Error and/or relief
On resentencing following the defendant’s earlier appeal, the court misunderstood the scope of discretion with regard to striking or reducing the term imposed for firearm enhancements.
It also erred in imposing the upper term based on circumstances in aggravation that should have been, but were not, either stipulated to by the defendant or submitted to a jury for determination beyond a reasonable doubt.
First Holding:
When an accusatory pleading alleges and the jury finds true the facts supporting a greater firearm enhancement, the court may impose a lesser included, uncharged statutory enhancement. Further, a trial court may strike a defendant’s enhancement under section 12022.53 and impose a lesser uncharged enhancement authorized elsewhere in the Penal Code, that is, outside of section 12022.53.
Authority:
People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 697, 700
People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1030
Second Holding:
We consider a trial court’s sentencing decisions under an abuse of discretion standard. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings not supported by substantial evidence.
A ruling otherwise within the trial court’s power will nonetheless be set aside where it appears from the record that in issuing the ruling the court failed to exercise the discretion vested in it by law.
Authority:
People v. Moseley (2004) 105 Cal.App.5th 870, 874
People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 887
People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, 694
Third Holding:
Unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise, the trial court is deemed to have considered all the relevant sentencing factors. A silent record does not demonstrate a lack of awareness of the court’s full sentencing discretion.
Even if the sentencing court was unaware of its discretion, remand is not necessary when the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.
It appears from the record in this case that the court believed that its only choices were to impose the section 12022.53 enhancement or to strike it entirely. It appears that the court was unaware that it also had the option to impose a firearm enhancement under a lesser statute, section 12022.5.
Authority:
People v. Parra Martinez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 317, 322
People v. Knowles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 757, 765
People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391
Fourth Holding:
The court erred in imposing the upper term based on a circumstance in aggravation that was not submitted to a jury for determination beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant’s (specifically, that the defendant’s prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings are numerous or of increasing seriousness).
Authority:
PEN 1170
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069
Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821
Fifth Holding:
A trial court’s sentencing decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Authority:
People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 371
Sixth 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 the Chapman standard of review.
Under that standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.
Authority:
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18
