THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROMEO DEONTE KNOWLES, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 16, 2024, No. B328439) 2024 WL 4403592
Summary: On April 28, 2020, Knowles, 23 years old, was living at Midnight Mission, a shelter for homeless persons. Around midnight, a 53-year-old security guard, Bullock, was performing bunk checks. Knowles approached to show a broken knife handle. Bullock looked at what Knowles was holding, and Knowles punched him in the head three to four times. Bullock backed away, lost his footing, and fell to the ground, hitting his head as he fell. Bullock was bleeding and became nonresponsive. Bullock was transported to the hospital and later died of his injuries. The medical examiner determined the cause of death to be blunt force trauma to the head.
After his arrest, Knowles claimed Bullock had been intimidating him and that Knowles was defending himself. According to another resident, Bullock had a reputation with some Midnight Mission residents for “push[ing] his authority around.”
Charges and Plea
Knowles was charged with murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1)and a second count alleging voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a); count 2). Knowles pleaded no contest to count 2, and the court later dismissed count 1.
Before sentencing, the court received a mitigation packet from Knowles, a diagnostic report from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and sentencing memoranda from both the prosecutor and defense counsel.
Knowles’s sentencing memorandum expressed remorse and requested that the court impose the low term because of his age, his suffering of psychological and childhood trauma, his lack of a prior criminal record, and his low risk of recidivism. Knowles said Bullock “ ‘had a reputation of picking on new residents at the facility,’ ” and argued his past trauma and mental illness “distorted his perception of Mr. Bullock’s conduct and his need to act in response to it.”
The prosecution’s sentencing memorandum reminded the court of its general discretion to impose a term not in excess of the midterm (§ 1170, subd. (b)(1)), the applicability of the low term presumption in light of Knowles’s past trauma and youth (id., subd. (b)(6)), and that the low term presumption did not apply where the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances such that imposition of the low term would not serve the interests of justice. The prosecution requested that the court sentence Knowles to the midterm because Bullock had not acted aggressively toward Knowles, and Knowles had failed to take responsibility for his actions.
The court sentenced Knowles to serve the midterm of 6 years imprisonment. The court found the midterm sentence “in the interest of justice [because] the aggravating factors do outweigh the mitigating factors.” The aggravating factors were the victim’s vulnerability, Knowles’s disciplinary writeup while in custody, and that Knowles had repeatedly minimized his involvement in Bullock’s death. The mitigating factors to be Knowles’s age at the time of the offense and his lack of a criminal record. In response to defense counsel’s claim that the court failed to engage with additional mitigating factors such as Knowles’s childhood trauma, the court stated, “I do believe in looking at the entirety of the record, in my view the aggravating factors which I have stated are the appropriate factors in this case.”
Knowles contends the court abused its discretion in not sentencing him to the low term of three years imprisonment. He argues the court misunderstood the scope of its sentencing discretion, disregarded substantial mitigating evidence triggering the low term presumption, and abused its discretion in imposing a midterm sentence.
Standard of Review
Discretionary sentencing decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847.) A court abuses its sentencing discretion when it acts arbitrarily and capriciously, relies on improper matter in reaching its decision, or is unaware of the scope of its discretion so that it does not exercise informed discretion at all. (People v. Panozo (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 825, 837.) Exercises of sentencing discretion must be “consistent with the letter and spirit of the law.” (People v. Sandoval, supra, at p. 847.) “
Section 1170, Subdivision (b)(6) and presumption of low term
Section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) creates a presumption that the court should impose the low term “if any of the following was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense:
(A) The [defendant] has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence.
(B) The person is a youth [meaning under the age of 26 years of age] … at the time of the commission of the offense.” This presumption may be overcome if the court “finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances [such] that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice.” The fact a defendant is young or has suffered past trauma is insufficient—either or both must be “a contributing factor in the commission of the offense” for the low term presumption to apply. (Ibid.; see also People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 991.)
The Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Sentencing Knowles
Section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) plainly states that the court may sentence above the low term if the aggravating circumstances “outweigh the mitigating” ones such that “imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice.” This language is unambiguous.
Knowles claims the court abused its discretion in how it weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before it. Weighing those circumstances is the province of the trial court. We may not reverse a sentencing decision “ ‘merely because reasonable people might disagree. “An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Superior Court (Alvarez), supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 978.) The court’s analysis here of the evidence before it along with the applicable sentencing factors was neither irrational nor arbitrary.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.