California v. Panozo
Annotate this CaseDefendant-appellant Oliver Panozo was convicted by jury of various offenses in connection with two domestic violence incidents involving his former girlfriend. At sentencing, the court rejected Panozo’s request to be placed on probation and enrolled in Veterans Court. Instead, it imposed a three-year middle term on the principal aggravated assault count. Panozo appealed, arguing the trial court was unaware of its statutory obligation to consider his service-related PTSD as a mitigating factor under Penal Code sections 1170.9 and 1170.91. He therefore sought remand for resentencing. Tracing the relevant statutes and considering the record, the Court of Appeal agreed remand was necessary: sections 1170.9 and 1170.91 obligated a court to consider a defendant’s service-related mental health issues, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as a mitigating factor in evaluating whether to grant probation and in selecting the appropriate determinate term. Although there was ample evidence of Panozo’s service-related PTSD presented at sentencing, by all indications the court was unaware that it was required to consider this mitigating factor when it denied probation and imposed a three-year prison term. Accordingly, the Court remanded for a new sentencing hearing to permit the court to exercise its statutory obligations under sections 1170.9 and 1170.91. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.