In a capital crime case, how has the Court considered the sentencing of an accomplice as a factor in determining the upper term sentence?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Arroyo, C079988 (Cal. App. 2016):
Finally, we reject defendant's suggestion that the trial court erred because it failed to consider the sentences of defendant's accomplices in selecting the upper term. The sentence received by an accomplice is not among the factors in mitigation specifically enumerated in rule 4.423, and defendant has cited no authority demonstrating that this factor is relevant as a factor in mitigation. (See People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 300 [In the context of a capital crime, " '[t]he sentence received by an accomplice is not
Page 6
constitutionally or statutorily relevant as a factor in mitigation' "].) In any event, even assuming this factor was relevant to the trial court's sentencing decision, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in selecting the upper term. A single factor in aggravation suffices to support an upper term sentence, and here the trial court properly relied on two aggravating factors in imposing such a sentence. (People v. Black, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 813.)
The judgment is affirmed.
HULL, Acting P. J.
We concur:
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
