By Ramneet Singh
SACRAMENTO, CA – In the end, Friday in Dept. 61 of Sacramento County Superior Court, Judge Geoffrey Goodman declared that “I don’t think it would be in the interest of justice to dismiss either of the firearm enhancements,” refusing to shorten the sentence for Arlonzo Banks, despite having new discretion to do so.
There was no factual basis presented at this post-sentence hearing. Banks and co-defendants were arrested on March 11, 2011, and was later tried and convicted of a first-degree murder charge.
There were two firearm enhancements. Goodman later explained that these were an “intentional discharge in connection with the murder and…the use of a firearm in connection with the murder.” Banks was not present in court as he was serving a state prison sentence.
Goodman indicated that the proceedings were “on remand from the Court of Appeal after affirming Mr. Banks conviction. The court noted there was a change in the law with respect to firearm enhancements. Now the court does have discretion to strike those in the interest of justice.”
Goodman clarified with defense attorney Paul Irish that Banks had not documented his past life experiences to an investigator. Goodman asked Irish if his argument centered around the defendant’s childhood, as “there are only aggravating factors and essentially no mitigating factors.”
Irish stated that his argument was threefold: the factual basis of the case, the defendant’s “dysfunctional environment,” and his post-conviction behavior. Goodman affirmed that post-conviction behavior is valid and that prosecuting attorney Greg Porter was considering that as well. Irish went over the potential scenarios of the court.
Irish used the points made by the district attorney in his report.
Concerning aggravating and mitigating factors, Irish referred to the jury’s rejection of potential gang violence, the “potentially more of a spur of the moment.” nature of the conflict, and “…(the defendants) juvenile adjudication…for an attempted murder back in June, 1995, he was 14 years of age at the time.”
Irish then noted the 2018 “arrest” for heroin possession.
He stated the DA’s brief that prosecution was declined due to the defendant’s “significant” sentencing, but he could not confirm that through the report. There was some confusion on this point and Irish reiterated that the record did not necessarily corroborate the DA’s claim.
After being prompted, Deputy District Attorney Porter responded to Irish’s argument and in particular “the nature of the offense.” He noted that this was an “intentional, premeditated murder, citing the factual basis put forward by the Court of Appeals, including “the characterization of this being a gang motivated killing.”
Even in acknowledging the jury’s decision, Goodman was “not relying on the motivations or it being gang-related. Assuming these weren’t gang members, there still apparently were motivations” due to prior interactions. Porter noted “Mr. Banks did stipulate he was a gang member at trial.”
Goodman prompted a question to the prosecution after relaying the options of the court. He stated that the court could continue the 45 to life sentence, strike both “allegations,” or strike the discharge allegation. Both “allegations” appeared to involve 10 years each.
Goodman asked, “Why wouldn’t a 35 to life sentence be sufficient?” When sentenced, Irish indicated that the defendant was 33, based on the probation report.
More generally, he inquired about the appropriateness of the current sentence, given that the defendant would only be eligible for appeal for release. Goodman considered potential changes in behavior.
Porter pointed out changes in the legal landscape and the unpredictability of the landscape in two or three decades. He urged the court to proceed in a manner that took account of the recently passed Senate Bill 620, which brought the case before Goodman.
The bill states it “…would delete the prohibition on striking an allegation or finding and, instead, would allow a court, in the interest of justice and at the time of sentencing or resentencing, to strike or dismiss an enhancement otherwise required to be imposed by the above provisions of law.”
Goodman reflected on the purpose of the legislation, which took account of enhancement provisions, longer sentences, “and that courts should have a chance to ameliorate some of those if there’s an interest of justice to it.”
While acknowledging the unpredictability of legal change, he took account of the defendant receiving “no credit for time served (except for actual credit)” and the serving of 20 years before the 25 year minimum on the life sentence.
With the current sentence, he determined that he would be 76 before he could even seek parole. He was aware of the rules of court and the factors, “…those weigh against the defendant.”
Goodman clarified that he wouldn’t be striking the firearm enhancement, but the discharge enhancement. He noted that with “supporting evidence” of him shooting, he had not shot the killing shot and his gun jammed.
But prosecutor Porter clarified that the mischarge of Bank’s gun should not be a factor due to the premeditated nature of the action.
In response to the broader question, he acknowledged potential discrepancies in other sentencings, but that this was a “deliberate” murder, with previous intentions to murder. He noted legal procedures with sentencing and how those should be considered in murder cases.
Concurring with the court, Irish noted that the potential reduction of the sentence could influence the behavior of Banks.
Goodman noted, “It’s not up to me to decide the overall sentencing scheme and had the defendant had more mitigating factors going for him, I think it would be appropriate for the court to just try to perhaps strike some of these things.”
Goodman recounted the aggravating factors of the crime, including: “bodily harm,” use of a “deadly weapon,” the vulnerability of the victim, that it was premeditated, and that he guided two younger individuals.”
Factors relating to the individual include violent behavior, “prior convictions,” and that “prior performance on probation or supervision has been satisfactory.” He concluded a lack of applicable mitigating factors relating to the crime and the defendant, expecting a poor upbringing that is not detailed and despite alleged attempts of the defendant to better himself.
Given the lack of extraordinary circumstances, he declined the request to dismiss the enhancements.
Ramneet Singh is a third-year student at the University of California, Davis. He is a Political Science major and is pursuing a History minor. He is from Livingston California.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
