You have no items in your shopping cart.
Search
Filters

California Criminal Sentencing Enhancements 2018

This practical reference identifies applicable enhancements, explains pleading and proof, and deciphers the rules of imposition under California’s multiple sentencing schemes.

This practical reference identifies applicable enhancements, explains pleading and proof, and deciphers the rules of imposition under California’s multiple sentencing schemes.

  • Comprehensive chapters on single subjects including drugs; gangs; firearms; and serious, violent, and sexual offenses
  • Easy-to-read charts with code provisions and term lengths
  • Practice tips with alternate charging suggestions
  • Explanations of when the court may stay or strike an enhancement or its penalty
  • Proposition 47 and prior convictions
  • Latest on Proposition 57
  • Gang enhancements and expert testimony
OnLAW CR94160

Web access for one user.

 

If you are signed in and a new attorney, your adjusted cost appears below.

$ 229.00
Print CR34167

approx. 604 pages, replaced annually, 2018

 

If you are signed in and a new attorney, your adjusted cost appears below.

$ 229.00
Add OnLAW to print CR94160(40)
$ 99.00

This practical reference identifies applicable enhancements, explains pleading and proof, and deciphers the rules of imposition under California’s multiple sentencing schemes.

  • Comprehensive chapters on single subjects including drugs; gangs; firearms; and serious, violent, and sexual offenses
  • Easy-to-read charts with code provisions and term lengths
  • Practice tips with alternate charging suggestions
  • Explanations of when the court may stay or strike an enhancement or its penalty
  • Proposition 47 and prior convictions
  • Latest on Proposition 57
  • Gang enhancements and expert testimony

1

Sentencing Overview

Hon. Philip Pennypacker

William R. Bennett

  • I.  TRANSITION FROM INDETERMINATE TO DETERMINATE SENTENCING
    • A.  Pre-1977 Law Based on Indeterminate Sentencing
      • 1.  Nature of Indeterminate Sentencing Law  1.1
      • 2.  Movement Toward Determinate Sentencing
        • a.  Allegations of Cruel and Unusual Punishment  1.2
        • b.  Need to Formalize Standard Deviation Table for Sentencing  1.3
        • c.  Overall Discontent With Indeterminate Sentencing Regime  1.4
    • B.  Development and Amendment of Determinate Sentencing Law
      • 1.  Background  1.5
      • 2.  Phase One: The Initial Determinate Sentencing Law
        • a.  Statement of Legislative Purpose; New Sentencing Calculations Needed  1.6
        • b.  Division of Sentences Into Three Terms  1.7
        • c.  Consideration of Other Counts, Enhancements, and Time Served  1.8
        • d.  Changes to Sentencing Structure by Court Rules  1.9
        • e.  On-the-Record Statement of Sentencing Choices  1.10
        • f.  New Parole Process  1.11
      • 3.  Phase Two: Legislative Interventions
        • a.  Background  1.12
        • b.  Sentence Increases for Violent or Serious Offenses  1.13
        • c.  Probation Restrictions; Importance of Tanner Decision
          • (1)  Probation Restrictions and Prelude to Tanner  1.14
          • (2)  Importance of Tanner Decision  1.15
      • 4.  Phase Three: State Initiatives, Related Legislation, and Court Action
        • a.  Background  1.16
        • b.  Proposition 8
          • (1)  Passage of Proposition 8  1.17
          • (2)  Treatment of Prior Convictions Under Proposition 8  1.18
        • c.  Three Strikes Law and Sentencing Legislation
          • (1)  Passage of Three Strikes Ballot Initiative and Other Legislation  1.19
          • (2)  Court Treatment of Strike Sentencing  1.20
      • 5.  Phase Four: Court Rulings on “Aggravating” Sentences, Cunningham Decision, and Legislative Response  1.21
      • 6.  Phase Five: Realignment and Decriminalization
        • a.  The Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011  1.21A
        • b.  Proposition 47: The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act  1.21B
        • c.  Proposition 64: Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act  1.21C
  • II.  CURRENT OPERATION OF DETERMINATE SENTENCING LAW
    • A.  DSL Sentencing Process Summarized  1.22
    • B.  Determining Eligibility for Probation  1.23
    • C.  Selecting Base Term
      • 1.  Mandatory Selection of Base Term  1.24
      • 2.  Factors in Selecting Base Term  1.25
    • D.  Treatment of Multiple Counts
      • 1.  Rule Against Multiple Punishment Under Pen C §654  1.26
      • 2.  Presumption of Concurrent Sentences and Rules for Consecutive Sentences  1.27
    • E.  Adding Enhancements  1.28
    • F.  Applying Pen C §1170(h)  1.28A
    • G.  Finishing the Sentence  1.29
    • H.  Application of Alternative Sentencing Requirements
      • 1.  Background  1.30
      • 2.  Specific Sentencing Schemes
        • a.  Indeterminate Sentencing Law  1.31
        • b.  Strike Law
          • (1)  When Strike Law Applies  1.32
          • (2)  Interplay of Strike Law With Enhancements for Particular Offenses
            • (a)  One Strike Sex Sentencing Law  1.33
            • (b)  Sexual Offense With Prior Conviction  1.34
            • (c)  Habitual Sexual Offender  1.35
            • (d)  Habitual Offenders Who Cause Great Bodily Injury  1.36
            • (e)  Drug Trafficking Involving Minors  1.37
        • c.  Street Gang Enhancements  1.38
        • d.  Application of Other Sentencing Schemes  1.39
    • I.  Examples of Sentencing Calculations Under DSL  1.40

