People v. Panozo
59 Cal.App.5th 825
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Jury convicted Oliver Panozo of multiple domestic-violence felonies, including aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; the arming allegation was found true.
- At sentencing the court denied probation and Veterans Court placement and imposed a three-year middle term on the principal aggravated-assault count; other counts were run concurrently or stayed.
- Defense submitted records showing Marine service (Iraq deployment), diagnosed PTSD, substance-use issues, participation in jail veterans’ treatment, and requested probation/Veterans Court or a lower determinate term.
- The probation report mentioned military service and PTSD but did not list them as mitigating factors; neither party cited Penal Code §§ 1170.9 or 1170.91 at sentencing, and the court did not make a § 1170.9 eligibility finding or expressly consider service-related PTSD as mitigation.
- The Court of Appeal held that §§ 1170.9 and 1170.91 unambiguously require sentencing courts to determine and consider qualifying service-related conditions (including PTSD) when deciding probation and when selecting determinate terms, and remanded for resentencing because the record was ambiguous as to whether the trial court complied with those obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing courts must consider service-related conditions (PTSD etc.) as mitigating under §§ 1170.9 / 1170.91 | People: No relief; court acted within discretion and defendant was presumptively ineligible for probation | Panozo: Statutes mandate the court determine and consider service-related conditions as mitigation for probation and term selection | Held: Statutes unambiguous and mandatory; courts must determine eligibility and consider qualifying service-related conditions as mitigating factors |
| Whether the record shows the trial court understood and applied §§ 1170.9 / 1170.91 | People: Presume the court acted properly; no remand needed | Panozo: Record is at least ambiguous and shows no § 1170.9 eligibility finding or § 1170.91 consideration | Held: Record is ambiguous and indicates the court likely was unaware of its statutory obligations; remand required |
| Forfeiture of claim for failure to object at sentencing | People: Panozo forfeited by not objecting when court omitted PTSD as mitigation | Panozo: No forfeiture—claim is that court misapprehended its statutory duty, not a challenge to articulation of reasons | Held: No forfeiture; appellate review permitted because claim alleges failure to follow mandatory statutory procedure |
| Remedy — whether remand is required or would be futile | People: Remand unnecessary because court would have denied probation anyway | Panozo: Remand necessary so court can make required § 1170.9 determination and consider mitigation under § 1170.91 | Held: Remand for resentencing to allow the trial court to satisfy §§ 1170.9 and 1170.91; judgment otherwise affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bruhn, 210 Cal.App.3d 1195 (appellate court) (trial court must consider veterans' service-related conditions; compliance cannot be inferred from an ambiguous record)
- People v. Ruby, 204 Cal.App.3d 462 (appellate court) (remand where court misapprehended scope of alternative sentencing for veterans)
- People v. Ferguson, 194 Cal.App.4th 1070 (appellate court) (construing earlier § 1170.9 framework; court must correctly determine probation eligibility before alternative sentencing)
- People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (Cal.) (standards for reviewing discretionary sentencing and abuse of discretion)
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (Cal.) (a court unaware of the scope of its discretion cannot render an informed sentencing decision)
- People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (Cal.) (limitations on raising sentencing articulation claims on appeal — distinguished where court failed to follow statutory procedure)
- People v. Ochoa, 53 Cal.App.5th 841 (appellate court) (remand where record ambiguous as to whether court understood statutory obligation to consider youth-related mitigation)
- People v. Barber, 55 Cal.App.5th 787 (appellate court) (remand required unless record clearly shows trial court would have reached same result if aware of its discretion)