P.

P. v. Salazar CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 13, 2013D061483California602 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

Salazar committed two offenses. In 2009, Salazar applied for a driver's license

using a false identity. In 2010, Salazar went to his next door neighbor's house when the

parents of a 13-year-old girl were not home and touched her thigh and fondled her breast.

The girl reported the incident to her mother, who called the police.

DISCUSSION

I

SENTENCING

Salazar contends the sentencing court abused its discretion in sentencing him to

the middle term of six years because it was excessive and did not meet the objectives of

sentencing. We disagree.

The determination of the appropriate term is within the trial court's broad

discretion and must be affirmed unless there is a "showing that the court exercised its

discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest

miscarriage of justice." (People v. Jordan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 308, 316.) "Sentencing

courts have wide discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors [citation], and

may balance them against each other in qualitative as well as quantitative terms."

(People v. Roe (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 112, 119.)

3 Salazar argues that the trial court abused its…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.