People v. Faber, JAD17-14

Background

Steven Faber was convicted by a jury of 13 misdemeanor counts for intentionally and knowingly violating protective orders (Pen. Code § 273.6(a)) by repeatedly contacting his ex‑partner after breakup and after both a temporary and a one‑year restraining order were served.
Contacts included persistent texts from multiple phone numbers, Waze messages indicating he was “on his way” to her home at 1:56 a.m., Instagram “catfishing,” emails, and leaving a burned, red‑stained letter and items at the victim’s door/car; the victim reported fear, therapy, 911 calls, and security upgrades.
At sentencing the court denied probation, found aggravating factors (threat of harm; criminal sophistication in using multiple numbers and online deception), rejected counseling as ineffective given defendant’s disregard of court orders, and imposed consecutive 180‑day jail terms on each count (total ~6½ years).
Defendant challenged the sentence on appeal, arguing the trial court misapplied felony sentencing factors, abused its discretion, and imposed cruel and unusual punishment; he also argued mitigating factors (no prior convictions, provocation) were ignored.
The Court of Appeal affirmed: misdemeanor sentencing courts may consult felony sentencing factors for guidance but aren’t required to apply them; the record supported the court’s aggravating findings and refusal to grant probation; the aggregate term was not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a misdemeanor sentencing court must apply felony rule 4.421/4.423 factors	Court may look to those factors for guidance but is not required to apply them verbatim	Trial court erred by relying on aggravating factors listed in felony rules and failing to find listed mitigations	Held: Misdemeanor courts may consult felony rules for guidance but appellate review focuses on whether sentencing was arbitrary or capricious; no error here
Whether trial court abused sentencing discretion by finding (1) threat of great bodily harm and (2) criminal sophistication	The People argued facts (Waze message, burned letter, multiple deceptive contacts) supported these aggravations	Faber argued his conduct lacked violence, sophistication, and he had no prior convictions—court improperly discounted mitigation	Held: Record supports both aggravations and the court reasonably weighed lack of prior convictions and other mitigations; no abuse of discretion
Whether the consecutive 13×180‑day sentence (~6½ years) is cruel and unusual punishment	People argued repeated, threatening violations causing substantial emotional distress justified consecutive terms and the sentence was within statutory maximums	Faber contended the aggregate jail term was grossly disproportionate and thus Eighth Amendment violation	Held: Applying the narrow proportionality principle, the sentence was not grossly disproportionate given multiple willful violations, threatening conduct, and statutory maxima; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (court must make individualized consideration of offense/offender/public interest)
People v. Superior Court (Alvarez), 14 Cal.4th 968 (review of sentencing discretionary determinations requires showing decision was irrational or arbitrary)
People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (appellate review will not overturn reasonable sentencing choices; proportionality principles discussed)
People v. Tenorio, 3 Cal.3d 89 (sentencing is judicial and reviewable for abuse of discretion)
People v. Du, 5 Cal.App.4th 822 (presumption that trial court considered relevant criteria)
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (successful Eighth Amendment disproportionality claims are exceedingly rare)
In re Coley, 55 Cal.4th 524 (framework for proportionality analysis in noncapital sentences)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (narrow proportionality principle and Eighth Amendment standards)
People v. Santana, 134 Cal.App.3d 773 (use of properly substantiated prior arrests in aggravation)
In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (discretion to reach arguments not raised below in limited circumstances)
In re Victor L., 182 Cal.App.4th 902 (same)
People v. Borja, 110 Cal.App.3d 378 (difference in consequences between jail and prison sentences)