Circumstances in aggravation - Revision history

Sysop: /* Rule 4.421(a)(10) The crime involved a large quantity of contraband; and */

2024-06-08T16:10:01Z

Rule 4.421(a)(10) The crime involved a large quantity of contraband; and

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:10, 8 June 2024
Line 184:		Line 184:
	CALCRIM 3232 (2023 and 2024)		CALCRIM 3232 (2023 and 2024)

	*1. The <insert description of contraband> was contraband; AND		* 1. The <insert description of contraband> was contraband; AND
	*2. The quantity of <insert description of contraband> was large.		* 2. The quantity of <insert description of contraband> was large.

	==Rule 4.421(a)(11) The defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense.==		==Rule 4.421(a)(11) The defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense.==

Sysop: /* Rule 4.421(a)(10) The crime involved a large quantity of contraband; and */

2024-06-08T16:09:28Z

Rule 4.421(a)(10) The crime involved a large quantity of contraband; and

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 8 June 2024
Line 182:		Line 182:
	==Rule 4.421(a)(10) The crime involved a large quantity of contraband; and==		==Rule 4.421(a)(10) The crime involved a large quantity of contraband; and==

	The <insert description of contraband> was		CALCRIM 3232 (2023 and 2024)
	contraband;
	AND		*1. The <insert description of contraband> was contraband; AND
	2. The quantity of <insert description of contraband>		*2. The quantity of <insert description of contraband> was large.
	was large.

	==Rule 4.421(a)(11) The defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense.==		==Rule 4.421(a)(11) The defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense.==

Sysop at 11:59, 24 April 2024

2024-04-24T11:59:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:59, 24 April 2024
Line 21:		Line 21:


	(a~~) Factors relating~~ to the ~~crime~~		==Statute-based circumstances in aggravation==

			===PC667.95 Video recording of a violent felony===

			In sentencing a person convicted of a violent felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, the court may consider, as a factor in aggravation, that the defendant willfully recorded a video of the commission of the violent felony with the intent to encourage or facilitate the offense.

	==Rule 4.421(a)(1) The crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness;==		==Rule 4.421(a)(1) The crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness;==

Sysop: /* Pleading */

2023-12-14T14:43:09Z

Pleading

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, 14 December 2023
Line 14:		Line 14:
	No right to a jury trial on prior conviction exception. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4063628241467814570 ''People v. Pantaleon (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 932'']		No right to a jury trial on prior conviction exception. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4063628241467814570 ''People v. Pantaleon (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 932'']

	''People v. Hall'' (Dec. 13, 2023, A165406)		[https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A165406.PDF ''People v. Hall'' (Dec. 13, 2023, A165406)]

	Only one aggravating circumstance is necessary. “imposition of the upper term does not infringe upon the defendant’s constitutional right to jury trial so long as one legally sufficient aggravating circumstance has been found to exist by the jury, has been admitted by the defendant, or is justified based upon the defendant’s record of prior convictions.” (Black II, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 816.)		Only one aggravating circumstance is necessary. “imposition of the upper term does not infringe upon the defendant’s constitutional right to jury trial so long as one legally sufficient aggravating circumstance has been found to exist by the jury, has been admitted by the defendant, or is justified based upon the defendant’s record of prior convictions.” (Black II, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 816.)

Sysop: /* Pleading */

2023-12-14T14:40:36Z

Pleading

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:40, 14 December 2023
Line 17:		Line 17:

	Only one aggravating circumstance is necessary. “imposition of the upper term does not infringe upon the defendant’s constitutional right to jury trial so long as one legally sufficient aggravating circumstance has been found to exist by the jury, has been admitted by the defendant, or is justified based upon the defendant’s record of prior convictions.” (Black II, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 816.)		Only one aggravating circumstance is necessary. “imposition of the upper term does not infringe upon the defendant’s constitutional right to jury trial so long as one legally sufficient aggravating circumstance has been found to exist by the jury, has been admitted by the defendant, or is justified based upon the defendant’s record of prior convictions.” (Black II, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 816.)

			Preliminary hearing transcript as factual basis is insufficient for finding of circumstances in aggravation. (See French, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 46–47, 51 [“defense counsel’s stipulation to the factual basis cannot reasonably be construed as an admission by the defendant sufficient to satisfy the Sixth Amendment requirements established in Cunningham, supra, 549 U.S. 270,” (fn. omitted)].)

