Pleadings

Amendments

Garcia v. Superior Court (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 631. Arraignment on amended complaint started a new 10 days. Amendment was a new charge. 

Aggravating circumstances

Pleading and proof—Aggravating factors Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill 567 amended Penal Code § 1170(b)(1)-(3) to limit the court's discretion to impose the upper limit. Under the amended statute, the court cannot impose the upper term unless an aggravating factor justifies the imposition of a term exceeding the middle term, and (1) the defendant stipulates to the aggravating factor; (2) the aggravating factor is based on a prior conviction as established by a certified record of conviction; or (3) the jury or judge finds the aggravating factor true beyond a reasonable doubt in a bifurcated trial. (Penal Code § 1170(b)(1)-(3).) Although there are no cases discussing the effects, if any, of these amendments on pleading and proof requirements at preliminary hearings, prior case law suggests that People need not prove and the court need not make findings concerning aggravating factors at the preliminary hearing. (See Barragan v. Superior Court, 148 Cal. App. 4th 1478, 1484, 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 660 (3rd Dist. 2007) [“an aggravating fact is not an ‘offense’ within the meaning of [Penal Code] section 1009 and the statutes governing accusatory pleadings. [Citation.] Thus, the statutory scheme does not require the prosecution to plead and prove at the preliminary examination the existence of aggravating facts that can be used to impose the upper term in California's determinate sentencing law” (internal citation omitted)].) The Barragan Court held that the People were entitled to amend the information to include aggravating factors in the information even though those factors were not pled or proved at the preliminary hearing. Doing so, the court explained, complied with the constitutional mandates set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 494, fn. 19, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000), and complied with California's statutory pleading requirements primarily because “an aggravating factor is not an ‘offense’ within the meaning of section 1009 and the statutes governing accusatory pleading.” (Barragan, at p. 1484.) A contrary case, People v. Superior Court (Brooks), 159 Cal. App. 4th 1, 71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 49 (2d Dist. 2007) was decided after Barragan, but its central holding was abrogated by the passage of the new amendment. Penal Code § 1170(b)(2) is in sync with Barragan. The statute requires the People to plead the aggravating factors in the information or indictment. The statute does not require the People to plead and prove the aggravating factors at the preliminary hearing stage. And the Legislature did not amend the statutory definition of “offense” to include aggravating factors. Nonetheless, Barragan and section 1170(b)(2) may be vulnerable to several due process based/notice pleading arguments that may favor requiring the People to plead and prove aggravating factors at the preliminary hearing stage. (See People v. Mancebo, 27 Cal. 4th 735, 747, 117 Cal. Rptr. 550 (Cal. 2002) [“a defendant has a cognizable due process right to fair notice of the specific sentence enhancement allegations that will be invoked to increase punishment for his crimes”]; People v. Dominguez, 166 Cal. App. 4th 858, 866, 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 284 (6th Dist. 2008) [“It is the rule that ‘a defendant may not be prosecuted for an offense not shown by the evidence at the preliminary hearing or arising out of the transaction upon which the commitment was based’”]; People v. Jeff, 204 Cal. App. 3d 309, 342, 251 Cal. Rptr. 135 (5th Dist. 1988) [“the time, place, and circumstances of charged offenses are left to the preliminary hearing transcript. This is the touchstone of due process notice to a defendant. [Citation.] So long as the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing supports the number of offenses charged against defendant and covers the timeframe(s) charged in the information, a defendant has all the notice the Constitution requires”].)

Comment: Barragan is controlling law (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455, 20 Cal. Rptr. 321 (Cal. 1962)) and the statutory scheme does not require the People to plead or prove aggravating factors at the preliminary hearing stage. However, because there are good arguments on both sides of the issue, a cautious prosecutor may choose to plead and prove aggravating factors at the preliminary hearing, and, where such proof is not presented or the magistrate did not make findings, a diligent defense counsel may choose to file a 995 motion and move to dismiss the aggravating factors. Time will tell.