Error and/or relief
The trial court violated the defendant’s right to a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances it used to impose upper term sentences.
First Holding:
In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the existence of aggravating factors under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2) and (4). The court conducted a bench trial on these factors because, at the time, it was believed that they did not need to be tried to a jury. The trial court found that defendant’s prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings were numerous within the meaning of rule 4.421(b)(2). It also found defendant was on probation when the crimes at issue in this appeal were committed. (Rule 4.421(b)(4).
Based on Wiley, the trial court improperly determined facts beyond the mere existence of his prior conviction and its elements, and relied on its conclusions in choosing an upper term sentence.
Authority:
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069
People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 847 [The error here was that the defendant was entitled to, but did not receive (or waive), trial by jury on the aggravating factor of whether he had suffered numerous convictions in the past]
Second Holding:
A defendant has a statutory and constitutional right to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, that are relied upon to justify an upper term. In Wiley, our Supreme Court overruled its prior authority construing the prior conviction exception to include other related issues concerning a defendant’s criminal history or recidivism such as unsatisfactory performance on probation and the increasing seriousness of a defendant’s prior convictions.
The court held that 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.
Authority:
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1076, 1078, 1084, 1086
Third 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.
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, 1087
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18
Fourth Holding:
To the extent a potential aggravating circumstance at issue in a particular case rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.
Authority:
People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 840