Error and/or relief
Following the defendant’s conviction by jury trial, the court imposed the upper term based on the defendant’s use of a firearm in the commission of a crime; (2) the manner in which the crime was committed indicates planning, sophistication, and professionalism; and (3) the defendant has refused to accept responsibility for his actions. The only factor submitted to and found true by the jury was that the defendant was armed with or used a firearm.
First Holding:
Effective January 1, 2022, a sentencing court may not impose a determinate upper term sentence unless (1) there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify its imposition, and (2) the aggravating circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Other than stipulated facts or the fact of a prior conviction, aggravating facts relied upon to justify an upper term must be resolved by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This jury trial right is not merely a state law entitlement, but is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction. A Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established.
Authority:
PEN 1170b)(1)
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 755, 768
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078
Second Holding:
We decline to apply forfeiture. It being evident that the trial court imposed an upper term sentence on the basis of its own posttrial factfinding, the defendant’s claim that this violated section 1170(b)(2) presents a pure issue of law that implicates the constitutional right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment.
Authority:
People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 327
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768
In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 879 [construing defendant’s constitutional challenge to her probation condition as presenting a pure question of law reviewable on appeal despite her failure to object at sentencing]
Third Holding:
The defendant argues that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the court’s choosing the upper term in reliance on unpleaded and unproven aggravating circumstances. There can be no tactical justification for failing to object to the imposition of the upper term based on plainly unproven aggravating factors that the defendant had no notice of in the operative information. Accordingly, even assuming the issue has been forfeited, we would exercise our discretion to reach the merits to forestall defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Authority:
People v. Torres (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 88, 92 [reaching defendant’s sentencing claim notwithstanding forfeiture]
People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146 [reviewing court may exercise discretion to consider forfeited claims to forestall ineffective assistance of counsel arguments]
Fourth Holding:
When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply Chapman. Such errors are prejudicial unless an appellate court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements. If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapman standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing. Given this exacting standard, we cannot say that the sentencing error here was harmless.
Authority:
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768
People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 332
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18