State v. Hernandez ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                        
    2016 UT App 251
    THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
    STATE OF UTAH,
    Appellee,
    v.
    JAIME A. HERNANDEZ,
    Appellant.
    Memorandum Decision
    No. 20150584-CA
    Filed December 30, 2016
    Third District Court, Salt Lake Department
    The Honorable Paul B. Parker
    No. 151901362
    Teresa L. Welch and Maren E. Larson, Attorneys
    for Appellant
    Sean D. Reyes and William M. Hains, Attorneys
    for Appellee
    JUDGE KATE A. TOOMEY authored this Memorandum Decision, in
    which JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN and JILL M. POHLMAN
    concurred.
    TOOMEY, Judge:
    ¶1     Defendant Jaime A. Hernandez pleaded guilty to four
    third-degree felonies, and the district court sentenced him to
    prison. Hernandez challenges this sentence, arguing that the
    court abused its discretion by sentencing him to prison rather
    than granting him probation. We affirm.
    ¶2     One morning in January 2015, police officers located a
    stolen vehicle in a gas station parking lot. The officers saw
    Hernandez enter the stolen vehicle and attempted to box him in
    using their police cars. Using the stolen car “as a weapon,”
    Hernandez repeatedly rammed it into four police cars and a
    State v. Hernandez
    private vehicle. Hernandez managed to break though the
    barricade and escape.
    ¶3     The officers pursued Hernandez as he fled the scene in
    the stolen car. Hernandez eluded the police, avoiding tire spikes
    and traveling at speeds up to one hundred miles per hour.
    During the chase, Hernandez struck another police vehicle,
    sending it off the road. Hernandez then left the stolen vehicle
    and continued his flight on foot, refusing to stop at an officer’s
    command. Officers later found Hernandez hiding on a roof and
    apprehended him. They searched Hernandez and found
    marijuana and methamphetamine. At the time of the incident,
    Hernandez was on probation for another crime.
    ¶4     Hernandez was charged with eight felonies and two
    misdemeanors. He ultimately pleaded guilty to four third-
    degree felonies: attempted theft by receiving stolen property,
    possession of a controlled substance, aggravated assault, and
    failure to respond to an officer’s signal to stop.
    ¶5     Adult Probation and Parole (AP&P) prepared a
    presentence investigation report (PSI) recommending that the
    court impose a prison sentence. The report considered
    Hernandez’s prior criminal activity, his re-offense after
    completing a drug-treatment program, and his prior
    unsuccessful probations. The report also observed Hernandez’s
    remorse, positive attitude, his family support, and his desire to
    complete a residential substance-abuse program. But because of
    the violent nature of Hernandez’s past and present offenses and
    his continued drug use, AP&P concluded Hernandez was not an
    appropriate candidate for probation.
    ¶6     At the sentencing hearing, Hernandez reaffirmed his
    desire to be placed on probation, to participate in a residential
    substance-abuse program, and to reform his life. The court
    considered Hernandez’s request but explained that Hernandez
    had already been granted probation and placement in a
    20150584-CA                     2              
    2016 UT App 251
    State v. Hernandez
    substance-abuse program just one year prior. Because
    Hernandez had been involved in so many offenses, particularly
    drug offenses, the court believed Hernandez had made choices
    sufficient to require the court to deny his request. It sentenced
    Hernandez to zero to five years imprisonment on each count.
    The sentences were to run concurrently with each other but
    consecutively to the sentence for which Hernandez was on
    probation. Hernandez appeals.
    ¶7     Hernandez contends the sentencing court abused its
    discretion because it failed to “adequately consider his character,
    attitude and rehabilitative needs before denying him the
    opportunity for a non-prison sentence.” According to
    Hernandez, the court overlooked his rehabilitative needs,
    amenability to treatment, and readiness to complete probation,
    which he claims justify a reversal of his sentence. We disagree.
    ¶8     We review sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion.
    State v. Valdovinos, 
    2003 UT App 432
    , ¶ 14, 
    82 P.3d 1167
    . “An
    abuse of discretion results when the judge fails to consider all
    legally relevant factors or if the sentence imposed is clearly
    excessive.” 
    Id.
     (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
    “An appellate court may only find abuse if it can be said that no
    reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial
    court.” 
    Id.
     (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation
    marks omitted).
    ¶9     “The decision whether to grant probation is within the
    complete discretion of the trial court.” State v. Rhodes, 
    818 P.2d 1048
    , 1049 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (citing State v. Sibert, 
    310 P.2d 388
    , 393 (Utah 1957)). When determining whether to grant
    probation, the sentencing court considers the “intangibles of
    character, personality and attitude” “in connection with the
    prior record of the accused.” 
    Id.
     (citation and internal quotation
    marks omitted). “A defendant is not entitled to probation, but
    rather the [trial] court is empowered to place the defendant on
    probation if it thinks that will best serve the ends of justice and is
    20150584-CA                      3                
    2016 UT App 251
    State v. Hernandez
    compatible with the public interest.” Valdovinos, 
    2003 UT App 432
    , ¶ 23 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation
    marks omitted). A sentence will be overturned only when it is
    “clear that the actions of the judge were so inherently unfair as to
    constitute an abuse of discretion.” 
    Id.
     (emphasis in original)
    (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
    ¶10 The record demonstrates that in denying Hernandez
    probation, the sentencing court considered the intangible factors
    favoring probation in connection with the competing factors
    favoring imprisonment. The PSI indicated that Hernandez had
    family support, that he felt remorse for his crime, and that he
    had a positive attitude towards making necessary changes in his
    life. But it also described his continuing drug addiction and his
    participation in substance-abuse treatment in the past. At the
    sentencing hearing, Hernandez reaffirmed his desire to change
    his life and participate in a residential substance-abuse program,
    and he expressed how he had taken advantage of substance-
    abuse resources while in custody. But the PSI also recounted
    Hernandez’s long criminal history and multiple additional
    offenses while on probation. Moreover, Hernandez’s conduct
    was violent, putting several officers’ lives at risk, as well as the
    safety of the public. The sentencing court also mentioned that
    many of Hernandez’s crimes involved drugs or firearms. The
    court was privy to all of this information, and there is no
    indication that it failed to consider any relevant factor or that it
    considered any improper factor in making its decision. See State
    v. Helms, 
    2002 UT 12
    , ¶ 11, 
    40 P.3d 626
     (stating that “we will not
    assume that the trial court’s silence, by itself, presupposes that
    the court did not consider the proper factors as required by law”
    unless “an ambiguity of facts makes the assumption
    unreasonable,” a statute requires written findings, or “a prior
    case states that findings on an issue must be made”).
    Accordingly, we cannot agree that no reasonable person would
    have taken the view of the sentencing court. See Valdovinos, 
    2003 UT App 432
    , ¶ 14.
    20150584-CA                     4                
    2016 UT App 251
    State v. Hernandez
    ¶11 Given the violent nature of Hernandez’s crimes and the
    risk of injury involved, as well as Hernandez’s history of
    criminal activity while on probation, the court’s decision to
    sentence him to prison was not “so inherently unfair as to
    constitute an abuse of discretion.” See id. ¶ 23 (emphasis
    omitted). Thus, the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion
    and we affirm.
    20150584-CA                    5               
    2016 UT App 251
                                

Document Info

Docket Number: 20150584-CA

Judges: Toomey, Christiansen, Pohlman

Filed Date: 12/30/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/13/2024