2

Enhancements Overview

Hon. Philip Pennypacker

William R. Bennett

  • I.  ENHANCEMENTS IN CONTEXT OF DETERMINATE SENTENCING LAW  2.1
  • II.  COURT USE OF TERM “ENHANCEMENT” AND TYPES OF ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Court Use of Term “Enhancement”  2.2
    • B.  Types of Sentence Enhancements  2.3
  • III.  FREQUENTLY ENCOUNTERED ISSUES REGARDING ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  New Crime Versus Longer Prison Term; Due Process  2.4
    • B.  Aggravating Factors and Enhancements Distinguished  2.5
    • C.  Alternative Sentencing Schemes and Enhancements Distinguished  2.6
    • D.  Need for Pleading and Proof of Enhancements  2.7
    • E.  Burden of Proof for Enhancements at Preliminary Examinations and Trials  2.8
    • F.  Prohibition on Use of Facts Supporting Enhancement to Also Aggravate Sentence  2.9
    • G.  Imposition of Two Enhancements on Single Substantive Crime  2.10
    • H.  Imposition of Enhancement Sentences  2.11
    • I.  Trial Court’s Authority to Strike Enhancements or Associated Punishment  2.12
    • J.  Example of Multiple Counts With Conduct Enhancements Associated With Each Count  2.13
  • IV.  CHECKLIST OF SPECIFIC CONDUCT ENHANCEMENTS  2.14

