Error and/or relief
The court erred in imposing the upper term based on factors that were not submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt or stipulated to by the defendant.
First Holding:
On January 1, 2022, the Legislature amended section 1170 to provide that the trial court shall, in its discretion impose a sentence not to exceed the middle term except in the following circumstance: The court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of an upper term sentence, 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.
Notwithstanding these provisions, the court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.
Authority:
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 748
Second Holding:
In Wiley, the Supreme Court held that aggravating factors must be found by a jury, including the increasing seriousness of prior convictions and unsatisfactory performance on probation, to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to support the imposition of the upper term. It noted that the United States Supreme Court, in Erlinger, held that virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea).
Authority:
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1084-1085
Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834
Third Holding:
The facts supporting every aggravating circumstance upon which the trial court relies to justify imposition of the upper term must be properly proven as the statute requires. The finding regarding the prior convictions as an adult for defendant were numerous and of increasing seriousness must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the defendant stipulates to its truth or waives a jury trial. The same applies to the determination of whether a defendant has served a prior prison term.
Authority:
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1082-1084, 1085 [other than the fact of the prior conviction, a defendant is entitled to a jury determination on any other aggravating factors that expose him to a sentence more serious than the midterm sentence]
Fourth Holding:
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:
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1087