Sysop: /* Pleading */

2023-12-14T14:39:05Z

Pleading

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:39, 14 December 2023
Line 15:		Line 15:

	''People v. Hall'' (Dec. 13, 2023, A165406)		''People v. Hall'' (Dec. 13, 2023, A165406)

			Only one aggravating circumstance is necessary. “imposition of the upper term does not infringe upon the defendant’s constitutional right to jury trial so long as one legally sufficient aggravating circumstance has been found to exist by the jury, has been admitted by the defendant, or is justified based upon the defendant’s record of prior convictions.” (Black II, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 816.)

Sysop: /* Pleading */

2023-12-14T14:37:46Z

Pleading

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:37, 14 December 2023
Line 13:		Line 13:

	No right to a jury trial on prior conviction exception. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4063628241467814570 ''People v. Pantaleon (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 932'']		No right to a jury trial on prior conviction exception. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4063628241467814570 ''People v. Pantaleon (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 932'']

			''People v. Hall'' (Dec. 13, 2023, A165406)

Sysop at 14:24, 14 December 2023

2023-12-14T14:24:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:24, 14 December 2023
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Moreover, unlike enhancements, aggravating factors were not historically part of the definition of substantive offenses, so there was no tradition of considering them at a preliminary hearing. (See Mendella, at pp. 762–763, 191 Cal.Rptr. 1, 661 P.2d 1081; Barragan, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 1485, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 660.) Allowing for consideration of aggravating factors at a preliminary hearing may be advisable as a policy matter to prevent overcharging and to promote fairness, but the novelty of the circumstances and the well-recognized distinction *230 between aggravating factors and enhancements or penalty provisions prevent us from simply presuming that the Legislature intended to create a right to a probable cause determination for aggravating factors.		Moreover, unlike enhancements, aggravating factors were not historically part of the definition of substantive offenses, so there was no tradition of considering them at a preliminary hearing. (See Mendella, at pp. 762–763, 191 Cal.Rptr. 1, 661 P.2d 1081; Barragan, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 1485, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 660.) Allowing for consideration of aggravating factors at a preliminary hearing may be advisable as a policy matter to prevent overcharging and to promote fairness, but the novelty of the circumstances and the well-recognized distinction *230 between aggravating factors and enhancements or penalty provisions prevent us from simply presuming that the Legislature intended to create a right to a probable cause determination for aggravating factors.


			No right to a jury trial on prior conviction exception. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4063628241467814570 ''People v. Pantaleon (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 932'']

Sysop at 14:20, 14 December 2023

2023-12-14T14:20:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:20, 14 December 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Circumstances in Aggravation		Circumstances in Aggravation


			==Pleading==


			Barragan v. Superior Court (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1478

			[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2424140624822420900 Zepeda v. Superior Court (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 65]

			Moreover, unlike enhancements, aggravating factors were not historically part of the definition of substantive offenses, so there was no tradition of considering them at a preliminary hearing. (See Mendella, at pp. 762–763, 191 Cal.Rptr. 1, 661 P.2d 1081; Barragan, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 1485, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 660.) Allowing for consideration of aggravating factors at a preliminary hearing may be advisable as a policy matter to prevent overcharging and to promote fairness, but the novelty of the circumstances and the well-recognized distinction *230 between aggravating factors and enhancements or penalty provisions prevent us from simply presuming that the Legislature intended to create a right to a probable cause determination for aggravating factors.



	(a) Factors relating to the crime		(a) Factors relating to the crime

Sysop at 00:16, 1 December 2023

2023-12-01T00:16:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:16, 1 December 2023
Line 73:		Line 73:
	Victims of vehicular manslaughters are not "vulnerable," within the meaning of aggravation, because all vehicular manslaughter victims are vulnerable. (''People v. Piceno'' (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1353, 1358-1359; ''People v. Bloom'' (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 310.)		Victims of vehicular manslaughters are not "vulnerable," within the meaning of aggravation, because all vehicular manslaughter victims are vulnerable. (''People v. Piceno'' (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1353, 1358-1359; ''People v. Bloom'' (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 310.)

	==4.421(a)(4) The defendant induced others to participate in the commission of the crime or occupied a position of leadership or dominance of other participants in its commission;==		==Rule 4.421(a)(4) The defendant induced others to participate in the commission of the crime or occupied a position of leadership or dominance of other participants in its commission;==

	CALCRIM 3227		CALCRIM 3227