3

Victims

Hon. Kenneth L. Shapero

  • I.  CHART: VICTIM ENHANCEMENTS  3.1
  • II.  PURPOSE OF VICTIM-RELATED ENHANCEMENTS  3.2
  • III.  AGED, UNDER AGE, OR DISABLED VICTIMS
    • A.  Particularly Vulnerable Victims (Pen C §667.9)  3.3
    • B.  Elements of Enhancements and Definitions
      • 1.  Specified Offense on Specified Victim (Pen C §667.9(a))  3.4
      • 2.  Specified Offense With Specified Prior on Specified Victim (Pen C §667.9(b))  3.5
    • C.  Punishment
      • 1.  Specified Offense on Specified Victim (Pen C §667.9(a))  3.6
      • 2.  Specified Offense With Specified Prior on Specified Victim (Pen C §667.9(b))  3.7
    • D.  Imposition Rules
      • 1.  Pleading and Proof  3.8
      • 2.  Standard of Proof  3.9
      • 3.  Operation With Determinate Sentencing Law  3.10
        • a.  Calculation of Term  3.11
        • b.  Cunningham and Apprendi  3.12
        • c.  Multiple Counts  3.13
      • 4.  Multiple Victims  3.14
      • 5.  Dual Use of Facts  3.15
      • 6.  Operation With Pen C §654  3.16
      • 7.  Operation With Indeterminate Sentencing  3.17
      • 8.  Operation With Other Enhancements  3.18
      • 9.  Operation With Three Strikes Law  3.19
      • 10.  Operation With the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011  3.19A
      • 11.  Court’s Authority to Strike the Punishment or the Enhancement  3.20
      • 12.  Stipulated Sentence  3.21
  • IV.  HATE CRIME ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Legislative Purpose  3.22
    • B.  Elements of Enhancements and Definitions
      • 1.  Hate Crime (Pen C §422.75(a))  3.23
      • 2.  Hate Crime in Concert (Pen C §422.75(b))  3.24
      • 3.  Hate Crime With Prior Hate Crime (Pen C §422.75(d))  3.25
    • C.  Punishment
      • 1.  Hate Crime (Pen C §422.75(a))  3.26
      • 2.  Hate Crime in Concert (Pen C §422.75(b))  3.27
      • 3.  Hate Crime With Prior Hate Crime (Pen C §422.75(d))  3.28
    • D.  Imposition Rules
      • 1.  Pleading and Proof  3.29
      • 2.  Standard of Proof  3.30
    • E.  Term Imposition
      • 1.  Operation With Determinate Sentencing  3.31
        • a.  Selection and Calculation of Term  3.32
        • b.  Cunningham and Apprendi  3.33
        • c.  Multiple Counts  3.34
        • d.  Multiple Victims  3.35
        • e.  Dual Use of Facts  3.36
        • f.  Operation With Pen C §654  3.37
      • 2.  Operation With Indeterminate Sentencing  3.38
      • 3.  Operation With Other Enhancements  3.39
      • 4.  Operation With Three Strikes Law  3.40
      • 5.  Operation With the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011  3.40A
      • 6.  Court’s Authority to Strike the Punishment or Enhancement  3.41
      • 7.  Stipulated Sentence  3.42

4

Injury and Death

Nancy Brewer

James P. Lambe

  • I.  CHART: GBI AND DEATH ENHANCEMENTS  4.1
  • II.  EFFECT OF GREAT BODILY INJURY ENHANCEMENTS  4.2
    • A.  Definitions
      • 1.  Great Bodily Injury  4.3
      • 2.  Relationship to Serious Bodily Injury  4.4
      • 3.  Comatose  4.5
      • 4.  To Inflict  4.6
      • 5.  Personal Infliction  4.7
      • 6.  Other Than Accomplice  4.8
      • 7.  During Commission of Felony  4.9
      • 8.  Age  4.10
    • B.  Application
      • 1.  Element of the Underlying Offense  4.11
      • 2.  Allegation in Charging Document  4.12
      • 3.  Specific Offenses
        • a.  Homicide, Manslaughter  4.13
        • b.  Pregnancy  4.14
        • c.  Battery With Serious Bodily Injury  4.15
        • d.  Driving Offenses  4.16
    • C.  Intent Requirements  4.17
    • D.  Sentencing Issues
      • 1.  Pleaded and Proved  4.18
      • 2.  Shown by Evidence at Preliminary Hearing or Grand Jury Proceeding  4.19
    • E.  Imposition of Enhancement Sentence
      • 1.  Authority to Stay or Strike  4.20
      • 2.  Probation Eligibility  4.21
      • 3.  Operation With Other Enhancements  4.22
      • 4.  When the Enhancement Is Attached to a Subordinate Term  4.23
      • 5.  Operation With Pen C §654  4.24
      • 6.  Dual Use of Facts  4.25
      • 7.  Credit Issues  4.26
      • 8.  Credits Under Pen C §2933.1  4.27
      • 9.  When There Is a Strike Prior  4.28
      • 10.  When a Three Strikes Life Sentence Is Imposed  4.29
      • 11.  Future Consequences  4.30
    • F.  Juvenile Adjudication Issues  4.31

