Error and/or relief
The trial court improperly imposed the upper term on the firearm enhancement based on aggravating circumstances which were not pleaded in the information nor found true by the jury. Remanded for resentencing.
First Holding:
The prosecution conceded that no aggravating circumstances were alleged against the defendant to support imposing the upper term on the enhancement. But she asserted that the evidence showed the defendant committed the crime with planning, sophistication, and professionalism, which is a factor in aggravation under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(8). Over objection by defense counsel, the court found the factors cited by the prosecution true and imposed the upper term on the firearm enhancement. This was error.
Section 1170.1(d)(2) permits a trial court to impose the upper term for a sentencing enhancement only when there are circumstances in aggravation that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.
Authority:
PEN 1170.1(d)(2)
Second Holding:
A Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established. The violation is prejudicial unless an appellate court 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. If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapman standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing. On this record, we cannot say the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Authority:
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18
Third Holding:
The District Attorney failed to allege any aggravating circumstances against the defendant in the information. The prosecutor merely argued that the evidence supported aggravating facts that she described for the first time at the sentencing hearing.
These aggravating circumstances—the offense was committed with planning, sophistication, and professionalism, and it was coldhearted, ruthless, and committed with disregard for human life—rest on a subjective standard, making it 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. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775