Error and/or relief
We affirm the judgment of conviction, but vacate the defendant’s sentence and remand for a new trial on the aggravating factors because it was prejudicial error for the court to impose an upper term sentence based on uninstructed and unproven aggravating factors.
First Holding:
The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process entitle a criminal defendant to a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. Where enumerated aggravating factors operate as the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense, the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.
Authority:
Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 476-477
Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584, 609
Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 288-289 [under Apprendi, aggravating circumstances supporting upper term sentence must be found by a jury]
Second Holding:
The trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the charged offense. It is, indeed, very serious constitutional error because it threatens the right to a jury trial that both the United States and California Constitutions guarantee. It is well settled that no objection is required to preserve a claim for appellate review that the jury instructions omitted an essential element of the charge.
Authority:
People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824
Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 477
People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409 [trial court erred by omitting essential elements of a special circumstance allegation]
Third Holding:
We review constitutional claims and claims of instructional error de novo. We must consider the claim of instructional error in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record. An instructional error that improperly describes or omits an element of an offense generally is not a structural defect in the trial mechanism that defies harmless error review and automatically requires reversal under the federal Constitution, unless the instructional error or omission amounts to the total deprivation of a jury trial.
Rather, where the trial court fails to instruct on necessary elements, generally this error is subject to harmless-error analysis under the test of Chapman, that is, whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Overwhelming evidence, other properly given jury instructions, or a defendant’s concession of elements for which an instruction was omitted may render an error harmless.
Authority:
People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 326 [instructional error]
In re Taylor (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1019, 1035 [constitutional claims]
People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 248 [The correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court]
People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 502-503
People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 830
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18
Neder v. U.S. (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 15
People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 689, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22
Fourth Holding:
Forfeiture does not bar the defendant’s claim because the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on all essential elements of the charge. Further, the failure to instruct the jury on all essential elements is not a matter of discretion but raises a legal claim under the federal constitution subject to de novo review.
Authority:
People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409
People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46 [a defendant’s failure to object does not preclude his asserting on appeal that he was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial]
People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589, fn. 5
People v. Serrano (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 902, 908-909
People v. Lua (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1004, 1013
Fifth Holding:
The trial court failed to instruct properly on essential elements of the aggravating factor under rule 4.421(a)(1) that, to find the aggravating factor true, it must determine that the defendant’s conduct was distinctively worse than what was necessary to commit the crime, an element necessary to a true finding under the rule. The jury instructions omitted any definition of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness within the meaning of rule 4.421(a)(1).
This element of the aggravating factor may not be necessary in every case because “great bodily injury” alone may satisfy the requirements of rule 4.421(a)(1). But here, the defendant was also subject to a sentencing enhancement for inflicting great bodily injury under section 12022.7(a), and the trial court could not aggravate the defendant’s sentence on the same factual basis under section 1170(b)(5).
Authority:
People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 320
People v. Harvey (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 90, 116-117 [In imposing the upper term . under rule 421(a)(1) [now rule 4.421(a)(1)] the factfinder must convince itself that, when compared to other ways in which such a crime could be committed, the manner of this crime’s commission indicated viciousness and callousness]
People v. Webber (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1146, 1169
People v. Nevill (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 198, 206
People v. Gutierrez (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1729, 1735 [aggravating factor satisfied by finding of “great bodily injury”]
People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 350 [a court generally cannot use a single fact both to aggravate the base term and to impose an enhancement]
People v. Castaneda (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 611, 614-615
People v. Hill (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1575
People v. La Fargue (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 878, 898
Sixth Holding:
It is the court’s duty to see to it that the jury are adequately informed on the law governing all elements of the case submitted to them to an extent necessary to enable them to perform their function in conformity with the applicable law. Accordingly, the trial court erred by omitting jury instructions on necessary elements of the aggravating factor allegation.
Authority:
People v. Sanchez (1950) 35 Cal.2d 522, 528
Seventh Holding:
In addition, the court imposed an upper term sentence based on untried aggravating facts, discussing aspects purportedly related to public safety. An upper term sentence may be imposed only when circumstances in aggravation justify that term, and only when the facts underlying those justifying circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury or court trial.
Here, the court erred by imposing an upper term sentence based on facts not found by the jury or stipulated to by the defendant, including that the defendant used a knife, that the assault occurred in a busy public area, and that his conduct endangered public safety. It was error for the court to consider these additional uncharged and unproven aggravating circumstances to impose an upper term sentence. We are unable to determine with a requisite degree of confidence that a jury would have found those facts to be factors in aggravation. We thus reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing.
Authority:
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 759
People v. Whitten (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1761, 1767 [examination of aggravating factors necessarily involves subjective determinations based upon objectively demonstrated facts]