Error and/or relief
The trial court violated the Sixth Amendment by imposing upper term sentences; the issue was not forfeited, and as the People concede, the court erred and the error was not harmless.
First Holding:
The Sixth Amendment right to jury trial applies to any factor that may increase the sentence or range of sentence. In Wiley, our Supreme Court addressed section 1170(b)(3)’s prior conviction exception in light of the holding in Erlinger. To avoid any application that would set section 1170(b)(3) at odds with the high court’s constitutional interpretation, the court interpreted] section 1170(b)(3)’s procedure in a manner that is coextensive with high court dictates. Thus, in accordance with Erlinger, a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.
Authority:
PEN 1170
Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086
Second Holding:
Failure to object generally results in forfeiture and can apply to constitutional claims.
Authority:
People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1107, 1114 [The forfeiture doctrine is a well-established procedural principle that, with certain exceptions, an appellate court will not consider claims of error that could have been—but were not—raised in the trial court]
People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 406 [A party in a criminal case may not, on appeal, raise claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices if the party did not object to the sentence at trial]
People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 593 [a constitutional right may be forfeited by failure to assert the right before the tribunal with jurisdiction to determine it]
People v. Achane (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1037
Third Holding:
A claim of violation of Sixth Amendment right to trial is not forfeited by lack of objection as it requires express consent in open court by both the defendant and the defense attorney.
Authority:
People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46
Fourth Holding:
An appellate court can exercise discretion to address a forfeited issue.
Authority:
People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]
Fifth Holding:
Unless stipulated to by the defendant, before the factors in aggravation may be used to justify imposition of the upper term, the defendant has the right to a jury trial to determine whether the factors have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has engaged in violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society or that defendant’s prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings are numerous or of increasing seriousness. A defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.
Authority:
PEN 1170
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 776
