JEFFREY F. ROSEN (Bar No.

163589)
1 DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Alexandra Ellis (Bar No. 271567)
2 Deputy District Attorney
70 West Hedding Street, West Wing
3 San Jose, CA 95110
Telephone: (408) 299-7400
4
Attorneys for the People of the State of California
5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
7

8
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Case No.: C1522028
9 CALIFORNIA, )
) THE PEOPLES SENTENCING
10 Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM AND STATEMENT
) IN AGGRAVATION
11 -vs.- )
)
12 ROBERT FARMER, ) Date: July 14, 2017
) Time: 9:00 a.m.
13 Dept.: 39
Defendant. )
14
)
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (the People), in and for Santa Clara County,
15
respectfully submit this sentencing memorandum and statement in aggravation in connection with the
16
above-captioned matter.
17

18 I. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

19 A. Defendants Present Offenses
20 During the months of September and October of 2015, Defendant Robert Farmer (hereinafter
21 referred to as Defendant) intentionally abducted, viciously bludgeoned, and killed multiple cats from
22 the Cambrian Park neighborhood of San Jose. Only three cats are known to have survived Defendants
23 cruel and unjustified attacks. Of the remaining eighteen known victims, four bodies have been located.
24 The whereabouts of the other fourteen victims are unknown.
25 In addition to the numerous acts of violence perpetrated against animals, Defendant terrorized an
26 eighty-three-year-old woman and battered her grandson. The following is a summary of Defendants

27

28
1
1 crimes as documented in San Jose Police Department Report 152651022 and associated Santa Clara

2 County Laboratory, University of California, Davis, and San Jose Animal Care and Services reports:

3 In September of 2015, Defendant moved in with an eighty-three-year-old woman by the name of

4 Joy Beck. Ms. Beck had known Defendant since he was a child, as Ms. Becks grandson had previously

5 attended school with Defendant. Although Ms. Beck was aware of Defendants violent temper,1 she

6 heard Defendant had gone to rehab and was back on the right track. Accordingly, Ms. Beck allowed

7 Defendant into her home while he claimed to be looking for a job. Ms. Beck soon realized her mistake.

8 While Defendant was living with Ms. Beck, a witness heard Defendant screaming at Ms. Beck.

9 The witness came to Ms. Becks aid, prompting Defendant to leave the house. When Defendant

10 returned, Ms. Becks cat was seen walking funny and had lumps on the back of her head. When the

11 witness told Ms. Beck to call the police, Ms. Beck responded that she was afraid of Defendant and that

12 Defendant was dangerous.

13 On September 18, 2015, Ms. Beck witnessed Defendant hit her grandson in the head. Ms. Becks

14 grandson was obviously terrified of Defendant and extremely hesitant to provide a statement to officers.

15 Ms. Becks grandson told officers that Defendant had physically assaulted him and shot him with a

16 pellet gun in the past. He further told officers that Defendant is unpredictable and snaps at any second.

17 Ms. Becks grandson was convinced that a restraining order would not protect him from Defendant.

18 During this same time period, multiple reports of dead, missing and injured cats came flooding

19 into San Jose Police Department from the Cambrian Park neighborhood of San Jose. In mid-to-late

20 September of 2015, surveillance video captured footage of a man abducting a cat named Gogo from

21
the front yard of a residence in that very neighborhood. Local news programs circulated the surveillance

22
footage, prompting several individuals to come forward and identify Defendant as the man abducting

23
Gogo in the surveillance footage. To date, Gogo has not been located.

24
Defendant was finally arrested on October 8, 2015, at approximately 6:20 a.m., while sleeping in

his vehicle in the Home Depot parking lot on Hillsdale and Leigh Avenues in San Jose. When officers
25

26
1
Approximately one year prior to September 2015, Ms. Beck saw Defendant get angry, pick up her cat, Angel, and throw
27 it across the kitchen into the living room. On another occasion, Defendant brought Angel to her with a bloody nose and bump
on its head.
28
2
1 approached the vehicle, they immediately smelled the odor of cat urine and feces. A search of

