Error and/or relief
The trial improperly relied on factors in aggravation that were not submitted to the jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
First Holding:
In general, we review a trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is found where the court relies upon circumstances that are not relevant to the decision or that otherwise constitute an improper basis for decision.
Authority:
People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 323
Second Holding:
In 2022, section 1170(b) was amended to prohibit 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. In Erlinger, the United States Supreme Court rejected an argument that the jury trial exception regarding prior convictions also permits a judge to find perhaps any fact related to a defendant’s past offenses, including whether he committed them on different occasions within the meaning of the federal sentencing statute at issue. Instead, the Court held that a judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.
Authority:
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 742
Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 837, 838
Mathis v. United States (2016) 579 U.S. 500, 511–512
Third Holding:
Any fact, beyond the bare fact of a prior conviction, that exposes a defendant to harsher punishment, must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, unless the defendant stipulates to its truth or waives a jury trial. This jury trial guarantee retains its vitality even if the inquiry is straightforward. There is no efficiency exception to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Only when aggravating facts have been proven as the Constitution requires may the court then rely on them to conclude, in its discretion, that those facts justify an upper term. A jury–not the judge, absent a jury waiver or stipulation–must determine whether the particular details of a defendant’s criminal history establish an unsatisfactory probation performance or demonstrate convictions of increasing seriousness, before a trial court can rely on those facts to justify an upper term sentence.
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:
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078, 1083–1084, 1086
Fourth Holding:
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 violation 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.
Authority:
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768
People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087
People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 331-333
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18
