A nighttime visitor caught in stunning infra-red pose.
If you started reading this blog from the very first post, this may come as a surprise to you. If you started from the latest you saw and worked back to the beginning, then no surprise, no surprise. Some of the rulings just keep cropping up. Which is why I think it is important to know what errors may potentially arise in your cases, because they aren’t that uncommon. On today’s platter:
We see some actual aggravating factors that were relied on despite a lack of a jury trial, in the context of “A defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm”;
Restitution fines are uncollectible after 10 years.
Case: 000011
The trial court prejudicially committed constitutional and statutory error in imposing the upper term sentence based on aggravating factors not tried to the jury. The factors relied on were: the victim’s particular vulnerability; the offense was carried out with planning, sophistication, and professionalism; the defendant engaged in violent conduct which indicated a serious danger to society; the defendant had numerous prior convictions and they were of increasing seriousness.
First Holding: The defendant is entitled to a jury trial on aggravating factors, which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before they can be relied on to impose the upper term (unless they are stipulated to by the defendant). See Penal Code section 1170.
Second Holding: The standard of review for evaluating the improper use of untried aggravating fact is whether error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt [See] Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18; Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821; Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466; See People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (which held that this jury trial right is not merely a state law entitlement, but is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, relied upon to justify an upper term sentence.
Third Holding: [The parties] agree the court erred in relying on those circumstances to impose the upper term on the principal count. (See People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078; People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47.) Their disagreement centers around whether such error was prejudicial under the circumstances. On the record before us, we conclude it was.
Case: 000012
The restitution fine must be vacated because it was originally imposed more than 10 years ago. The court must calculate the actual time the defendant has already served and credit that against the subsequent sentence.
First Holding: Restitution fines are uncollectible after 10 years [See] Penal Code section 1465.9.
Second Holding: The court must recalculate credit for time served on resentencing. [See] People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23.