2 Defendants car revealed the following evidence:

3 A dead orange long-haired cat stuffed in the center console of the car. (See Exhibit 1)

4 Red-brown blood stains and chunks of fur on the seats, floor, dashboard and side panels

5 of the door. (See Exhibit 2)

6 Numerous blood-stained items of clothing, some of which had large stains on the front

7 stomach area of the shirts and lap area of the pants. (See Exhibit 3)

8 A flashlight with feces and a chunk of fur on it.

9 Multiple collars belonging to cats that were missing from the Cambrian Park

10 neighborhood.

11 A newly-packaged doll from a recent Disney film. (See Exhibit 4)

12 In addition to the physical evidence found in Defendants vehicle, Defendant appeared to have

13 multiple new and old cat scratches and puncture wounds on his hands, arms and stomach at the time of

14 his arrest. (See Exhibit 5)

15 Dr. Sharon Ostermann, Animal Shelter Veterinarian for the City of San Jose Animal Care &

16 Services, performed the necropsies of the four deceased victims that were located: (1) the unnamed

17 orange Tabby that was located inside Defendants vehicle; (2) Juniper, who was found inside a recycling

18 bin on Blossom Hill Road in San Jose (see Exhibit 6); (3) Thumper, who was found inside a recycling

19 bin on Blossom Hill Road in San Jose (see Exhibit 6); and (4) Rayden, who was found lying in the

20 roadway (see Exhibit 7). Juniper and Thumpers bodies were too badly decomposed to determine cause

21
of death. However, both Rayden and the orange Tabby suffered severe blunt force trauma to the head.

22
Dr. Ostermann also found signs of postmortem penetration to the sex organs of the unnamed orange

23
Tabby found in Defendants car.

24
Nail clippings from all four corpses were submitted to the Santa Clara County Crime Laboratory

for DNA analysis. Defendants DNA was located under the nails of all four cats.2
25

26

27
2
Defendant was included as a possible contributor for the DNA found under Thumper and Junipers nails. Defendant was
determined to be the major contributor for the DNA profile obtained from Rayden and the orange Tabbys nail clippings.
28
3
1 Blood stains found in Defendants car and on his clothing were submitted to the Santa Clara

2 County Crime Laboratory and University of Californias Davis Forensic Veterinary Laboratory for

3 analysis. Scientists were able to locate eleven additional unique feline DNA profiles in those samples

4 that could not be attributed to previously identified victims.

5 In a post-Miranda interview, Defendant told officers that the scratches and puncture wounds on

6 his hands, arms and stomach were from hiking through heavy brush approximately one week prior to his

7 arrest. Defendant further claimed the blood located on his clothing and in his car was his own and that

8 he had injured himself during his hike. When asked about the dead cat stuffed in his center console,

9 Defendant told officers he found that cat on the street and wanted to make it his pet. Defendant could not

10 explain what was wrong with the cat or why it died.

11 Defendant was monotone throughout the entire interview and did not show any emotion.

12

13 B. Defendants Prior Offenses

14 In 2011, Defendant was convicted for Destruction of a Communication Device to Prevent

15 Summoning Police Assistance [PC 591.5], a misdemeanor, arising from an incident in which he

16 attacked his father with a metal key. The facts of that case are as follows:3

17 On April 12, 2011, at approximately 8:39 a.m., Defendant arrived at his parents home and was

18 angry that he had been kicked out of their house. Defendant repeatedly hit and kicked the front door,

19 trying to gain entry. Defendant eventually picked up a large rock and threatened to throw it against the

20 glass portion of the door, prompting Defendants father to let Defendant in the house.

21
Once inside the home, Defendant armed himself with a large key, placing it between his middle

22
and ring fingers, with the jagged metal edge of the key protruding from his fist. Defendant then swung

23
his fist at his father multiple times, yelling that he wanted to kill his father. Defendants father was able

24
to move and block the punches, but sustained a cut on his right hand during the assault.

