Error and/or relief
The trial court prejudicially erred when it sentenced the defendant to an upper term sentence without affording him a jury trial on aggravating factors. The trial court did not obtain defendant’s personal waiver of his right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors. Defendant’s trial counsel stipulated to a court trial on defendant’s behalf, but defendant did not personally stipulate to a court trial or waive the jury trial right. The court found the pleaded aggravating circumstances to be true after a court trial, in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to a jury. We cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the jury would have found true that the defendant’s prior performance on post release community supervision was unsatisfactory. Because defendant was entitled to a jury trial at a minimum on this aggravating factor, we must remand the matter for a full resentencing to afford defendant that right.
First Holding:
A criminal defendant has a constitutional and statutory right to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt the truthfulness of every aggravating circumstance used to increase the penalty for the crime. Any fact, beyond the bare fact of a prior conviction, that exposes a defendant to harsher punishment, must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the defendant stipulates to its truth or waives a jury trial. Any waiver of this jury trial right must be an express waiver by the defendant and counsel in open court.
Authority:
PEN 1170
Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 16
Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 288-289
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1084
Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 838-840, 842
People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 4
Second Holding:
The error is prejudicial unless we 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. Lack of a jury trial is not harmless if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding’ with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.
Authority:
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24