Samuel Adil Aguilar Rodriguez v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                              COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
    UNPUBLISHED
    Present: Judges Huff, Fulton and White
    SAMUEL ADIL AGUILAR RODRIGUEZ
    MEMORANDUM OPINION*
    v.     Record No. 0558-22-1                                         PER CURIAM
    DECEMBER 29, 2022
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
    FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG AND
    COUNTY OF JAMES CITY
    Holly B. Smith, Judge
    (Gordon C. Klugh; Law Office of Gordon C. Klugh, PLC, on brief),
    for appellant. Appellant Submitting on brief.
    (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Stephen J. Sovinsky, Assistant
    Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
    Samuel Adil Aguilar Rodriguez appeals his conviction on one count of malicious
    wounding by the Circuit Court of the City of Williamsburg and County of James City. Rodriguez
    argues that the circuit court “failed to adequately consider the mitigating evidence offered at the
    sentencing hearing.” After examining the briefs and record in this case, the panel unanimously
    holds that oral argument is unnecessary because “the appeal is wholly without merit.” Code
    § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a).
    BACKGROUND
    “In accordance with familiar principles of appellate review, the facts will be stated in the
    light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party [below].” Poole v. Commonwealth,
    
    73 Va. App. 357
    , 360 (2021) (quoting Gerald v. Commonwealth, 
    295 Va. 469
    , 472 (2018)). In
    *
    Pursuant Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
    doing so, we “discard the evidence of the [accused] in conflict with that of the Commonwealth, and
    regard as true all the credible evidence favorable to the Commonwealth and all fair inferences to be
    drawn therefrom.” Gerald, 295 Va. at 473 (quoting Kelley v. Commonwealth, 
    289 Va. 463
    , 467-68
    (2015)).
    Rodriguez pled guilty to one count of malicious wounding in violation of Code § 18.2-51.
    The written plea agreement provided that “this plea agreement is the total agreement between the
    parties and there have been no other inducements, promises, threats or coercion of any kind
    imposed upon the defendant or suggested to the defendant by the Attorney for the Commonwealth
    or any agent of the Commonwealth.” Before accepting Rodriguez’s guilty plea, the circuit court
    engaged him in a lengthy colloquy to determine whether Rodriguez understood the nature and
    consequences of his plea. During that colloquy, the circuit court asked Rodriguez if he had
    discussed the Virginia sentencing guidelines with his attorney and inquired if he understood that the
    court did not have to follow them. Rodriguez responded, “yes.” The circuit court allowed the
    Commonwealth to summarize the evidence on the record. The Commonwealth described a violent
    domestic assault that lasted approximately two hours, resulting in extensive visible injuries to
    Rodriguez’s romantic partner, with whom he had two small children, both of whom were present
    during the assault. After hearing the facts, the circuit court found that Rodriguez entered his plea
    “freely, voluntarily, intelligently, and with the advice of counsel.” The circuit court then ordered the
    preparation of a presentence investigation report (PSR) and scheduled the matter for sentencing.
    At the sentencing hearing, the circuit court considered the PSR and noted that the guidelines
    recommended a sentence of one year and six months at the low end, two years and ten months at the
    midpoint, and four years and two months at the high end. The circuit court admitted photographs of
    the victim’s extensive injuries as an exhibit and considered the victim’s testimony and her written
    victim impact statement. The circuit court then considered the arguments of counsel and
    -2-
    Rodriguez’s statement in allocution before sentencing Rodriguez to twenty years in prison, with
    sixteen suspended. As a result, Rodriguez’s active period of incarceration of four years is just under
    the high end of his guidelines. Rodriguez noted this appeal.
    ANALYSIS
    Rodriguez contends that in sentencing him the circuit court failed to consider the
    “mitigating characteristics of the appellant as the offender” and asserts that the court failed to
    “articulate how it arrived at its sentence, aside from the injuries sustained by the victim and the
    details of the assault itself.” Finding no error in the court’s decision, we now affirm.
    “We review [a] trial court’s sentence for abuse of discretion.” Johnson v.
