In 2015, Orange County Superior Court Judge Michael Marc Kelly sentenced him to 10 years in prison rather than the state-mandated term.

In an analysis, Kelly said he compared sentencing for similar and other offenses, looked into details of the case and took into account a court-ordered psychological examination and a sentencing report that concluded Rojano-Nieto wasn't a true pedophile or sexual predator and wouldn't pose a danger to society.

The mandatory term would be "grossly disproportionate" in the case and would be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, Kelly wrote. "The manner in which this offense was committed is not typical of a predatory, violent brutal sodomy of a child case," he wrote.

Although he acknowledged the act was "serious and despicable," Kelly said Rojano-Nieto stopped the assault within seconds and was remorseful, the girl wasn't seriously injured and her parents had urged leniency.

"Even an extremely immature 19-year-old should understand that it is wrong to sodomize a three-year-old child and should be able to control his sexual impulses," the ruling stated.

DBOTW? What the hell does that mean?

DBOTW? What the hell does that mean?

Sounds like a competent judge. Mandatory minimum laws are the DBOTW here, not a judge doing what our system asks of them.

The opinion from the appellate court pretends like the guy was let go. It almost sounds like a post here, maybe even one yet to be in this thread:

I don't know how you could say someone who sodomized a 3 year old isn't a predator.

Nieto, then 19, was convicted in 2014 of sodomizing the girl, a relative who had wandered into the garage of his Santa Ana home where he was playing video games.

Personal incredulity is a great standard by which we should hand out decades of prison time.

Was she asking for it? How long should baby rapists be given?

I thought MANY here were against mandatory minimums.

Raping a baby and carrying an ounce of marijuana or an 8 ball of crack cocaine are nowhere near the same things. If you want to give a rapist of the most vulnerable members of society a slap on the wrist just say it.

Edit: We aren't talking about 2 adults drunk at a party or a 19 and 16 year old.

I guess JLN loves activist judges who ignore the law based on their own politics.

I said the law should be the DBOTW, not the appellate court. Valiant attempt, though.

guy should be taken out back and given a 9mm double tap to the back of the skull.

DBOTW? What the hell does that mean?

guy should be taken out back and given a 9mm double tap to the back of the skull.

Should the judge be DBOTW too? Activist judge ignoring the law of the land based on personal emotions.

Well now you're just making things up.

The law states a minimum sentence was required. How did he come up with his judicial activist opinion that the law was wrong?

The law does not take any of that into consideration. The law is clear that there was a minimum sentence required. Why do you support a judge ignoring the actual law?

Not working, BRick, find another toy to play with.