25

26

27 3
Statement of facts derived from Los Gatos / Monte Sereno Police Department Report 11-681.

28
4
1 Defendants father called 911 for help. While on the phone with dispatch, Defendant grabbed the

2 phone from his father and threw it on the ground, breaking it. Defendant then fled the scene.

3 When police initially spoke with Defendants father, he told them he did not want Defendant

4 arrested. Instead, he just wanted to see Defendant get help. However, later that same day, Defendants

5 father re-contacted police and told them he was worried Defendant would come back to his home and

6 hurt someone. Defendants father further stated he was scared for his safety and the safety of his family.

7 As a result of his conduct, Defendant was charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon [PC

8 245(a)(1)], a felony, Terrorist Threats [PC 422], a felony, and Destruction of a Communication Device

9 to Prevent Summoning Police Assistance [PC 591.5], a misdemeanor. At the time of these charges,

10 Defendant was twenty years old and had only one prior drug-related misdemeanor criminal conviction.

11 On August 31, 2011, Defendant pled no contest to violating Penal Code section 591.5. The remaining

12 two strike offenses were dismissed in view of his plea.

13 While on formal probation for the above offense, Defendant was charged with and convicted of

14 Possession of Stolen Property [PC 496(a)], a misdemeanor, and Possession of Burglary Tools [PC

15 466], a misdemeanor in Santa Clara County Docket C1239393.

16
II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
17

18 On October 13, 2015, Defendant was charged with four felony Animal Cruelty-related offenses,

19 and one count of Simple Battery. Following additional investigation and DNA analysis of the evidence

20 collected by police, Amended Felony Complaint were filed, adding additional separate counts of Animal

21 Cruelty for newly-discovered victims.

22 On October 4, 2016, Defendant pled guilty to twenty counts of Felony Animal Cruelty [PC

23 597(a)], one count of Attempted Felony Animal Cruelty [PC 664-597(a)], one count of Simple

24 Battery [PC 242-243(a)], and one count of Using or Being Under the Influence of a Controlled

25 Substance [HS 11550(a)].

26 Defendant now appears before this Court for sentencing.

27

28
5
 III. LAW AND ARGUMENT
1

2 For two months, Defendant terrorized a community, intentionally inflicted multiple acts of
3 violence on vulnerable living creatures, killed multiple animals, battered a person, and caused pain to
4 dozens of families whose beloved pets went missing or were found injured or dead. In short,
5 Defendants repeated acts of violence are deserving of the maximum sentence permitted by law.
6
A. THE COURT MUST CONSIDER STATUTORY SENTENCING OBJECTIVES AND
7
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE WHEN IMPOSING A SENTENCE
8 The Legislature has provided a statutory framework to guide sentencing judges decisions on
9 discretionary sentencing. Under the California Rules of Court (CRC) Rule 4.410, the general
10 objectives of sentencing are as follows:
11
(1) Protecting society;
12 (2) Punishing the defendant;
(3) Encouraging the defendant to lead a law-abiding life and deterring him or her from future
13 offenses;
(4) Deterring others from criminal conduct by demonstrating its consequences;
14 (5) Preventing the defendant from committing new crimes by isolating him or her for the
period of incarceration;
15 (6) Securing restitution for the victims of crime;
(7) Achieving uniformity in sentencing.
16

17 (Cal. Rules of Court 4.110.)

18
The Legislature further acknowledged that:
19
Because in some instances, these objectives may suggest inconsistent dispositions,
20 the sentencing just must consider which objectives are of primary importance in a
particular case. The sentencing judge should be guided by statutory statements of
21 policy, the criteria in these rules, and the facts and circumstances of the case.

