Tag Archives: Standard of review

Amelioration, Discretion, Duty of the court, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 001102

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred when it found the defendant unsuitable for Proposition 36 rehabilitation when it had not ordered and considered an evaluation by a drug addiction expert as required by Penal Code section 11395,(d)(1)(B).

First Holding:

Section 11395, known as the “Treatment-Mandated Felony Act,” was enacted as part of Proposition 36, which was approved by voters in November 2024. The statute gives repeat hard drug possession offenders the option of participating in drug and mental health treatment.

The individual must plead guilty or no contest to again possessing a hard drug, admit the alleged prior qualifying convictions, waive time for sentencing or judgment, and agree to participate in treatment.

If he or she successfully completes treatment, the defendant’s plea shall not constitute a conviction for any purpose. Such individuals are not to be sentenced to jail or prison unless a court determines that the person is not eligible or suitable for treatment.

Authority:

HSC 11395

Second Holding:

The statute further states that, upon or subsequent to arraignment for a violation of the section, and at the request or with the consent of the defendant or their attorney, the court shall order a drug addiction expert to conduct a substance abuse and mental health evaluation of the defendant. The evaluation may be based on an interview of the defendant or others with relevant knowledge, and can include “medical records, criminal history, prior treatment history, and records pertaining to the current offense. The expert shall submit a report of the evaluation to the court and the parties.

Authority:

HSC 11395(d)(1)(B)

Third Holding:

We review de novo the trial court’s interpretation of the statute as allowing it to find defendant unsuitable for treatment without first obtaining the drug addiction expert report. Our task is to determine the electorate’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose. We turn first to the language of the provision, giving the words their ordinary meaning.

We construe the language in the context of the statute as a whole and the overall statutory scheme in light of the electorate’s intent. If the statutory language is unambiguous, the plain meaning controls and consideration of extrinsic sources to determine the electorate’s intent is unnecessary.

Authority:

People v. Fouse (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1131, 1145

Robert L. v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 894, 900-901 [a reviewing court applies the same principles that govern statutory construction when interpreting a voter initiative]

Smith v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 77, 83

Kavanaugh v. West Sonoma County Union High School Dist. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 911, 919

Fourth Holding:

Given section 11395’s clear language, we need not look beyond the statute itself to discern the electorate’s intent. As the statute makes clear, immediately upon or after arraignment for violating the statute, and either at the request or with the consent of the defendant or their attorney, the trial court “shall” order a drug addiction expert evaluation, and that report “shall” be submitted to the court and the parties. While the trial court has the discretion ultimately to decide that a defendant is unsuitable for treatment once the court considers the drug addiction expert’s evaluation, the expert’s evaluation must come first.

The trial court abused its discretion when it decided, notwithstanding the statutory provisions, that defendant was unsuitable for treatment before obtaining the necessary report.

Authority:

HSC 11395(d)(1)(B)

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Plea bargains, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001099

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief:

The court tentatively accepted the plea bargain and took the defendant’s plea, which place a limit on the sentence that could be imposed. Afterward, the client sought release from custody pending sentencing. The court agreed provided the defendant enter a “Cruz waiver,” under which the penalty for failure to appear at sentencing would be the removal of the limit on sentence contemplated by the plea agreement.

On sentencing following the defendant failure to appear and subsequent apprehension for sentencing, the court declined to follow the plea agreement and imposed a greater term, relying on the defendant’s post-plea Cruz waiver. This was error, and the matter is remanded to the trial court to give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea.

First Holding:

Cruz provides a narrow exception where a trial court may withdraw its approval of the defendant’s plea and impose a sentence in excess of the bargained-for term, in cases where a defendant willfully fails to appear for sentencing after having been advised of his rights under section 1192.5 and choosing to expressly waive them.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1254, fn. 5

Second Holding:

When a guilty plea is tendered under section 1192.5, is accepted by the prosecuting attorney, and is approved by the court, the defendant cannot be sentenced on the plea to a punishment more severe than that specified in the plea and the court may not proceed as to the plea other than as specified in the plea.