    Commonwealth, 
    63 Va. App. 175
    , 181 (2014) (quoting Scott v. Commonwealth, 
    58 Va. App. 35
    ,
    46 (2011)). A court abuses its discretion “when a relevant factor that should have been given
    significant weight is not considered; when an irrelevant or improper factor is considered and
    given significant weight; and when all proper factors, and no improper ones, are considered, but
    the court, in weighing those factors, commits a clear error of judgment.” Lawlor v.
    Commonwealth, 
    285 Va. 187
    , 213 (2013) (quoting Landrum v. Chippenham & Johnston-Willis
    Hosps., Inc., 
    282 Va. 346
    , 352 (2011)). “Only when reasonable jurists could not differ can we
    say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Minh Duy Du v. Commonwealth, 
    292 Va. 555
    , 564
    (2016) (quoting Grattan v. Commonwealth, 
    278 Va. 602
    , 620 (2009)). Accordingly, we may
    reverse a trial court’s sentencing decision “only upon clear evidence that [the decision] was not
    judicially sound[.]” DeLuca v. Commonwealth, 
    73 Va. App. 567
    , 575 (2021) (alterations in
    original) (quoting Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 
    27 Va. App. 477
    , 488 (1998)).
    “Given this deferential standard of review, we will not interfere with the sentence so long as
    it was within the range set by the legislature for the particular crime of which the defendant was
    convicted.” Fazili v. Commonwealth, 
    71 Va. App. 239
    , 248 (2019) (quoting Scott, 58 Va. App. at
    -3-
    46). That is, where the argument on appeal “is simply a challenge to the duration of imprisonment,”
    an appellate court will only evaluate whether the sentence exceeded the maximum penalty
    prescribed by the sentencing statute. Minh Duy Du, 292 Va. at 564. The trial court’s sentencing
    decision “will not be disturbed as long as it stays within” the range of punishment set by the
    legislature “and is not influenced by any mistake of law.” Id. at 563-64 (quoting Lawlor, 285 Va. at
    212-13). Moreover, although the trial court must “review and consider the suitability of the
    applicable discretionary sentencing guidelines,” Code § 19.2-298.01, it is well settled that the
    Virginia Criminal Sentencing Guidelines are “discretionary, rather than mandatory,” West v. Dir. of
    Dep’t of Corr., 
    273 Va. 56
    , 65 (2007).
    Malicious wounding is a Class 3 felony, punishable by a “term of imprisonment of not
    less than five years nor more than twenty years and . . . a fine of not more than $100,000.” Code
    §§ 18.2-51 and 18.2-10(c). The sentencing guidelines suggested a range of punishment between
    one year and six months and four years and two months. The circuit court sentenced Rodriguez
    to twenty years, with sixteen suspended. Thus, Rodriguez’s sentence fell within both his
    guidelines range and the statutory range for a Class 3 felony. Moreover, in fashioning Rodriguez’s
    sentence, the circuit court expressly considered the facts of the assault, everything contained in
    the PSR, the victim impact statement, the victim’s testimony, the arguments of counsel, and
    Rodriguez’s apology made in allocution, before sentencing him toward the high end of the
    guidelines. Contrary to Rodriguez’s assertion, the sentence imposed upon him is not excessive,
    because it was both within the guidelines and the applicable statutory range set by the legislature.
    Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Rodriguez to twenty years in
    prison, with sixteen years suspended. “[O]nce it is determined that a sentence is within the
    limitations set forth in the statute under which it is imposed, appellate review is at an end.” Minh
    Duy Du, 292 Va. at 565 (quoting Dorszynski v. United States, 
    418 U.S. 424
    , 431 (1974)). Having
    -4-
    found that Rodriguez’s sentence was within the statutory range, “our task is complete.” Thomason
    v. Commonwealth, 
    69 Va. App. 89
    , 99 (2018).
    The circuit court clearly considered all the evidence presented and consulted the
    discretionary criminal sentencing guidelines before sentencing Rodriguez to a term of imprisonment
    within the applicable statutory range. Thus, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in
    fashioning the sentence. We affirm the circuit court’s decision.
    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court’s judgment is affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 0558221

Filed Date: 12/29/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/29/2022