22
(Cal. Rules of Court 4.110 [emphasis added].)
23
In judging the facts and circumstances of each case, the Legislature has provided the Court with
24
a set of criteria to determine whether a particular case is aggravated and, thus, deserving of greater
25
punishment. (See Cal. Rules of Court 4.421.) Pursuant to CRC Rule 4.421, circumstances in aggravation
26
include the following:
27

28
6
1
(1) The crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other
2 acts disclosing high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness;
(2) The victim was particularly vulnerable;
3 (3) The defendant has engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society;
(4) The manner in which the crime was carried out indicates planning, sophistication, or
4
professionalism;
5 (5) The defendants prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness;
(6) The defendants prior performance on probation was unsatisfactory.
6
(Cal. Rules of Court 4.421.)
7
Finally, Rule of Court 4.425 addresses the criteria a court should consider when determining
8
whether consecutive or concurrent sentencing is appropriate. Specifically, the Court should consider
9
whether:
10
(1) The crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other;
11 (2) The crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; or
(3) The crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed
12
so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant behavior.
13
(Cal. Rules of Court 4.425(a).)
14
The Court may also consider any circumstances in aggravation or mitigation in deciding
15
whether to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences, except:
16
(1) A fact used to impose the upper term;
17
(2) A fact used to otherwise enhance the defendants sentence in prison or county jail under
1170(h); and
18
(3) A fact that is an element of the crime may not be used to impose consecutive sentences.
19
(Cal. Rules of Court 4.425(b).)
20
The statutory sentencing objectives, circumstances in aggravation, and separate independent acts
21
of violence intentionally committed by Defendant dictate the imposition of a maximum sentence in the
22
present case.
23

24 B. THE STATUTORY SENTENCING OBJECTIVES AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF

THIS CASE DICTATE A MAXIMUM SENTENCE
25
Defendant abducted, beat and killed multiple cats over the course of approximately two months
26
in 2015. Only three cats are known to have survived Defendants attacks. Of the remaining eighteen
27

28
7
1 victims, only four bodies have been located. Two of the four dead victims died as a result of blunt force

2 trauma; the other two bodies were too severely decomposed to make a determination as to cause of

3 death. At the time of his arrest, Defendants vehicle was covered in blood, fur, cat urine and feces. Some

4 of Defendants clothing had large blood stains on the front stomach area of the shirts and lap area of the

pants. Defendant had multiple new and old cat scratches and puncture wounds on his hands, arms and
5
stomach. It remains unknown whether a flashlight located in Defendants car that was found with fur
6
and feces on it was used to bludgeon the cats to death.
7
Although none of Defendants acts of animal cruelty were witnessed, the physical evidence
8
proves that the victims were terrified as they attempted to fight for their lives in the face of Defendants
9
extreme violence. What is more, Defendant intentionally brutalized and killed beloved family pets,
10
ensuring his cruel, viscous and callous acts affected not only the animals he harmed or killed, but their
11
families as well.
12
Defendants numerous acts of animal cruelty demonstrate his propensity for repeated
13
victimization of living things. Defendant engaged in intentional acts of violence not once, not twice,
14
not three times, but twenty-one times.
15
Defendant chose as his targets particularly vulnerable victims, ensuring that his acts would be
16 secretive in nature, thus making any potential future conduct difficult to discover and to prevent. Indeed,
17 fourteen of Defendants victims have never been located and were only identified through DNA analysis
18 of blood or other items found inside of Defendants car and on his clothing or in surveillance footage of
19 Defendant abducting a victim.

20 Defendants crimes involved planning and sophistication in avoiding detection as he terrorized

21 an entire community. Indeed, Defendant abducted numerous pets from one particular neighborhood over

22 the course of several weeks without being captured. Defendant then bludgeoned or killed these pets and

23 either dumped their bodies in places where it would seem as though they had been hit by a car, or hid

24
their bodies in recycling bins. Simply put, Defendants planning and sophistication prevented his capture

for several weeks as he continued his vicious attacks, inflicting pain and suffering on numerous cats and
25
their grieving owners.
26

27

28
8
1 In addition to the violence and cruelty inflicted on numerous animals, Defendant terrorized an

2 eighty-three-year-old woman. During his brief stay with Ms. Beck, Defendant screamed at her,

3 physically attacked her grandson, and injured her cat. When urged to call police, Ms. Beck confided in a

