California Supreme Court Clarifies Application of Penal Code Amendment for Sentencing
The California Supreme Court has provided new guidance on when a recent amendment to the state’s Penal Code applies to defendants whose judgments are not yet final. From now on, an "upper term" sentence must be reversed on appeal and remanded back to the trial court unless the reviewing court determines that a jury found all the "aggravating factors" to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a split opinion authored by Justice Carol Corrigan on August 1, with concurrences and partial dissents from several other justices, the court interpreted the amendment to Penal Code Section 1170 (b), which was passed by the legislature in January 2022.
Justice Corrigan explained that the amendment requires that when a prison term is to be imposed under a statute providing for three possible sentences, the court must issue a sentence no longer than the middle term unless "circumstances in aggravation of the crime" justify a longer sentence.
The defendant in the case, Deandre Lynch, was convicted of multiple counts of domestic violence against his girlfriend, Jasmine Doe. Lynch had a history of abusive behavior, and during one severe beating, Doe’s brother intervened. Lynch’s physical abuse resulted in multiple injuries consistent with being struck with various objects.
A jury convicted Lynch of three counts of domestic violence in 2020, but it did not consider any aggravating factors other than his prior convictions. At sentencing, the judge noted Lynch’s extensive criminal history, which included previous convictions for assault with a firearm and domestic violence, leading to an extended sentence under California’s Three Strikes Law. The judge imposed the upper term limit of sentencing based on eight "circumstances in aggravation."
The ruling clarifies that harsher sentences can only be applied if a jury, not a judge, finds the necessary aggravating factors...this decision aims to ensure fairness in sentencing and align state procedures with constitutional requirements.
Two months after Lynch’s sentencing, the law governing Section 1170 (b) was amended. Lynch appealed, arguing that his sentence should be reversed because the aggravating factors were determined by the judge, not the jury. The Third District Court of Appeal upheld the upper term sentence, but Lynch then appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Justice Corrigan detailed the history of Section 1170, including its original form, the 2007 version invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Cunningham v. California, and the 2022 amendment. The Cunningham decision required that any fact exposing a defendant to a greater sentence must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
The California Supreme Court focused on whether defendants like Lynch are automatically entitled to a resentencing or if the appellate court should assess prejudice. The court concluded that Lynch was not automatically entitled to a remand for resentencing. Instead, it discussed the appropriate test for assessing prejudice, which depends on the nature of the error and the rights infringed upon.
Justice Corrigan emphasized that the new amendment requires facts supporting every aggravating circumstance to be proven to a jury. Lynch’s sentence, therefore, must be reversed and remanded for a jury to determine the aggravating factors.
Paul Tyler, a criminal defense attorney in Ventura, California, explains that the ruling clarifies that harsher sentences can only be applied if a jury, not a judge, finds the necessary aggravating factors. He stated that “this decision aims to ensure fairness in sentencing and align state procedures with constitutional requirements. It sets a precedent for future cases, reinforcing the role of juries in determining facts that justify longer prison terms.”
Tyler further stated that “the ruling also clarifies that defendants sentenced under the previous version of the law, which allowed judges to find aggravating facts, may be entitled to a resentencing if those facts were not established by a jury. This interpretation ensures that defendants are not disadvantaged by procedural changes made after their original sentencing.”
The California Supreme Court’s ruling in Deandre Lynch’s case underscores the evolving nature of sentencing laws and the ongoing effort to align state procedures with constitutional mandates. It highlights the necessity for clear jury findings in imposing upper term sentences and sets a precedent for future criminal cases in California, ensuring that defendants’ rights are upheld throughout the sentencing process.
