Error and/or relief
The court erred in imposing the upper term based on aggravating facts that were not stipulated to or submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for a full resentencing.
First Holding:
Effective January 1, 2022, SB 567 amended Penal Code section 1170(b)(2) to provide that, when a statute specifies three possible terms of imprisonment, the trial court cannot impose a sentence exceeding the middle term unless it finds that a longer sentence is justified by circumstances in aggravation of the crime and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury at trial.
Authority:
PEN 1170(b)(2)
Chavez Zepeda v. Superior Court (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 65, 70
Second Holding:
A defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements. 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.
Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.
Authority:
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086-1087
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18
Third Holding:
The determination that a defendant’s prior convictions are of increasing seriousness requires a comparison and evaluation of the relationship among a defendant’s prior convictions, and a determination as to their relative seriousness. The defendant was entitled to have a jury determine whether his prior convictions were of increasing seriousness before the court could rely on this aggravating fact to find justification for an upper term sentence.
Applying the Chapman standard of review, we conclude that failure to afford the defendant a jury trial on whether his prior convictions were of increasing seriousness was prejudicial.
Authority:
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1085
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 776 [Because we cannot find the omission of a jury trial harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to every aggravating fact relied upon by the trial court to impose an upper term, the defendant’s sentence must be reversed]