Error and/or relief
The trial court erred in imposing the upper term on factors that were not submitted to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the probation report, the court found that the defendant had numerous prior convictions as an adult, had served prior prison terms, and was on postrelease community supervision at the time of the current offenses.
First Holding:
Section 1170(b)(2) provides that 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 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.
The statute permits a court to 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:
PEN 1170(b)(2)
Second Holding:
Second Holding:
With the exception of prior conviction allegations, under the Sixth Amendment, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury and established beyond a reasonable doubt. Under section 1170(b), 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.
The prior conviction exception to the Sixth Amendment does not permit a judge to find perhaps any fact related to a defendant’s past offenses. Rather, a judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.
Authority:
U.S. Const., Sixth Amend.
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 747, 768
Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281
Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821
Third Holding:
Wiley applied Erlinger and overruled previous decisions finding it constitutionally permissible for a trial court to determine whether a defendant’s crimes were of increasing seriousness or whether the defendant’s performance on probation was unsatisfactory.
Wiley explained that, under Erlinger, the Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury determination before a court may rely on those aggravating facts to find justification for an upper term sentence, unless the defendant stipulates to their truth or waives a jury trial.
Authority:
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1076, 1084-1085
Fourth Holding:
A trial court’s reliance on aggravating circumstances found in violation of a defendant’s jury trial right is prejudicial unless an appellate court 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, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements.
If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapman standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing. When assessing prejudice under Chapman, the question is whether any rational fact finder could have come to the opposite conclusion.
(Gary note: The court discuss circumstances specific to this defendant and concluded that the error was prejudicial under Chapman.)
Authority:
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 747, 768, 743 [reversal and remand required unless reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified]
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090
Fifth Holding:
The California Supreme Court has cautioned about the difficulties in ascertaining whether a jury would have found true an aggravating circumstance that calls for an imprecise quantitative or comparative evaluation of the facts. The reviewing court cannot assume that the record reflects all of the evidence that would have been presented to the jury, or that the defendant had the same incentive and opportunity at a sentencing hearing to contest the aggravating circumstance.
To the extent a potential aggravating circumstance rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.
Authority:
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775-776
Sixth Holding:
Though Wiley declined to address whether defendants are entitled to have a jury determine if their prior convictions are numerous, we accept the positions of the People that, under the holdings and logic of Erlinger and Wiley, a jury finding on this aggravating fact is required (absent waiver or stipulation), as the question whether a defendant has suffered “numerous” convictions (rule 4.421(b)(2)) involves 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, 1084
People v. Wright (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 832, 847 [error to deny trial by jury on whether defendant suffered ‘numerous’ convictions in the past]
Seventh Holding:
Further proceedings on remand are to be conducted in accordance with the current statutory requirements and the defendant given the opportunity for the jury trial, of which he was deprived.
On remand, the parties remain free to introduce at trial all relevant evidence to support or contest the factual support for the aggravating circumstances set out in the California Rules of Court.
The court may rely on any properly proven aggravating facts, including prior convictions or facts necessarily found by the jury to support a verdict on underlying counts and enhancements. The court retains its discretion to impose an upper term sentence if it concludes that one or more properly proved circumstances justify such a sentence.
If it cannot so conclude, it may impose no more than a middle term.
The matter is remanded for a full resentencing consistent with this opinion.
Authority:
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 777