5

Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons

Robyn L. Chew

Steven I. Katz

  • I.  CHART: FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS  5.1
  • II.  PURPOSE OF FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS  5.2
  • III.  PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO ALL FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Pleading and Proof
      • 1.  Pleading  5.3
      • 2.  Proof of Firearm  5.4
    • B.  Application to Juveniles  5.5
    • C.  Sentencing  5.6
  • IV.  ENHANCEMENTS FOR BEING ARMED WITH FIREARM
    • A.  Definitions  5.7
    • B.  Liability  5.8
    • C.  Application  5.9
    • D.  Sentencing  5.10
    • E.  Consequences of a True Finding  5.11
    • F.  Armed During Felony (Pen C §12022(a)(1))  5.12
    • G.  Armed With Assault Weapon During Felony (Pen C §12022(a)(2))  5.13
    • H.  “Armed” and Third Strike Sentencing and Resentencing  5.13A
  • V.  ENHANCEMENTS FOR USE OF FIREARM
    • A.  Definitions  5.14
    • B.  Intent  5.15
    • C.  Liability  5.16
    • D.  Sentencing  5.17
    • E.  Consequence of True Finding  5.18
    • F.  Personal Use During Any Felony (Pen C §12022.5)  5.19
    • G.  Personal Use During Specified Violent Felonies: 10–20–Life Enhancement (Pen C §12022.53)  5.20
      • 1.  Personal Use (Pen C §12022.53(b))  5.21
      • 2.  Intentional Discharge and Great Bodily Injury (Pen C §12022.53(c)–(d))  5.22
        • a.  Intent  5.23
        • b.  Proximately Causing Injury or Death  5.24
        • c.  Sentencing  5.25
  • VI.  FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS FOR STREET GANGS  5.26
  • VII.  FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS FOR DRUG OFFENSES
    • A.  Armed During Specified Drug Offenses (Pen C §12022(c)–(d))  5.27
    • B.  Personal Use During Felony Drug Offense (Pen C §12022.5)  5.28
  • VIII.  FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS FOR SEX OFFENSES
    • A.  Armed With or Use of Firearm or Deadly Weapon During Specified Sex Offenses (Pen C §12022.3)  5.29
    • B.  Personal Use During Specified Sex Offenses: 10–20–Life Enhancements (Pen C §12022.53)  5.30
    • C.  Alternative Sentencing Provision (Pen C §667.61)  5.31
  • IX.  FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES  5.32
  • X.  MISCELLANEOUS FIREARM ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Furnishing a Firearm (Pen C §12022.4)  5.33
    • B.  Transfer of Firearm (Pen C §27590(d))  5.34
    • C.  Transfer of Assault Weapons; Commission of Crime (Pen C §30600(b)/Pen C §30615)  5.35
    • D.  Possession of Ammunition to Penetrate Vests; Wearing Body Vest  5.36
  • XI.  CHART: DANGEROUS/DEADLY WEAPON ENHANCEMENTS  5.37
  • XII.  DANGEROUS OR DEADLY WEAPON ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Pleading and Proof  5.38
    • B.  Definition of Dangerous or Deadly Weapon  5.39
      • 1.  Dangerous or Deadly Per Se  5.40
      • 2.  Insufficient Evidence of Dangerous or Deadly  5.41
      • 3.  “Dangerous or Deadly” Under Pen C §12022(b)  5.42
      • 4.  “Deadly” Under Pen C §245(a)(1)  5.43
    • C.  Sentencing  5.44
    • D.  Personal Use of Deadly Weapon (Pen C §12022(b))  5.45
    • E.  Armed With or Use of Deadly Weapon During Specified Sex Offenses (Pen C §12022.3(a)–(b))  5.46
    • F.  Third Strike Sentencing and Resentencing  5.47