If the court approves of the plea, it must inform the defendant–prior to the making of the plea–that:

(1) its approval is not binding;

(2) it may, at the time set for the hearing on the application for probation or pronouncement of judgment, withdraw its approval in light of further consideration of the matter; and

(3) in that case, the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw the plea if the defendant desires to do so.

Authority:

PEN 1192.5

Third Holding:

Appellate courts have recognized that, when there is a plea agreement between parties, and the plea is accepted by the court, that due process requires that both the defendant and the prosecution, abide by the terms of the plea agreement and that the punishment imposed not significantly exceed that which the parties agreed upon.

If the trial court disapproves of the negotiated disposition and seeks to modify it, the court must expressly tell the defendant he or she can withdraw the plea if the defendant is unwilling to accept the modified terms.

Authority:

People v. Silva (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 578, 587–588, overruled on different grounds in People v. Villalobos (2012) 54 Cal.4th 177, 183

People v. Woods (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 623, 630 [the accused and the People are entitled to the benefit of the plea bargain]

People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 860 [due process applies not only to the procedure of accepting the plea, but also to the implementation of the bargain itself; a violation of the bargain raises a constitutional right to some remedy]

Fourth Holding:

A defendant who fails to appear without justification is subject to punishment upon conviction of the separate offense of a willful failure to appear in an action brought at the discretion of the prosecutor, not by peremptory judicial fiat. A defendant who fails to appear for sentencing does not lose the protections of section 1192.5.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1253

People v. Masloski (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1212, 1219

Fifth Holding:

A plea agreement may provide for an alternate, increased sentence if the defendant fails to appear for sentencing. However, to do so, a waiver of the defendant’s section 1192.5 rights must be obtained at the time of the court’s initial acceptance of the plea and must have occurred after an advisement under section 1192.5. If a court should fail to inform a defendant of his right to withdraw his guilty plea, even the defendant’s acceptance of the trial court’s terms will not be enough to make them a part of the plea bargain under section 1192.5.

In cases where a defendant has not been fully advised of his rights under section 1192.5 and has not expressly waived those rights, a trial court may still impose a longer term for failure to appear, so long as it does not seek to repudiate the plea bargain or to impose a sentence more onerous than that which defendant had agreed to accept as part of the bargain itself.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1250-1252

People v. Masloski (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1212, 1219

Sixth Holding:

In reviewing a challenge involving a plea bargain, we apply the standards of review applicable to contracts, generally. The interpretation of a contract is subject to de novo review where the interpretation does not turn on the credibility of extrinsic evidence.

Authority:

People v. Woods (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 623, 631

Seventh Holding:

The process of plea bargaining–which has received statutory and judicial authorization as an appropriate method of disposing of criminal prosecutions–contemplates an agreement negotiated by the People and the defendant and approved by the court. Pursuant to this procedure the defendant agrees to plead guilty in order to obtain a reciprocal benefit, generally consisting of a less severe punishment than that which could result if he were convicted of all offenses charged.

Judicial approval is an essential condition precedent to the effectiveness of the bargain worked out by the defense and the prosecution. Because the charging function is entrusted to the executive, the court has no authority to substitute itself as the representative of the People in the negotiation process and under the guise of plea bargaining to agree to a disposition of the case over prosecutorial objection.

Authority:

People v. Clancey (2013) 56 Cal.4th 562, 569–570

Eighth Holding:

When a plea bargain is made the defendant is entitled to withdraw his plea if the negotiated bargain is incapable of actual fulfillment. Under the provisions of the authorizing statute, once the plea specifying the punishment is accepted by the prosecutor and approved by the court, the defendant cannot be sentenced on such plea to a punishment more severe than that specified in the plea and the court may not proceed as to such plea other than as specified in the plea.

