California Court of Appeal Jul 9, 2021 No. E073170Unpublished
Filed 7/9/21 P. v. Beck CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E073170
v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF1800617)
SCOTT EDWARD BECK, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Steven G. Counelis,
Judge. Dismissed.
Law Office of Marend M. Garrett and Marend M. Garret for Defendant and
Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General,
Eric Swenson and Michael D. Butera, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Scott Edward Beck appeals from an order of the
Riverside County Superior Court sentencing him to the upper term of 66 months in prison
1
after a jury convicted him of attempted voluntary manslaughter. Defendant’s sole
argument on appeal is he should have been sentenced to a lesser term because the court
erred when it found he induced family members to participate in the commission of the
A party who was given an adequate and meaningful opportunity to seek
clarifications or changes in the sentence or otherwise object to the trial court’s sentencing
choices or the reasons it articulates in support of them forfeits the right to challenge the
sentence on appeal. (People v. Gonzalez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 745, 752.)
4
Here, the probation department recommended defendant receive the middle term
of three years. The People’s sentencing brief called for imposition of the upper term of
66 months and included the fact defendant involved his wife and stepson in trying to
catch the victim as factors in aggravation. In his sentencing memorandum, defendant
argued he should receive the lower term of 18 months because he was defending his
family when he injured the victim, he learned his lesson, he did not have a criminal
history, and he was not in good health.
At the hearing, the People argued first and reiterated defendant’s involvement of
his family as one of the reasons the court should select the upper term. When he argued,
defendant made no mention of the People’s argument. His argument instead focused
solely on his theory that the victim provoked the situation that led to a terrible accident
and how his incarceration up until that point had already caused severe economic
hardship for him and his disabled wife.
At the close of arguments, the court found the case presented five of the
aggravating factors relating to the crime set forth in rule 4.421(a). One of those factors
was, “[t]he defendant induced others to participate in the commission of the crime or
occupied a position of leadership or dominance of other participants in its commission.”
(Rule 4.421(a)(4).) In support of that finding, the court noted defendant directed family
members to find and locate the victim on the property, including the participation of
defendant’s wife who encouraged defendant to shoot the victim. After identifying all the
aggravating and mitigating factors it was considering, and stating they would form the
bases of its determination of the appropriate term, the court inquired of the parties if there
5
was any reason judgment should not then be pronounced. Defendant’s counsel said,
“No.” Thereafter, the court imposed the upper term of 66 months and engaged counsel in
a discussion of how credits were to be calculated.
It is clear from the foregoing that defendant had ample time to object to
consideration of the rule 4.421(a)(4) inducement/leadership factor. The People had
raised it in their brief filed and served in advance of the hearing. They raised the factor
again at the hearing. Even so, defendant did not address that subject in his argument.
And, when the court invited the parties to address the factors it identified as under
consideration—including the inducement of others—before announcing the sentence,
defendant declined. After it announced the sentence, the court engaged counsel in
discussion on matters relating to the sentencing, during which time defendant could have
raised the issue. Accordingly, we find defendant has forfeited his right to challenge the
court’s finding he induced his family members to participate in the commission of the
crime.
Even if the issue was not forfeited, defendant would not prevail. His sole
argument on appeal is he should have been sentenced to a lesser term because the
evidence is insufficient to support the finding he induced family members to participate
in commission the attempted killing of the victim. The insufficiency of the evidence
claim is bottomed on the proposition the finding is necessarily erroneous because it is
impossible to reconcile it with the jury’s conclusion that he had attempted to kill the
victim “because of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.” The claim lacks factual
and legal support.
6
Contrary to defendant’s suggestion, a sudden quarrel or heat of passion is not
necessarily a momentary event. Rather, a person’s heat of passion may persist until
enough time passes for the passions to cool off and for judgment to be restored. (People
v. Millbrook (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1139.) The record reveals that, when
defendant concluded the victim was likely in the home, his passions were incited. Upset
and angry, he alerted his wife and stepson and enlisted their assistance and grabbed his
rifle. He also unlocked the sliding glass door into the stepdaughter’s room to permit the
stepson’s entry after the victim was located. Thereafter, he hit victim with the rifle and
shot him.
Moreover, if the court had erred in finding defendant induced family members to
participate in the commission of the crime, the error was harmless because the court
found other factors in aggravation that support its sentencing choice. The factors relating
to the crime were: (i) it involved great violence and great bodily harm such that it is not
clear the victim will ever recuperate from the physical injuries or from the significant
changes in his personality and his personhood resulting from the attack; (ii) defendant
was armed and used a weapon in the commission of the crime; and (iii) the victim was
particularly vulnerable as he was not armed and was kneeling on the bed wearing only his
underwear (or was “close to being in his underwear”) when defendant shot him. (Rule
4.421(a)(1)-(3).) The court also found defendant engaged in violent conduct that
indicates a serious danger to society, an aggravating factor set forth in rule 4.421(b)(1).
7
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
RAPHAEL J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his right to challenge the trial court's sentencing findings by failing to object at the sentencing hearing, and further noted that the sentencing choice was supported by other aggravating factors.
Issues
Whether the defendant forfeited his challenge to the trial court's sentencing findings by failing to object at the hearing.
Whether the trial court erred in finding that the defendant induced family members to participate in the commission of the crime.
Disposition. Dismissed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We find the issue forfeited and dismiss the appeal.”