6

Other Instruments of Injury or Death

Robyn L. Chew

Steven I. Katz

  • I.  CHART: APPLICABLE ENHANCEMENTS  6.1
  • II.  INSTRUMENTS DISTINCT FROM DANGEROUS OR DEADLY WEAPONS  6.2
  • III.  POISON AND HARMFUL SUBSTANCES
    • A.  Use of Poison as Substantive Offense and Enhancement  6.3
    • B.  Use of Poison to Commit Murder: Factor in Aggravation, Special Circumstance  6.4
  • IV.  CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
    • A.  Administering as Substantive Offense  6.5
    • B.  Administering as Enhancement  6.6
    • C.  Administering to Perpetrate Specified Sexual Assault Offenses: One Strike Alternative Sentencing Scheme  6.7
    • D.  Furnishing as Basis for Felony-Murder Rule  6.8
  • V.  FIRE AND ARSON ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Purpose  6.9
    • B.  Major Statutes  6.10
      • 1.  Definitions  6.11
      • 2.  Application  6.12
      • 3.  Sentencing  6.13
      • 4.  Postconviction Consequences  6.14
  • VI.  FIRE AND ARSON ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING SCHEME  6.14A
  • VII.  ARSON AS MEANS TO COMMIT MURDER: FACTOR IN AGGRAVATION, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE  6.15
  • VIII.  EXPLOSIVES, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
    • A.  Purpose  6.16
    • B.  Definitions  6.17
    • C.  Destructive Devices and Explosives as Bases for Substantive Offenses
      • 1.  Possession, Sale, and Transportation of Destructive Devices or Explosives  6.18
      • 2.  Aggravated Possession of Destructive Devices or Explosives  6.19
      • 3.  Use of Destructive Devices or Explosives  6.20
      • 4.  Postconviction Consequences  6.21
  • IX.  CAUSING DEATH THROUGH USE OF DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE OR EXPLOSION
    • A.  As a Substantive Charge  6.22
    • B.  As a Circumstance in Support of Murder Charges  6.23
    • C.  Punishment on Conviction for Both Offenses  6.24
  • X.  WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND RESTRICTED BIOLOGICAL AGENTS
    • A.  Substantive Offenses  6.25
    • B.  Postconviction Consequences  6.26

7

Gangs

Ronald J. Freitas

  • I.  CHART: GANG ENHANCEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING SCHEMES  7.1
  • II.  STREET TERRORISM ENFORCEMENT AND PREVENTION ACT (STEP ACT)
    • A.  Enactment and Constitutionality  7.2
    • B.  Criminal Street Gang Defined  7.3
      • 1.  Common Name  7.4
      • 2.  Primary Activity  7.5
      • 3.  Pattern of Criminal Gang Activity
        • a.  Two or More Offenses  7.6
        • b.  Committed on One or More Than One Occasion  7.7
        • c.  Proving the Predicate Offenses Through Gang Subsets  7.7A
    • C.  Substantive Offenses
      • 1.  Active Participation in Gang: Pen C §186.22(a)
        • a.  Elements  7.8
        • b.  Evidence of Active Participation  7.9
        • c.  Willfully Promotes, Furthers, or Assists Felonious Conduct of Gang  7.10
        • d.  Multiple Punishment  7.10A
      • 2.  Conspiracy and Soliciting, Furnishing, or Concealing Firearms  7.11
    • D.  Conduct Enhancement (Pen C §186.22(b))
      • 1.  Enhancement Defined  7.12
      • 2.  Elements of Primary Gang Enhancement (Pen C §186.22(b)(1))  7.13
        • a.  Any Person; Any Crime  7.14
        • b.  For the Benefit of, at the Direction of, or in Association With Gang  7.15
        • c.  Specific Intent to Promote, Further, or Assist in Any Criminal Conduct by Gang Members  7.16
      • 3.  Punishment  7.17
        • a.  Pleading and Proof  7.18
        • b.  Staying or Striking the Gang Enhancement  7.19
        • c.  Multiple Enhancements  7.20
    • E.  Alternative Penalty Provisions
      • 1.  Offense Punishable as Felony or Misdemeanor (Pen C §186.22(d))  7.21
      • 2.  Enumerated Felonies With Minimum Indeterminate Terms: Pen C §186.22(b)(4)  7.22
      • 3.  Fifteen-Year Parole Eligibility: Pen C §186.22(b)(5)  7.23
      • 4.  Special Circumstance  7.24
    • F.  Bifurcation From Underlying Charge  7.25
    • G.  Juvenile Proceedings  7.26
    • H.  Additional Sentencing Issues
      • 1.  Asset Forfeiture  7.27
      • 2.  Registration  7.28
      • 3.  Probation Conditions  7.29
      • 4.  Restitution  7.30
      • 5.  Restitution and Parole Revocation Fines  7.31
  • III.  EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
    • A.  Admissibility of Gang Evidence  7.32
    • B.  Use of Expert Witnesses
      • 1.  Qualification as Expert  7.33
      • 2.  Subject of Expert Testimony  7.34
      • 3.  Basis of Expert Opinion  7.35
      • 4.  Sufficiency of Expert Testimony  7.36