Authority:

PEN 1102.5

People v. Morris (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 358, 362

Ninth Holding:

The question when distinguishing between bargained-for provisions and judicially imposed terms will be not whether the bargain occurred in a hermetically sealed environment from which the judge was excluded, but whether the return provision resulted from the give-and-take of plea bargaining or was a judicially imposed afterthought. A trial court must accept the negotiated plea or reject the bargain outright, but it cannot come up with its own number” with regard to sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Casillas (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 445, 452

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 708

Tenth Holding:

The trial court erred in imposing a sentence greater than the sentence agreed upon in the plea bargain without first advising defendant of his section 1192.5 rights or affording him the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Here, whether the proffered plea was acceptable was within the exclusive discretion of the court.

However, the discretion to conditionally approve the negotiated plea bargain did not sanction the wholly unrelated and unbargained condition interjected by the court concerning an increased sentence of six years (the upper term, doubled) for defendant’s failure to appear at sentencing, as the increased sentence was imposed after the plea was accepted as a precondition to the court’s acceptance of the Cruz Waiver, without input from the prosecution, who objected to the waiver. The provision was therefore not a part of the plea agreement, not a valid Cruz waiver, and not enforceable. The Cruz waiver must be obtained at the time of the court’s initial acceptance of the plea and must have occurred after an advisement under section 1192.5.

Authority:

PEN 1192.5

People v. Orin (1975) 13 Cal.3d 937, 942–943

People v. Smith (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 25, 30

People v. Masloski (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1212, 1217-1219

Eleventh Holding:

When a defendant fails to appear at sentencing after entering a bargained plea with no discussion about a specific sanction for nonappearance, he or she is entitled to withdraw the plea if the court refuses to honor the plea bargain.

The same rule applies when, during the plea proceedings but after the parties have negotiated the basic plea bargain, the court imposes an additional condition providing a sanction for nonappearance. And that is the situation in this case.

It is only when the parties themselves agree as part of the plea bargain to a specific sanction for nonappearance that the court need not permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea but may invoke the bargained-for sanction.

Authority:

People v. Masloski (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1212, 1221-1222

People v. Morris (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 358, 360-361

People v. Murray (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1540-1546

Twelfth Holding:

We reverse the judgment and remand the matter to allow defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea. A defendant should not be entitled to enforce an agreement between himself and the prosecutor calling for a particular disposition against the trial court absent very special circumstances. The preferred remedy in that context is to permit a defendant to withdraw his plea and to restore the proceedings to the original status quo.

Authority:

People v. Calloway (1981) 29 Cal.3d 666, 671

Thirteenth Holding:

A certificate of probable cause is not required for the defendant to raise this on appeal following his guilty plea, because this is a postplea claim involving sentencing issues that do not challenge the validity of the plea. Indeed, he seeks to enforce his plea. A certificate of probable cause is not required if the issue on appeal arose after the entry of the plea and does not affect the validity of the plea.

Authority:

People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379

People v. Vargas (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 644, 651

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Evidence, Racial Justice Act, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 001094

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s oral motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act (RJA).

First Holding:

It is a violation of the RJA for the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or a juror to exhibit bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin or, during the defendant’s trial, in court and during the proceedings, to use racially discriminatory language about the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibit bias or animus toward the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful.

A defendant may file a motion alleging a violation of subdivision (a). If a motion is filed in the trial court and the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation of subdivision (a), the trial court shall hold a hearing, at which the defendant bears the burden of proving an RJA violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Subject to exceptions inapplicable in this case, if the court finds an RJA violation by a preponderance of evidence, the court shall impose an enumerated remedy specific to the violation. If judgment has yet to be entered, one remedy is to reduce one or more charges. After judgment has been entered, the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with subdivision (a).

Authority:

PEN 745

Second Holding:

The defendant argues that the trial court erred to the extent it denied his RJA motion because it was brought orally rather than by written, noticed motion. Addressing this issue of statutory interpretation de novo, we conclude the RJA does not preclude the possibility of making an oral motion. Accordingly, the court erred to the extent it denied the motion for being brought orally.

