## Facts

- Soon Ja Du, a shopkeeper, confronted Latasha Harlins, a 15-year-old customer, after Harlins picked up a $1.79 bottle of orange juice and placed it in her backpack while holding cash.
- Du believed Harlins was attempting to steal the juice; Du grabbed at Harlins’s clothing, and Harlins struck Du in the face during the struggle.
- Du threw a stool and retrieved a .38-caliber revolver kept behind the counter.
- Harlins placed the juice on the counter and moved toward the exit; Du shot Harlins in the back of the head, killing her.
- A jury convicted Du of voluntary manslaughter, rejecting claims of self-defense and accidental discharge.
- At sentencing, the court imposed a 10-year prison term (upper term plus firearm enhancement) but suspended execution and granted five years’ probation with conditions including community service and restitution-related payments.
- The prosecution sought writ relief, arguing probation was barred absent an “unusual case” and that the sentencing court abused its discretion in finding the case unusual.

## Issues

1. Whether the probationary sentence was “legal,” meaning consistent with statutory sentencing limits and applicable rules governing probation when a defendant personally used a firearm.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding an “unusual case” justifying probation despite the statutory presumption against probation in firearm-use felonies.

## Decision

- The court of appeal denied the petition for writ of mandate/prohibition.
- It held the trial court did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or beyond the bounds of reason in granting probation.
- The court concluded the “unusual case” determination and the stated sentencing reasons were supported by the record and fit within permissible criteria.

## Legal Principles

- Probation decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion; an appellate court does not reweigh sentencing choices but asks whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or exceeded the bounds of reason under the circumstances.
- When a statute creates a presumption against probation for personal firearm use, probation may still be granted in an “unusual case” where the interests of justice are served, as evaluated under applicable court rules and statutory criteria.
- A sentencing court must consider the objectives of sentencing and may rely on supported circumstances—such as lack of prior record, the defendant’s danger to others, and provocation or stress—in deciding whether the case is unusual.
- The jury’s rejection of self-defense does not prevent a sentencing judge from considering fear, provocation, and related circumstances for purposes of selecting a lawful sentence within the governing framework.

## Conclusion

The court of appeal upheld the probationary disposition by denying mandamus, holding that the sentencing court lawfully treated the case as an “unusual case” and adequately supported its reasons for granting probation despite the statutory presumption against probation in firearm-use felonies.


People v. Superior Court (Du), 5 Cal. App. 4th 822 (Ct. App. 1992)