Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Low Sentence Is Presumptive If Childhood Trauma ‘Contributed,’ Even If Not ‘Substantially,’ to Crime
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. One of the First District Court of Appeal held yesterday that a judge, in applying a statute that provides for a presumptive low-term sentence where childhood or psychological trauma of the defendant “contributed” to the commission of the crime, erred in borrowing from another statute the requirement of the factors having “substantially contributed” to the wrongdoing.
The unpublished opinion was authored by Acting Presiding Justice Kathleen M. Banke and joined in by Justice Monique Langhorne Wilson and Alameda Superior Court Judge Arturo Castro, sitting by assignment.
Appealing the sentence is Herbert Bradley who was convicted in 2021 of three charges: case child abuse, exhibiting a deadly weapon and giving false information to a police officer. The initial sentence was reversed in an unpublished memorandum opinion, also by Banke, on Aug. 26, 2022, based on an amendment to Penal Code §1170(b), creating the low-term presumption, having been enacted during pendency of the appeal.
‘Substantiality’ Requirement Imported
On remand, Alameda Superior Court Judge Thomas Stevens found the presumption inapplicable because “this record is devoid of sufficient information for the Court to conclude that the issues you’ve brought up about drug abuse and psychological trauma substantially contributed to this crime.” He sentenced Bradley to the mid-term sentence of four years, doubled to eight years due to a prior strike.
The words “substantially contributed” are found in Penal Code §1385 which requires that judges “afford great weight to evidence” that “childhood trauma…substantially contributed to the defendant’s involvement in the commission of the offense.”
Sec. 1170(b)(6) provides:
“[U]less the court finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances that imposition of the lower term would be contrary to the interests of justice, the court shall order imposition of the lower term if any of the following was a contributing factor in the commission of the offense: [¶] (A) The person has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma, including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence.”
Differing Terminology Noted
In yesterday’s opinion, Banke wrote:
“The differing terminology—‘contributing factor’ and ‘substantially contributed’—signify different levels of causation, with the Legislature’s choice of words suggesting a lesser degree of connection for ‘contributing factor’ than for actions that ‘substantially contributed’ to a crime. This is particularly relevant considering that section 1170 and section 1385 were amended in the same legislative session. The choice to use ‘substantially contributed’ in section 1385, as opposed to the absence of such phraseology in section 1170, underscores a conscious legislative decision to create distinct levels of causation required by each statute, thereby mandating a discerning approach in their judicial application.”
There was again a remand for resentencing.
The case is People v. Bradley, A168275.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company