8

Drugs

Hon. Kenneth L. Shapero

  • I.  CHART: CONTROLLED-SUBSTANCES ENHANCEMENTS  8.1
  • II.  PURPOSE OF DRUG ENHANCEMENTS  8.2
  • III.  CONDUCT ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Pleading and Proof  8.3
    • B.  Term Imposition
      • 1.  Operation With Determinate Sentencing
        • a.  Enhancements Must Be Imposed Consecutively to Base Term  8.4
        • b.  Selection of Enhancement and Calculation of Term  8.5
        • c.  Cunningham and Apprendi Considerations  8.6
        • d.  Multiple Counts  8.7
      • 2.  Operation With Indeterminate Sentencing  8.8
      • 3.  Dual Use of Facts  8.9
      • 4.  Prohibition on Multiple Punishment for Same Act (Pen C §654)  8.10
      • 5.  Operation With Three Strikes Law  8.11
      • 6.  Operation With the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011  8.11A
      • 7.  Court’s Authority to Strike Punishment or Enhancement  8.12
    • C.  Specific Conduct Enhancements
      • 1.  Trafficking in Heroin, Cocaine, Cocaine Base, Methamphetamine, or PCP Within 1000 Feet of Specified Facility (Health & S C §11380.7)  8.13
      • 2.  Manufacture of Methamphetamine or PCP in Presence of, or Causing GBI to, Minor Under 16 (Health & S C §11379.7)  8.14
      • 3.  Manufacture of Methamphetamine or PCP That Causes Death or GBI (Health & S C §11379.9)  8.15
      • 4.  Inducing Another to Commit Crime With Value of Controlled Substance Over $500,000 (Health & S C §11356.5)  8.16
      • 5.  Inducing Minor to Violate Narcotics Law (Health & S C §11353.1)  8.17
      • 6.  Inducing Minor to Violate Narcotics Law (Health & S C §11380.1)  8.18
      • 7.  Trafficking Within 1000 Feet of School (Health & S C §11353.6)  8.19
      • 8.  Quantity Enhancements
        • a.  Possession for Sale, Sale, or Transportation (Health & S C §11370.4)  8.20
        • b.  Manufacture of Controlled Substance by Chemical Extraction or Synthesis (Health & S C §11379.8)  8.21
  • IV.  STATUS ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Overview  8.22
    • B.  Elements of Status Enhancements
      • 1.  Prior Inducing a Minor (Health & S C §11353.4)  8.23
      • 2.  Prior Sale or Manufacture (Health & S C §11370.2)  8.24
    • C.  Pleading and Proof
      • 1.  Pleading  8.25
      • 2.  Proof  8.26
    • D.  Term Imposition
      • 1.  Operation With Determinate Sentencing  8.27
      • 2.  Selection and Calculation of Term  8.28
      • 3.  Prohibition on Multiple Punishment for Same Act (Pen C §654)  8.29
      • 4.  Operation With Indeterminate Sentencing  8.30
      • 5.  Court’s Authority to Strike Punishment or Enhancement  8.31
      • 6.  Stipulated Sentence  8.32

