Error and/or relief
The trial court prejudicially committed constitutional and statutory error in imposing the upper term sentence based on aggravating factors not tried to the jury. The factors relied on were: the victim’s particular vulnerability; the offense was carried out with planning, sophistication, and professionalism; the defendant engaged in violent conduct which indicated a serious danger to society; the defendant had numerous prior convictions and they were of increasing seriousness.
First Holding:
The defendant is entitled to a jury trial on aggravating factors, which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before they can be relied on to impose the upper term (unless they are stipulated to by the defendant).
Authority:
PEN 1170
Second Holding:
The standard of review for evaluating the improper use of untried aggravating fact is whether error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Authority:
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18
Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821
Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730
Third Holding:
The parties agree the court erred in relying on those circumstances to impose the upper term on the principal count. Their disagreement centers around whether such error was prejudicial under the circumstances. On the record before us, we conclude it was.
Authority:
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078
People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47