P. v. Caramanis
Filed 4/22/13 P.
v. Caramanis CA2/6
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
DAVID WALTER CARAMANIS,
Defendant and
Appellant.
2d Crim.
No. B239419
(Super.
Ct. No. 2011013295)
(Ventura County)
David Walter Caramanis
appeals a judgment following conviction by plea to
(GHB), and possession of GHB, with findings that he suffered two controlled
substance convictions and that he served a prior prison term. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11379.6,
subd. (a), 11377, subd. (a), 11370.2, subd. (b); Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd.
(b).) We conclude that the trial court
did not abuse its discretion by declining to sentence Caramanis to a
"split-sentence" pursuant to the Criminal Justice Realignment Act
(Act) (Stats. 2011, lst Ex. Sess. 2011-2012, ch. 12, § 1; § 1170,
subd. (h)(5)(B)), and affirm. (
"split-sentence option" in terms of Penal Code section 1170,
subdivision (h)(B)(5)].)
HISTORY
In 2011, Ventura County
Sheriff's deputies conducted an investigation of Caramanis for the manufacture
and sale of GHB, a drug used by body builders to control the effects of steroid
use and by sexual predators to render a victim unconscious. On March 22, 2011, a confidential
informant obtained GHB from Caramanis.
Caramanis also shipped GHB to a purchaser in Georgia. Sheriff's deputies later executed a search
warrant on Caramanis's residence and found large quantities of materials used
in the manufacture of GHB. Caramanis
previously had been convicted of violating federal drug laws regarding GHB and
was a federal parolee.
The Ventura County
District Attorney charged Caramanis by second-amended information with seven
counts regarding the manufacture, transportation, sale, and possession of GHB,
and two counts of identity theft. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11379.6,
subd. (a), 11379, subds. (a) & (b), 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code,
§ 530.5, subd. (a).) The
information also alleged that Caramanis suffered three controlled substance
convictions and served a prior prison term.
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (b); Pen. Code,
§ 667.5, subd. (b).)
On November 22, 2011,
Caramanis waived his constitutional
rights and pleaded guilty to manufacturing GHB (count 1), and possession of
GHB (count 9). Caramanis also admitted
suffering the controlled substance convictions and serving a prior prison term. In a written felony disposition statement,
Caramanis acknowledged that he could be sentenced "to county jail and/or
home detention" and that a portion of the term could be suspended and that
he would be supervised by a probation officer, as provided for in section 1170,
subdivision (h). During his plea
colloquy, Caramanis orally acknowledged that he could be sentenced "to
county jail and/or home detention" for a maximum term.
On January 19, 2012,
the trial court held a sentencing hearing. At the inception of the hearing, the trial
judge stated that he had read the probation report prepared for sentencing and
that he would honor his sentencing commitment of 12 years eight months, which
included a five-year midterm for count 1, an eight-month consecutive term for
count 9, two three-year terms for the controlled substance convictions, and one
year for the prior prison term served.
Caramanis requested that the trial court impose "a [nine year eight
month] split sentence . . . something along the lines of serving two
years custody time, doing a two-year [rehabilitation] program time, and then
spending the rest of that time on probationary-type status." The prosecutor responded that a 12 year eight
month prison term was negotiated previously, but that "[it is] for local
custody now."
The trial court imposed
a sentence of 12 years eight months to be served in county jail "pursuant
to [section] 1170, [subdivision] (h)."
In ruling, the court noted that Caramanis was involved in
"sophisticated and interstate transportation of materials for drug
usage," and that it was "not appropriate to consider some
[rehabilitation] program" due to his "having been in federal and
state prosecution and probation for similar types of crimes dating back a
number of years." The court imposed
various fines and fees, awarded Caramanis 426 days of presentence custody
credit, and dismissed the remaining counts and a third controlled-substance
conviction allegation.
Caramanis appeals and
contends that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to sentence
him to a split sentence pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B).
DISCUSSION
Caramanis asserts that
the trial court believed that it did not have discretion to sentence him to a
combination of time in county jail, rehabilitation facilities, and home
detention. He relies upon the court's
felony disposition notation of "CDC - 12 yrs 8 mos" to support his
argument that the court did not understand the scope of its discretion pursuant
to the Act. (People v. Downey
(2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 912 ["Where . . . a sentence choice
is based on an erroneous understanding of the law, the matter must be remanded
for an informed determination"].)
The Act "'enacted
sweeping changes to long-standing sentencing laws,'" including replacing
prison commitments with county jail commitments for certain felonies and
eligible defendants. (
1001, 1004.) The Act realigns low-level
felony offenders without prior convictions for serious, violent, or sex crimes
to local, community-based programs. (
that the Act applies to those persons sentenced on or after October 1, 2011.
Section 1170,
subdivision (h)(5) provides: "The
court, when imposing a sentence pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this
subdivision, may commit the defendant to county jail as follows: [¶]
(A) For a full term in custody as determined in accordance with the
applicable sentencing law. [¶] (B)(i) For a term as determined in accordance
with the applicable sentencing law, but suspend execution of a concluding
portion of the term selected in the court's discretion, during which time the
defendant shall be supervised by the county probation officer in accordance
with the terms, conditions, and procedures generally applicable to persons
placed on probation, for the remaining unserved portion of the sentence imposed
by the court."
Here the trial court
understood its sentencing discretion pursuant to the Act, particularly section
1170, subdivision (h)(5)(B). The trial
judge stated that he was sentencing Caramanis pursuant to section 1170,
subdivision (h), and that a "program" or probation was not
appropriate given Caramanis's criminal history and unsuccessful service on
probation. (People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 599-600 [reviewing court
may look to statements of trial court to determine whether it understood its
sentencing discretion].) Absent a
showing to the contrary, we presume the trial court understands the applicable
law and the scope of its sentencing discretion.
(People v. Galvez (2011) 195
Cal.App.4th 1253, 1264.)
The trial court also did
not abuse its discretion by sentencing Caramanis to a full county jail
term. The probation report prepared for
sentencing recommended against a grant of probation because Caramanis had
performed poorly on probation granted for past drug offenses, concluding that
"he has no intent of stopping his criminal behavior." A court enjoys broad discretion in
determining whether to impose a straight jail commitment or a "split"
or "blended" sentence pursuant to section 1170, subdivision
(h)(5)(B). (People v. Clytus,
Moreover, the trial
court's reference to a state prison sentence was made on August 12, 2011, prior
to Caramanis's guilty plea and prior to the effective date of the Act. The trial judge expressly stated that he was
sentencing Caramanis pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h), and that a
rehabilitation program was not appropriate given Caramanis's long history of
manufacturing and selling GHB.
The judgment is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT,
P.J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
PERREN, J.
>
Bruce A.
Young, Judge
Superior
Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Richard B. Lennon, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris,
Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E.
Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson, Supervising
Deputy Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All further statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
