Delores Chavira Payan, a/k/a etc. v. Commonwealth

CourtCourt of Appeals of Virginia
DecidedMay 16, 2000
Docket2373994
StatusUnpublished

This text of Delores Chavira Payan, a/k/a etc. v. Commonwealth (Delores Chavira Payan, a/k/a etc. v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Delores Chavira Payan, a/k/a etc. v. Commonwealth, (Va. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judge Annunziata, Senior Judge Duff and Retired Judge Kulp ∗ Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

DELORES CHAVIRA PAYAN, A/K/A DELORES-ARMANDO PAYAN, A/K/A ARMANDO PAYAN CHAVIRA, A/K/A JOSE PALO PAYAN, A/K/A CHAUIRA DELORES PAYAN MEMORANDUM OPINION ∗∗ BY v. Record No. 2373-99-4 JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA MAY 16, 2000 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PAGE COUNTY John J. McGrath, Jr., Judge

S. Jane Chittom (Elwood Earl Sanders, Jr., Appellate Defender; Public Defender Commission, on brief), for appellant.

Richard B. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Delores Chavira Payan, 1 appellant, appeals his convictions

for possession with intent to distribute more than one half

ounce and less than five pounds of marijuana, and two counts of

∗ Retired Judge James E. Kulp took part in the consideration of this case by designation, pursuant to Code § 17.1-400, recodifying Code § 17-116.01. ∗∗ Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Payan has numerous aliases. He was indicted under the name Delores Chavira Payan. distribution of the same amount of marijuana, 2 on the ground that

the trial court erred when it considered at the sentencing

hearing, sua sponte, evidence the court refused to admit at the

plea hearing as a basis for exceeding the sentences recommended

by the voluntary sentencing guidelines established pursuant to

Code §§ 17.1-805 and 19.2-298.01. We find no error and affirm

his sentences.

BACKGROUND

At a plea hearing on April 7, 1999, Payan pled nolo

contendere to the charges against him, and the court accepted

his plea. During the hearing, the prosecution proffered the

evidence it could have presented at trial. This evidence

included, inter alia, three photographs of Payan showing him

standing next to a large airplane at an unidentified location in

Mexico. Payan objected that the photographs would be

inadmissible because they were irrelevant to the charges. The

court sustained the objection.

At the sentencing hearing held on June 28, 1999, the

Commonwealth introduced evidence through the testimony of

Investigator Alfred Buynar of the Page County Sheriff's

Department. Buynar testified, inter alia, that Payan was an

associate of an individual named Flores, who was known to engage

2 Each count is a Class 5 felony. See Code § 18.2-248.1(a)(2).

- 2 - in the distribution of illegal drugs brought to Virginia from

the Texas-Mexico border. The court asked Buynar to "describe"

the photographs of Payan and the airplane in Mexico, which the

court had rejected at the plea hearing. Payan again objected,

observing that the photos "weren't considered at the [plea

hearing], and I don't see what they have to do with sentencing.

If they were rejected at the [hearing], I don't see why [the

court] ought to consider them now." The court overruled the

objection, stating only that "Your objection is noted, but

overruled."

In imposing its sentence, the court noted that the

sentencing guidelines were "purely voluntary" and that it found

the guidelines on the distribution convictions "to be woefully

inadequate under the circumstances," stating several reasons for

its upward departure from them:

[T]he circumstances, which were exacerbating in this case, are, number one, the large amount of contraband which the Defendant was arrested with, the large amount of money in his possession, the record of narcotics transactions, the evidence of being involved in an air-freight operation, numerous aliases that were used by him at different times, even in this proceeding, and false IDs a number of different false Ids, substantiate, in this Court's judgement, the seriousness of the crime.

(Emphasis added). Other than the photographs of Payan with the

airplane in Mexico, the Commonwealth adduced evidence that Payan

was associated with an individual named Flores, known to be

- 3 - engaged in the importation of illegal drugs into the

Commonwealth from Mexico. The trial court's reference to such

"an air-freight operation" therefore reflected its consideration

of the photos it had previously found, on Payan's objection on

grounds of relevancy, to be inadmissible on the issue of guilt.

Payan was sentenced to five years on each conviction, with

the two distribution counts running concurrently, but

consecutively with the possession count, which the court

suspended. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

"The sentencing guidelines are not binding on the trial

judge." Hunt v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 395, 404, 488 S.E.2d

672, 677 (1997) (citing Belcher v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 44,

45, 435 S.E.2d 160, 161 (1993)). "Rather, they are a tool

designed to assist the judge in fixing an appropriate

punishment." Id. "If [a] sentence was within the range set by

the legislature [for the crime of which the defendant was

convicted], an appellate court will not interfere with the

judgment." Hudson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 158, 160-61, 390

S.E.2d 509, 510 (1990).

During the sentencing phase of a bench trial, the court

should hear relevant, admissible evidence related to punishment.

See Runyon v. Commonwealth, 29 Va. App. 573, 576, 513 S.E.2d

872, 874 (1999) (citing Code § 19.2-295.1). "Determination of

- 4 - the admissibility of such evidence lies within the sound

discretion of the trial court." Id. (citing Blain v.

Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 10, 16, 371 S.E.2d 838, 842 (1988)).

The court "'must be allowed to consider . . . all relevant

evidence'" in the exercise of its discretion in sentencing.

Shifflett v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 254, 259, 494 S.E.2d 163,

166 (1997) (en banc) (quoting Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 271

(1976)). Such evidence includes any "'responsible unsworn or

"out-of-court" information relative to the circumstances of the

crime . . . .'" Harris v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 794, 809,

497 S.E.2d 165, 172 (1998) (citations omitted); see Shifflett,

26 Va. App. at 259, 494 S.E.2d at 166 ("For the determination of

sentences, justice generally requires consideration of more than

the particular acts by which the crime was committed and that

there be taken into account the circumstances of the offense

. . . ." 3 (quoting Pennsylvania v. Ashe, 302 U.S. 51, 55

3 In McClain v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 847, 55 S.E.2d 49 (1949), the Supreme Court of Virginia observed:

"Tribunals passing on the guilt of a defendant always have been hedged in by strict evidentiary procedural limitations.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pennsylvania Ex Rel. Sullivan v. Ashe
302 U.S. 51 (Supreme Court, 1937)
Williams v. New York
337 U.S. 241 (Supreme Court, 1949)
Jurek v. Texas
428 U.S. 262 (Supreme Court, 1976)
United States v. Carmine Fatico, and Daniel Fatico
579 F.2d 707 (Second Circuit, 1978)
Commonwealth v. Jackson
499 S.E.2d 276 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1998)
Runyon v. Commonwealth
513 S.E.2d 872 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1999)
Allen v. Commonwealth
501 S.E.2d 441 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1998)
Jefferson v. Commonwealth
500 S.E.2d 219 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1998)
Moses v. Commonwealth
498 S.E.2d 451 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1998)
Harris v. Commonwealth
497 S.E.2d 165 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1998)
Shifflett v. Commonwealth
494 S.E.2d 163 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1997)
Hunt v. Commonwealth
488 S.E.2d 672 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1997)
Belcher v. Commonwealth
435 S.E.2d 160 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1993)
Alger v. Commonwealth
450 S.E.2d 765 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1994)
Hudson v. Commonwealth
390 S.E.2d 509 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1990)
Blain v. Commonwealth
371 S.E.2d 838 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1988)
McClain v. Commonwealth
55 S.E.2d 49 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Delores Chavira Payan, a/k/a etc. v. Commonwealth, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delores-chavira-payan-aka-etc-v-commonwealth-vactapp-2000.