PRESS RELEASE

The California Supreme Court will hear argument on Tuesday in the first of five companion cases to determine what impact last January’s U. S. Supreme Court ruling in Cunningham v. California will have on criminal sentences.  California law prescribes a sentencing choice of three terms (such as 2, 4, or 6 years), for most felonies based upon mitigating or aggravating factors found by a judge which are related to the crime or the defendant. The Cunningham ruling requires aggravating factors justifying an upper term sentence be found by a jury, rather than the judge.  In April, Governor Schwarzenegger signed an urgency bill into law which eliminates the effect of the decision on future cases by providing judges with the discretion to choose any one of the three terms.

The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has submitted argument in the Sandoval case to encourage a decision which limits the effect of Cunningham to prior sentences which clearly violate its requirements.

The case of People v. Sandoval involves the sentence given to Aida Sandoval for the voluntary manslaughter of two men and the attempted manslaughter of a third.  Based upon the cold-blooded nature of the crime and the multiple victims, the judge sentenced her to the upper term of 11 years for the first manslaughter charge, 2 years for the second, and 1 year and 4 months for the attempted manslaughter with the terms (totaling 14 years 4 months) to be served consecutively.

The facts relate to killings which occurred on February 5, 2003, outside of the El Dorado, a Los Angeles bar frequented by gang members.  The killings were arranged by Sandoval and her friend Yessenia Romero as revenge against Rolando Rojas, who had intervened to stop a fight between them and another woman in the bar’s parking lot the previous night.  When the fight ended, Sandoval was reported to have said she “was going to bring some gang over to f- -k up (Rojas), to kill him.”

The next day, Sandoval and Romero convinced members of two street gangs to kill Rojas.  That night the two women, accompanied by several armed gang members, went to the El Dorado to find Rojas.  When Rojas arrived with two friends, the women identified them to the gang members.  A short time later Rojas was shot and killed in the parking lot.  Hearing the gunshots, his two friends left through the back door of the bar, where they were both shot by another gang member recruited by Sandoval and Romero.  One of them died.

The state Court of Appeal rejected Sandoval’s claim that the trial judge improperly gave her the upper term sentence and consecutive sentences, because a jury did not find the required aggravating factors.

Following the Cunningham ruling, the California Supreme Court accepted her appeal to determine if the change it requires renders her sentence improper.

The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has introduced an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in this case to argue that neither Cunningham, nor earlier Supreme Court decisions limit a judge’s discretion to have the sentences for multiple crimes served consecutively.  Finally, CJLF stresses that only one aggravating factor had to be found to justify an upper term, leaving a judge free to consider any other factors that may influence the sentencing decision without violating the rule announced in Cunningham.

“Consecutive sentences, which are typically given to the worst criminals, were not discussed in the Cunningham ruling and therefore should be upheld in this case, where they were certainly well deserved,” said CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger.

The Foundation’s brief also addresses claims in the companion case of People v. Hernandez, which deals with the impact of the Cunningham ruling on sentences given to habitual criminals.