4 friend that she was afraid and that Defendant was dangerous. Even Ms. Becks grandson was hesitant to

speak with officers about Defendant and was convinced that a restraining order would not protect him
5
from Defendant.
6
Finally, Defendant did not readily admit his crimes to investigators, despite having ample
7
opportunity to be truthful. When questioned by police, Defendant denied any criminal wrong-doing and
8
lied to officers, officering innocent, false explanations for the evidence found on his person and in his
9
car. It was only when faced with overwhelming evidence of his guilt that Defendant admitted his crimes.
10
Although Defendants conduct in the current case, without more, is deserving of an aggravated
11
sentence, Defendants history of violence only bolsters the imposition of a maximum prison sentence.
12
Less than five years before the crimes discussed above, Defendant attacked his father with a metal key
13
while threatening to kill him. During that incident, Defendant armed himself with a metal key and
14
swung violently at his father. Defendants father sustained a cut on his right hand during the assault.
15
When Defendants father called 911 for help, Defendant grabbed the phone from his father and threw it
16 on the ground before fleeing the scene. Defendants father informed police he was scared for his own
17 safety and the safety of his family.
18 In addition, Defendant has demonstrated his inability to comply with the conditions of probation.
19 Indeed, while on Formal Probation in 2012, Defendant was convicted for Possession of Stolen Property

20 and Possession of Burglary Tools.

21 Defendant terrorized a community, intentionally inflicted pain through multiple separate acts of

22
violence on vulnerable family pets, battered a human being, and caused emotional suffering for dozens
of families whose beloved pets went missing and were found injured or dead, if at all. Defendants
23
unjustified and repeated vicious and callous attacks are deserving of the maximum punishment
24
permitted by law. Moreover, Defendants numerous current crimes on vulnerable victims, prior acts of
25
violence, and his refusal to comply with probation conditions, demonstrate a serious and ongoing threat
26

27

28
9
1 to society. In short, under the facts and circumstances of this case, each and every statutory sentencing

2 objective dictates the imposition of an aggravated and consecutive sentence.

3
IV. RECOMMENDATION
4
For the foregoing reasons, the People respectfully request Defendant be sentenced as follows:
5

6
1. 16 years in prison;
7
2. Stay-away order for the Cambrian Park neighborhood of San Jose;
8
3. No-contact orders for Joy Beck and Garrett Beck;
9
4. Restitution; and
10 5. Maximum fines and fees.
11

12

13 DATED: June __, 2017 Respectfully Submitted,

JEFFREY ROSEN
14
District Attorney
15

16 ___________________________
Alexandra Ellis
17 Deputy District Attorney

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
10
 Case: People v. Robert Farmer
1 Docket: C1522028
2 PROOF OF SERVICE
3
I am a citizen of the United States, employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. I am
4
over the age of 18 years and not a party to the above-entitled action. My business address is: Office of the
5 District Attorney, 70 W. Hedding Street, West Wing, San Jose, California 95110.

6 On June __, 2016, I served the following document(s) upon the interested parties herein by the
method(s) indicated below:
7
THE PEOPLES SENTENCING MEMORANDUM AND
8 STATEMENT IN AGGRAVATION
9 _X_ BY FIRST CLASS MAIL: by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, for postage
and deposit with the U.S. Postal Service on the same date it is submitted for mailing, and addressed as
10
follows:
11
Wesley Schroeder, Esq.
12 181 Devine St
San Jose, CA 95110
13
____ BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: by causing a true copy thereof to be hand-carried to the recipient at the
14 address indicated:
15
____ BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION: by faxing a true copy thereof to the recipient at the facsimile
number indicated:
16

17 ____ BY COUNTY PONY MAIL: by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed
as follows:
18
____ BY E-MAIL: by emailing a true copy thereof, to the email addresses as follows:
19

20

21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on June __, 2017 at San Jose, California.
22

23
__________________________
24
Alexandra Ellis
25 Deputy District Attorney

26

27

28
11