Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Sentence Upheld for Man Who Tossed Wife Off Balcony
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal in Orange County yesterday reacted with disdain to the protest by a man who inflicted serious bodily injury on his wife by throwing her off a second-floor balcony that he should have been placed on probation.
Writing for the Fourth District’s Div. Four, Justice William Bedsworth responded to the contention by Grant Lewis Randolph that the trial judge abused his discretion in sentencing him to seven years in prison:
“We could hardly disagree more. Finding ample justification for the trial court’s sentencing decision, we affirm the judgment.”
Bedworth recited that that after Randolph hurled his wife from the balcony, Randolph assured a neighbor:
“Don’t worry. We argue all the time.”
The jurist commented:
“But there was plenty of cause for concern. [The wife’s] contorted body lay twitching on the ground, with blood coming out of both her ears.”
The wife suffered a skull fracture and a severe brain injury, necessitating cranial surgery, followed by a month in the hospital where she received physical, occupational and speech therapy.
The couple subsequently reconciled.
Randolph was tried for attempted murder. The jury was hung on that count but did convict him of battery, with a finding of great bodily injury.
“In light of the jury’s true finding on the great bodily injury allegation, appellant was presumptively ineligible for probation. (Pen. Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(3).)…
“When, as here, a defendant is presumptively ineligible for probation, probation may not be granted except in the ‘unusual’ case where it would serve the interests of justice. (Pen. Code, § 1203, subd. (e).)…
“On this record, it is readily apparent the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the presumption against probation was not overcome. Indeed, appellant concedes the facts related to the crime are not in his favor. While he questions the trial court’s finding that he would be unlikely to succeed on probation, this is one of those cases where the facts speak largely for themselves. The nature and gravity of the offense, coupled with appellant’s callous reaction to the crime, were so egregious that the trial court could reasonably find appellant remains a danger to society, despite his rehabilitative efforts and his relatively advanced age.”
Randolph was said to be “nearly 68.”
The case is People v. Randolph, G048628. The opinion was not certified for publication.
Copyright 2014, Metropolitan News Company