Error and/or relief
The trial court erred by finding the aggravating factors true and imposing an upper term sentence without a jury finding on these factors.
First Holding:
Before the jury rendered its verdict, the defendant waived his right to a jury trial on the allegation of a prior strike conviction, but he declined to waive a jury trial on the rule 4.421 aggravating factor allegations. Nevertheless, the trial court stated it would conduct a court trial on the aggravating factor allegations relating to the defendant’s prior convictions increasing in seriousness and his prior prison term because it believed these aggravating factors were not subject to the jury’s consideration.
No aggravating factors were submitted to the jury. The court found true the aggravating factors that the defendant had prior convictions that are numerous and of increasing seriousness. This was error. A defendant is constitutionally entitled to a jury finding as to the increasing seriousness of a defendant’s prior convictions. This is because the inquiry requires a comparison and evaluation of the relationship among a defendant’s prior convictions, and a determination as to their relative seriousness, i.e., something more than a narrow factual finding that the convictions were sustained and what elements were required to prove them.
Authority:
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082
Second Holding:
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial on any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence. Under California’s triad sentencing scheme, a trial court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term.
Accordingly, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial extends to any aggravating facts justifying an upper term sentence under section 1170(b)(2). If a trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, and the defendant has not waived his right to a jury trial or stipulated to the aggravating facts, this is constitutional error.
Authority:
PEN 1170
Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281
Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 760, 768
Third Holding:
Our review is de novo.
Authority:
In re Taylor (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1019, 1035
People v. Frazier (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 858, 864
Fourth Holding:
If constitutional error occurred, we assess prejudice under Chapman, which requires us to find prejudice unless we 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. This prejudice inquiry does not allow us to uphold the trial court’s imposition of an upper term sentence based on some subset of aggravating facts.
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.
Authority:
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 761, 768