Error and/or relief
The trial court erred by not obtaining defendant’s personal waiver of the defendant’s right to a jury trial on allegations of aggravating circumstances and prior convictions under the Three Strikes law. As to the prior convictions, we find no prejudice. The error was prejudicial, however, with regard to the aggravating circumstances.
First Holding:
There is a constitutional right to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, relied upon to justify an upper term sentence. A waiver of the right must be personally expressed by the defendant in open court. It must be explicit and will not be implied from the defendant’s conduct. A failure to object will not preclude his asserting on appeal his constitutional right to a jury trial.
Authority:
Section 16 of Article I of the California Constitution
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078
People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166
People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46-47
Second Holding:
A complete deprivation of a jury trial on issues of guilt is of a different magnitude than the denial of a jury determination on penalty allegations. Failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury, like failure to submit an element to the jury, is not structural error.
Authority:
Washington v. Recuenco (2006) 548 U.S. 212
Third Holding:
When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. Under that standard, reversal and remand are required unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified. Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding’ with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.
Authority:
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 743
Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 19
Fourth Holding:
The opening brief contains a footnote in which he cursorily asserts a related claim of insufficient evidence. We exercise our discretion to disregard points raised in a footnote rather than being properly presented under a discrete heading with appropriate analysis. Footnotes are not the appropriate vehicle for stating contentions on appeal
Authority:
Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)
People v. Carroll (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1412, fn. 5
Sabi v. Sterling (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 916, 947
People v. Crosswhite (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 494, 502, fn. 5
Fifth Holding:
With respect to the prior convictions, defendant’s claims are insufficiently developed and could be rejected for that reason alone.
Authority:
People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 482, fn. 2
People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 150
Sixth Holding:
Outside the pronouncement of judgment, discrepancies between a minute order and the reporter’s transcript are resolved by adopting whichever should be given greater credence under the circumstances of the particular case.
Authority:
People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, 880
People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599
Seventh Holding:
There is no federal or state constitutional right to a jury trial on the fact of a prior conviction. In California, defendants have a statutory right to a jury trial on the question of whether or not the defendant has suffered the prior conviction. The requirement of an express waiver under section 16 of article I of the California Constitution] applies to the constitutional right to a jury trial, but not to jury trial rights that are established only by statute. Therefore, the statutory right to a jury trial on prior conviction allegations can be impliedly waived and forfeited.
Authority:
PEN 1025(b) and (c)
Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 224
People v. Gallardo (2017) 4 Cal.5th 120, 125
People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46
People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 737–738
People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589
Eighth Holding:
As a general rule, double jeopardy principles do not prohibit retrial following reversal on appeal for reasons other than insufficiency of the evidence.
Authority:
People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 855
Monge v. California (1998) 524 U.S. 721, 728–729
Ninth Holding:
Juvenile adjudications do not, under any circumstances, qualify as convictions for purposes of section 667(a) (the enhancement for prior convictions of a serious felony when the new offense is a serious felony).
Authority:
People v. West (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 100, 107–108
People v. Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782, 798
People v. Smith (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1080, fn. 10
People v. O’Neal (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1065, 1068