9

DUI

Hon. Matthew C. Braner

  • I.  CHART: DUI-RELATED ENHANCEMENTS  9.1
  • II.  HOW DUIs ENHANCE SENTENCES  9.2
  • III.  EFFECT OF DUI PRIOR ON CURRENT DUI OFFENSE
    • A.  DUI Offenses Subject to Increased Penalty for Prior DUI  9.3
    • B.  Prior DUI Convictions That Will Enhance Current Offense
      • 1.  Qualifying Priors That Enhance Current Misdemeanor Offense  9.4
      • 2.  Separate Felony Convictions That Elevate Current DUI Offense to Felony  9.5
    • C.  Special Criteria Concerning Prior Convictions
      • 1.  Prior Offense Must Have Been Committed Within 10 Years of Current Offense  9.6
      • 2.  Prior May Have Been Committed After Current Offense  9.7
      • 3.  Sentencing Court May Not Strike DUI Priors  9.8
      • 4.  Availability of Preplea Diversion   9.8A
    • D.  Effect of DUI Prior on Punishment for Simple DUI Under Veh C §23152
      • 1.  Punishment Under Veh C §23152 With No Prior DUI  9.9
        • a.  Without Probation  9.10
        • b.  With Probation  9.11
      • 2.  Punishment Under Veh C §23152 With One Prior DUI  9.12
        • a.  Without Probation  9.13
        • b.  With Probation  9.14
      • 3.  Punishment Under Veh C §23152 With Two Prior DUI Convictions  9.15
        • a.  Without Probation  9.16
        • b.  With Probation  9.17
    • E.  Effect of DUI Prior on Punishment for DUI With Injury Under Veh C §23153
      • 1.  Compared to Simple DUI Under Veh C §23152  9.18
      • 2.  Punishment Under Veh C §23153 With No Prior DUI
        • a.  Without Probation  9.19
        • b.  With Probation  9.20
      • 3.  Punishment Under Veh C §23153 With One Prior DUI
        • a.  Without Probation  9.21
        • b.  With Probation  9.22
      • 4.  Punishment Under Veh C §21253 With Two or More Prior DUI Convictions
        • a.  Without Probation  9.23
        • b.  With Probation  9.24
    • F.  Priors That Elevate Current DUI Offense to Felony
      • 1.  Three or More Prior DUI Convictions Under Veh C §23152  9.25
      • 2.  Separate DUI-Related Felony Convictions Enumerated in Veh C §23550.5  9.26
  • IV.  DUI-RELATED FELONY CONVICTIONS THAT QUALIFY AS STRIKE PRIORS UNDER THREE STRIKES LAW  9.27
  • V.  USE OF PRIOR DUI CONVICTION TO ESTABLISH IMPLIED MALICE FOR MURDER CHARGE  9.28

