Error and/or relief
It was error to sentence the defendant under the Three Strikes Law, because the prior serious felony was alleged in the information only as a five-year enhancement under section 667(a), not as a strike. In light of Kopp, the matter is remanded to permit the defendant to raise a challenge to the restitution fine of $10,000.
First Holding:
The three strikes law imposes an alternative sentencing scheme if the defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior serious or violent felony convictions. The three strikes law thus requires that prior felony convictions be pleaded and proved.
In addition to the statutory requirement, the defendant has a due process right to fair notice of the specific sentence enhancements or alternative sentencing schemes that will be invoked to increase punishment. The touchstone of determining the adequacy of an accusatory pleading is whether the defendant had adequate notice of the charges against the defendant.
Authority:
PEN 667(c), (e)
PEN 1170.12(a), (c)
People v. Sawyers (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 713, 720
Second Holding:
As a preliminary matter, the People contend that the defendant forfeited any argument concerning his three strikes sentence by failing to object at the sentencing hearing. We exercise our discretion to reach the merits of defendant’s argument to forestall any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
We also exercise our discretion to reach the merits because the claimed error affected substantial rights by depriving the defendant of timely notice of the potential sentence he faced.
The operative information pled that he had a prior serious felony conviction under section 667(a), which subjected him to a sentence enhancement of five years. But it did not plead that the conviction qualified as a prior strike subjecting him to the alternative sentencing scheme of the three strikes law. The court therefore erred by imposing a three strikes sentence.
It was the People’s burden to properly plead the allegations under the three strikes law, not the defendant’s responsibility to ferret them out.
Authority:
People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146
People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 963
People v. Sawyers (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 713, 727, 726 [court erred by imposing a three strikes sentence when the information alleged a prior serious or violent felony under sec. 1170(h)(3), and a prior prison term enhancement under sec. 667.5(b), but did not refer to the three strikes law]
Third Holding:
The pleading requirement is meant to give sufficient notice to permit the defense to make informed decisions about the case.
Authority:
People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 964 [failure to plead a particular firearm enhancement was not harmless when the defendant received notice midway through the sentencing hearing, which was too late to consider the prosecution’s pretrial plea deal or reshape his trial strategy]
Fourth Holding:
A competent motion by the defense to urge the court to dismiss the strike would have required preparation and could not have been raised orally at the sentencing hearing, when the court announced its intention to impose a three strikes sentence.The violation of the statutory pleading requirement therefore was prejudicial.
And for the same reasons, to the extent that the pleading defect violated the defendant’s due process right to fair notice, the People have not shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The violation of the pleading and proof requirement prejudiced the defendant. We therefore vacate his sentence on count 2 and direct the court to resentence him on that count without applying the three strikes law.
Authority:
People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24
In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, 726 [the People’s failure to give the defendant notice of his potential sentence under the one strike law violated his right to due process and was not harmless]
Fifth Holding:
In light of Kopp, decided after the sentencing in this case, we remand the matter for the trial court to consider challenges to the imposition of the $10,000 restitution fine under the federal and state constitutional excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay.
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1