Authority:

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 41

Third Holding:

In interpreting a statute, our goal is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent to effectuate the statute’s purpose. We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning. If the language is unambiguous, the plain meaning controls. The words, however, must be construed in context, so we look to the entire section as well as the statutory framework as a whole in deciding what a word or provision means, and we attempt to harmonize terms where possible. We may reject a literal construction that is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute or that would lead to absurd results.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961

People v. Murphy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 136, 142

Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 499, 519

Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230

Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore (2010) 49 Cal.4th 12, 27

Fourth Holding:

The statutory language here is ambiguous. Section 745 does not say a defendant “must file” a motion; instead, it is permissive. But nor does the statute say that a defendant “may make” an oral motion. We therefore look to legislative findings made in support of the RJA to discern the Legislature’s intent.

When statutory language is ambiguous, we look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, and contemporaneous administrative construction. Because uncodified findings of legislative intent are voted upon by the entire legislative body, enrolled and signed by the Governor, they may be entitled to somewhat greater weight than traditional legislative history materials.

(Gary note: Regarding the reference to “uncodified findings” in the last sentence above, Assembly Bill 2542 (2019-2020 legislative session), which enacted the Racial Justice Act, contains a few sections in the bill that were not codified, meaning they do not appear in any of California’s codes, such as the Penal Code.

(Depending on the wording, the uncodified language may or may not have the force of law. For example, section 7 of the bill directs that certain portions of the bill are effective only if a different specified bill is enacted and becomes effective by a specified date. Section 7 thus carries the force of law.

(But section 2 of the bill contains 10 findings made by the Legislature that led to its passage of the RJA. In roughly 1,329 words. Some of the findings relate the existence and effects of racism–intentional or otherwise–and others state something like “It is the intent of the Legislature that ….” Those findings and statements of intent probably do not technically carry the force of law, but may be considered by the courts in interpreting the statutes that were enacted.

(The trial court then discussed the various aspects of the findings that led it to conclude that “Given the expansiveness of the Legislature’s purpose in enacting the RJA, it is appropriate to construe the legislation liberally in favor of affording defendants an opportunity to raise potential RJA violations through an oral motion.” It cautioned, however, that it may not be the best practice to raise the motion orally, as it may create confusion over what, exactly, is being asserted.)

Authority:

People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1008

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 157

Fifth Holding:

In the course of the hearing, counsel appeared to concur that the proper standard was proof by preponderance of the evidence, rather than the much lower standard at the prima facie stage. Though it is not clear what standard the court applied, it erred in excluding hearsay evidence. Hearsay is not per se excludable under the RJA. The court should have considered whether the proffered hearsay “trustworthy and reliable” before excluding it.

By concluding the evidence before it was double hearsay, the court failed to consider the totality of the proffered facts in assessing whether the defendant made a prima facie showing. On this record, we conclude the defendant made such a sufficient showing at the prima facie stage. We thus reverse and remand with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing under the RJA.

Authority:

PEN 745(c)(1)

Hernandez v. Superior Court (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1120, 1130

Sixth Holding:

The people argue that application of the higher standard was invited error, as counsel concurred. The doctrine of invited error is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the trial court at defense counsel’s behest. If defense counsel intentionally caused the trial court to err, the appellant cannot be heard to complain on appeal.

But for the doctrine to apply, it also must be clear that counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mistake. In cases involving an action affirmatively taken by defense counsel, courts have found a clearly implied tactical purpose to be sufficient to invoke the doctrine.

It is not sufficiently clear on this record that counsel had a tactical purpose. It supports the conclusion that counsel simply misunderstood certain details of the RJA when he brought the oral motion. For example, he characterized the motion as a post-judgment motion. But it was prejudgment, though it was presented after the jury verdict. In a criminal case, judgment is rendered when the trial court orally pronounces sentence. Here, the sentencing had not yet happened when the RJA motion was made, so no judgment had been entered.

In light of counsel’s apparent misunderstandings, we conclude that the invited error doctrine is inapplicable. In any event, its application is discretionary, not automatic.

