamyan conferred with Judge Richardson, stating that “[the case] carries no additional time” but allows “the court to impose up to the upper term.”
Following that discussion, Judge Richardson resentenced the accused to 15 years to life under Penal Code section 187(a) and 25 years to life for “intentional and personal discharge of the firearm, causing great bodily injury.”
DPD VanZandt spoke up, stating that he did not believe an individual “could be convicted of the greater and the lesser if it’s the same act.”
“Mr. VanZandt argues the [charges are] lesser,” said Probation Officer Arthur Arustamyan, “and had the jury been instructed that that was improper to convict the defendant of those charges … the defendant would probably have been convicted of just one of the enhancements.” He added that the accused cannot be “sentenced to prison for additional time on any enhancements other than the greatest.”
DDA Dunham and DPD VanZandt continued debating whether an accused individual could be “convicted of the greater and lesser if it’s the same set of facts.”
Judge Richardson disagreed with DPD VanZandt and stayed the sentences on the accused’s charges. He added that the accused would pay restitution fines, be placed on parole and would need to provide “DNA samples and fingerprint impressions.”
The accused read a statement saying he was very “remorseful for any involvement in the situation” and believes he is innocent, extending his love to his family regardless of what happens to him.
DDA Dunham returned to the factors in aggravation and mitigation, stating that “the court is limited to the middle-based term as the highest term for the determinate counts.”
Judge Richardson agreed, imposing middle-based terms on several charges and consecutive sentences on others. He also sentenced the accused to five years in state prison and placed him “on [an aggregate] indeterminate sentence” of 15 years to life for the murder conviction.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
