People v. Boyd CA3 ( 2024 )

Filed 5/24/24 P. v. Boyd CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, C098770
v. (Super. Ct. No.
STKCRFE20190001382)
ASHIRON BOYD,
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury found defendant Ashiron Boyd guilty of voluntary manslaughter and
assault with a deadly weapon. It also found true a great bodily injury enhancement
allegation. The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term for voluntary
manslaughter and imposed but stayed sentences for the assault and enhancement.
This court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing in light of
amendments to Penal Code section 11701 limiting the trial court’s discretion to impose
an upper term sentence. (People v. Boyd (Nov. 3, 2022, C093382) [nonpub. opn.]
(Boyd).)
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
At the resentencing, the trial court imposed the middle term of six years for
voluntary manslaughter, imposed but stayed a middle term of three years for assault with
a deadly weapon, and imposed but stayed sentence for the great bodily injury
enhancement.
Defendant now contends the trial court did not properly weigh the mitigating
factors and the low term was the presumptive term. Finding no error or abuse of
discretion, we will affirm the judgment.
APPLICABLE LAW
As amended by chapter 731 of the Statutes of 2021, and as relevant here,
section 1170, subdivision (b) provides that when a statute specifies three possible terms,
the trial court shall in its discretion order a sentence not to exceed the middle term. But
unless the court finds that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances
such that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice,
the court shall impose the lower term if the person experienced psychological, physical,
or childhood trauma, or the person was a youth at the time of the offense. (§§ 1170,
subd. (b).)
BACKGROUND
In January 2019, defendant and Frank Baker were without permanent housing and
were preparing to spend the night in front of a building in Stockton when Baker suddenly
swung a pipe at defendant. The men struggled for the pipe and fell to the ground.
According to defendant, Baker said he wanted to kill him. Fearing for his life, defendant
hit and kicked Baker in the head. Baker lay motionless on the ground.
Defendant walked away from Baker, but then returned to where Baker lay
motionless and hit him six times in the head with the pipe. When police officers arrived,
Baker had brain matter extruding from his head. Baker subsequently died.
2
A jury found defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) and
assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). It found true a great bodily injury
enhancement allegation. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).)
According to the probation report, defendant said he had been sexually abused in
foster care, but he did not provide any other information. At sentencing, the trial court
acknowledged that defendant did not have a prior criminal record and that Baker was the
initial aggressor. However, because defendant returned to Baker after Baker was
incapacitated and hit him six times with the pipe, the trial court concluded an upper term
sentence was appropriate.
This court affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing based on
changes in the law. (Boyd, supra, C093382.) Amendments to section 1170 limited trial
court discretion to impose the upper term. (See Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg.
Sess.).) The lower term was the presumptive term if certain mitigating circumstances
were contributing factors in the commission of the crime. (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6).)
This court noted that defendant was under 26 years of age at the time of the offense
and that he may have experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma. (§ 1170,
subd. (b)(6)(A) & (B).) (Boyd, supra, C093382.)
At resentencing, defense counsel said defendant was 25 years old at the time of the
crime and that he had experienced abuse as a child and also while he was without
permanent housing. The trial court considered that defendant was under 26 years of age
at the time of the offense, and that he may have experienced psychological, physical, or
childhood trauma. But it noted the presumptive low term did not apply absent evidence
those circumstances were contributing factors in the commission of the crime. The trial
court found insufficient evidence that would make a presumptive low term applicable.
On the other hand, the trial court explained that the homicide was brutal: defendant
literally beat the victim’s brains out. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the trial
court imposed the middle term of six years for the voluntary manslaughter, imposed but
3
stayed the middle term of three years for the assault, and imposed but stayed a three-year
term for the great bodily injury enhancement.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court did not properly weigh the mitigating factors,
and the low term was the presumptive term. Specifically, defendant argues the trial
court’s analysis of whether youth was a factor in the commission of the crime was
inadequate, and it did not sufficiently consider his childhood trauma.
Defendant cites People v. Frederickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984 for the
proposition that asserting his youth and childhood trauma in the trial court was sufficient
to trigger the presumption in favor of the lower term. But the court in Frederickson
explained that in order to trigger the presumption, there must be some initial showing that
the defendant’s youth or childhood trauma was a contributing factor. (Id. at p. 992.)
Although the probation report and defense counsel’s statements were sufficient to
raise the issue, the trial court found the requisite connection lacking. The trial court’s
determination on this point is “a quintessential factfinding process” subject to review for
substantial evidence. (People v. Oneal (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 581, 589.) In conducting
that review, we do not reweigh the evidence: it is the exclusive function of the trier of
fact to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. (People v. Gerson (2022)
80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1086; People v. Whitmore (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 116, 129.)
We also view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and presume the
existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence.
(People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314.) “If there is more than one inference which
may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, we accept the inference which supports the
[trier of fact’s finding].” (People v. Davis (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1437.)
The trial court considered defendant’s youth and the possibility that he had
experienced abuse, but it found insufficient evidence that those circumstances were
4
contributing factors in the commission of the crime. On this record, we find no error
or abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/
MAURO, J.
We concur:
/S/
HULL, Acting P. J.
/S/
ROBIE, J.
5