P. v. Duquette
There are few areas of the law more dependent upon the sound discretion of the trial judge than criminal sentencing. And the decision about whether or not to admit a criminal defendant to probation is so loosely circumscribed as to be almost entirely discretionary. California law provides that, If the court determines that there are circumstances in mitigation of the punishment prescribed by law or that the ends of justice would be served by granting probation to the person, it may place the person on probation. (Pen. Code, 1203, subd. (E)(3).) Unwritten, but clearly implied in that sentence, is the phrase or it may not. Probation is an act of leniency, not a matter of right. (People v. Wardlow (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 360, 365.) And appellate courts, having not a human being before us but a written record, overturn such decisions only when they exceed[] the bounds of reason. (People v. Warner (1978) 20 Cal.3d 678, 683, quoting People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72.) Appellant David Thomas Duquette contends this is such a case, but we cannot agree.
Comments on P. v. Duquette