P. v. Coffin

Filed 8/11/06 P. v. Coffin CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Tehama)

----

Defendant Michael Robert Coffin pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter and admitted personally using a firearm to commit the offense. He was sentenced to the middle term for voluntary manslaughter, plus the upper term for using the firearm.

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the middle term for voluntary manslaughter and the upper term for the firearm use enhancement. In his view, the factors in mitigation outweighed the factors in aggravation. We shall affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The victim, Keith Price, and his wife, Dana, lived in rural Tehama County with their two young children, Dy. and Da.^[1] Defendant, who is Dana's cousin, was the Prices' neighbor. Dana's father, Pete, and defendant's mother, Marilyn, lived together in a trailer about 200 yards away on defendant's property.

The relationship between Keith and Dana was a troubled one, marked by excessive drinking and constant fighting, often involving physical altercations. By all accounts, Keith became combative and abusive when he drank, and he physically and verbally abused Dana, often in front of the kids, whom he verbally abused as well.

On one occasion, Keith assaulted Dana's father, Pete, and on another occasion, Keith physically assaulted defendant by hitting him in the back of the head and knocking defendant to the ground. While carrying two lit flares, he threatened to burn defendant out of his property. Keith also threatened to kill defendant and, at least once, faked his own suicide.

Dana often sought refuge in her relationship with defendant. There were many occasions when defendant intervened in fights between Keith and Dana. For approximately a year and a half prior to the incident, defendant and Dana had a secret affair.

On the day of the killing, Keith came home early because he had been laid off from his job. He and Dana spent the evening at a school function. Later that night, at about 11:30 p.m., Dana called defendant and asked him to meet her at the property line to talk. Dana said that she and Keith had been fighting all night and that Keith was drunk and was calling her names and yelling at her. Keith had gone into town, but was repeatedly calling Dana's cell phone and leaving messages. Telling Dana, â€