Error and/or relief
The trial court failed to properly advise the defendant of his right to a jury trial on certain aggravating factors, and that his admissions to those factors were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Accordingly, we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand the matter for a full resentencing.
Before the matter was submitted to the jury, appellant admitted the allegations of circumstances in aggravation under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2) through (5). During the admission colloquy, the trial court advised appellant that he only had the right to a court trial on the truth of the allegations. We agree with the defendant that this advisement was incorrect, and that the record does not establish that his admissions were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
The factors in question under rule 4.421(b) are, in essence:
(2) The defendant’s prior convictions are numerous and of increasing seriousness;
(3) The defendant has served prior terms in prison;
(4) The defendant was on probation or parole when he committed the alleged offenses; and
(5) The defendant’s prior performance on probation and parole was unsatisfactory.
First Holding:
A criminal defendant has the right to a jury trial on the facts underlying aggravating factors used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence under section 1170(b). That right is not merely a state law entitlement, but is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts.
Authority:
PEN 1170(b)
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078
Second Holding:
Section 1170(b)(3) provides a limited exception for prior convictions, permitting the court to consider them based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.
Our Supreme Court has clarified, however, that the exception is narrowly limited to the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements.
Applying this principle, Wiley held that jury findings were required for aggravating factors based on increasingly serious prior convictions and unsatisfactory prior performance on probation or parole.
Authority:
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082
Third Holding:
Because the Sixth Amendment affords a defendant the right to a jury trial on alleged aggravating factors, a valid admission to those factors requires the same advisements and waivers required for a stipulation to a prior conviction.
This includes advisement and waiver of the defendant’s Boykin-Tahl rights: the right to a jury trial, the right to confront adverse witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination. A defendant must also be advised of the penal consequences of the admission.
If the trial court fails to properly advise the defendant of these rights or consequences, reversal is required unless the record affirmatively shows, under the totality of the circumstances, that the admission was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Authority:
People v. Kinnear (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1127
People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, 745–746
Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238
In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122
People v. Cross (2015) 61 Cal.4th 164, 170
People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 361–365