Error and/or relief
The trial court erred by imposing the upper term based on circumstances in aggravation that were not stipulated to nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
First Holding:
Section 1170(b)(2), prohibits imposition of an upper-term sentence unless aggravating circumstances justify that term and the facts underlying any such circumstance, other than a prior conviction, 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.
Authority:
PEN 1170(b)(2)
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 742
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078
Second Holding:
Where the trial court relies on unproven aggravating factors, 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. The Chapman standard applies whenever the court has relied on unproven factors, 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, 768
Third Holding:
The trial court erred by imposing the upper-term sentence based on five aggravating factors that were not found true by a jury or stipulated to by the defendant. The jury found not true the allegation that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. We do not know what facts the jury relied on in finding a lack of premeditation and whether those facts would have caused a jury to find not true the allegation that the crime involved planning and professionalism.
The remaining aggravating factors relied on by the court, other than the prior prison term, likewise require factual determinations. As stated in Wiley, even the determination that crimes are of increasing seriousness is comparative and qualitative and must be left to the decision of the jury.
Authority:
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090