Authority:

People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344, fn. 9

Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2025) para. 8:248.13

Seventh Holding:

We review de novo a determination that an RJA movant has failed to make a prima facie showing. A defendant makes a prima facie showing if the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that an RJA violation] occurred.

A substantial likelihood requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not. The court should should not make credibility determinations at the prima facie stage. It should accept the truth of the defendant’s allegations unless they are conclusory, unsupported by the evidence presented in support of the claim, or demonstrably contradicted by the court’s own records.

On this record—with these principles in mind and considering the totality of the proffered facts—we conclude that there is more than a mere possibility that an RJA violation occurred. The defendant has therefore made a prima facie showing of one or more RJA violations and is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

PEN 745(h)(2)

PEN 745(c)

People v. Howard (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 625, 650

Finley v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 12, 23

Hernandez v. Superior Court (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1120, 1130

Appellate Principles, Due process, Fines and fees, Pleading, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001092

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error to sentence the defendant under the Three Strikes Law, because the prior serious felony was alleged in the information only as a five-year enhancement under section 667(a), not as a strike. In light of Kopp, the matter is remanded to permit the defendant to raise a challenge to the restitution fine of $10,000.

First Holding:

The three strikes law imposes an alternative sentencing scheme if the defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior serious or violent felony convictions. The three strikes law thus requires that prior felony convictions be pleaded and proved.

In addition to the statutory requirement, the defendant has a due process right to fair notice of the specific sentence enhancements or alternative sentencing schemes that will be invoked to increase punishment. The touchstone of determining the adequacy of an accusatory pleading is whether the defendant had adequate notice of the charges against the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 667(c), (e)

PEN 1170.12(a), (c)

People v. Sawyers (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 713, 720

Second Holding:

As a preliminary matter, the People contend that the defendant forfeited any argument concerning his three strikes sentence by failing to object at the sentencing hearing. We exercise our discretion to reach the merits of defendant’s argument to forestall any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We also exercise our discretion to reach the merits because the claimed error affected substantial rights by depriving the defendant of timely notice of the potential sentence he faced.

The operative information pled that he had a prior serious felony conviction under section 667(a), which subjected him to a sentence enhancement of five years. But it did not plead that the conviction qualified as a prior strike subjecting him to the alternative sentencing scheme of the three strikes law. The court therefore erred by imposing a three strikes sentence.

It was the People’s burden to properly plead the allegations under the three strikes law, not the defendant’s responsibility to ferret them out.

Authority:

People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 146

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 963

People v. Sawyers (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 713, 727, 726 [court erred by imposing a three strikes sentence when the information alleged a prior serious or violent felony under sec. 1170(h)(3), and a prior prison term enhancement under sec. 667.5(b), but did not refer to the three strikes law]

Third Holding:

The pleading requirement is meant to give sufficient notice to permit the defense to make informed decisions about the case.

Authority:

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 964 [failure to plead a particular firearm enhancement was not harmless when the defendant received notice midway through the sentencing hearing, which was too late to consider the prosecution’s pretrial plea deal or reshape his trial strategy]

Fourth Holding:

A competent motion by the defense to urge the court to dismiss the strike would have required preparation and could not have been raised orally at the sentencing hearing, when the court announced its intention to impose a three strikes sentence.The violation of the statutory pleading requirement therefore was prejudicial.

And for the same reasons, to the extent that the pleading defect violated the defendant’s due process right to fair notice, the People have not shown that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

The violation of the pleading and proof requirement prejudiced the defendant. We therefore vacate his sentence on count 2 and direct the court to resentence him on that count without applying the three strikes law.

Authority:

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, 726 [the People’s failure to give the defendant notice of his potential sentence under the one strike law violated his right to due process and was not harmless]

Fifth Holding:

In light of Kopp, decided after the sentencing in this case, we remand the matter for the trial court to consider challenges to the imposition of the $10,000 restitution fine under the federal and state constitutional excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 001089

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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