10

Kidnapping, Robbery, and Carjacking

Robyn L. Chew

Steven I. Katz

  • I.  CHART: KIDNAPPING, ROBBERY, CARJACKING, AND GENERALLY APPLICABLE ENHANCEMENTS  10.1
  • II.  KIDNAPPING
    • A.  Differing Treatment of Kidnapping as Enhancement or Underlying Offense  10.2
    • B.  Enhancing Underlying Offenses if Kidnapping Involved
      • 1.  Determinate Term Enhancements for Sexual Offenses During Kidnapping (Pen C §667.8)
        • a.  Enhancements Without Reference to Victim’s Age (Pen C §667.8(a))  10.3
        • b.  Enhancements if Victim Under 14 (Pen C §667.8(b))  10.4
        • c.  Application of Enhancements Under Pen C §667.8
          • (1)  Enhancement Applies Even Without Kidnapping Conviction  10.5
          • (2)  No Dual Use of Enhancement  10.6
          • (3)  Inapplicability to Attempts  10.7
          • (4)  Number of Enhancements per Kidnapping Incident  10.8
          • (5)  Mandatory Imposition of Punishment  10.9
      • 2.  “One Strike” (Indeterminate) Sentencing (Pen C §667.61)  10.10
    • C.  Kidnapping as Special Circumstance to First-Degree Murder Charge  10.10A
    • D.  Enhancements and Other Sentencing Issues if Kidnapping Charged as Primary Offense
      • 1.  General Sentencing Provisions  10.11
      • 2.  Purpose of Kidnapping and Asportation of Victim
        • a.  Purpose of Kidnapping and Minors  10.12
        • b.  Taking Victim Out of State  10.13
        • c.  Asportation as Substitute for Force in Certain Cases  10.14
        • d.  Enticing Victim to Leave Area  10.15
        • e.  Bringing Victim Into California  10.16
      • 3.  Sentences for Specific Kidnapping Offenses
        • a.  Kidnapping for Ransom  10.17
        • b.  Kidnapping for Robbery, Carjacking, or Sexual Assault  10.18
      • 4.  Special Rules for Habitual Sexual Offenders Who Commit Kidnapping  10.19
      • 5.  Separate Convictions for Kidnapping and Related Theft Crimes Committed Together  10.20
      • 6.  Probation and Multiple Counts in Kidnapping Cases
        • a.  Limitations on Probation  10.21
        • b.  Multiple Counts  10.22
      • 7.  Special Rules for Kidnapping Sentences if Victim Is Minor, Elderly, or Disabled
        • a.  Minors as Kidnap Victims
          • (1)  General Sentencing Provisions When Victim Is Minor  10.23
          • (2)  Minors Under Age 14
            • (a)  Kidnapping Circumstances Determine Charge and Sentencing Scheme  10.24
            • (b)  Sentencing Choices if Victim Under Age 14  10.25
            • (c)  Kidnapping Child to Deprive Parent or Guardian of Custody (Pen C §667.85)  10.26
        • b.  Elderly, Disabled, or Other Vulnerable Victims (Pen C §667.9(a)–(b))  10.27
  • III.  ROBBERY AND CARJACKING
    • A.  Robbery and Carjacking as Enhancements  10.28
    • B.  Robbery and Carjacking as Special Circumstances to First-Degree Murder Charge  10.28A
    • C.  Robbery or Carjacking as Underlying Charge
      • 1.  Basic Sentences for Robbery  10.29
      • 2.  Basic Sentences for Carjacking  10.30
      • 3.  Enhancements to Underlying Charge of Robbery and Carjacking
        • a.  Enhancements Summarized  10.31
        • b.  Use of Firearms and Other Dangerous or Deadly Weapons
          • (1)  Firearms
            • (a)  Firearm Enhancements to Underlying Robbery or Carjacking Offenses  10.32
            • (b)  Special Issues Regarding Firearms
              • (i)  Firearm Includes Handgun  10.33
              • (ii)  What Constitutes “Discharge” of Firearm  10.34
              • (iii)  Establishing Firearm Use if Firearm Not Recovered or Seen  10.35
          • (2)  Other Deadly or Dangerous Weapons  10.36
          • (3)  Sentencing Issues in Specific Factual Situations Involving Weapon Use
            • (a)  Victim Lacked Physical Possession of or Close Proximity to Property Stolen  10.37
            • (b)  Defendant Fired Weapon in Response to Being Followed by Victim  10.38
        • c.  Great Bodily Injury  10.39
        • d.  Gang Involvement  10.40
        • e.  Minor, Elderly, or Disabled Victims  10.41

11

Sex Crimes

Catherine Stephenson

  • I.  CHART: SEX CRIME ENHANCEMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING SCHEMES  11.1
  • II.  RULES RELATED TO ENHANCEMENTS  11.2
  • III.  ENHANCEMENTS WITH DETERMINATE SENTENCES
    • A.  Conduct-Based Enhancements  11.3
      • 1.  Fleeing to This State to Avoid Prosecution or Custody (Pen C §289.5(d))  11.4
      • 2.  Kidnapping With Intent to Commit Sex Offense (Pen C §667.8(a)–(b))  11.5
      • 3.  Young, Old, or Disabled Victims (Pen C §667.9(a)–(b))  11.6
      • 4.  Exhibiting Sexually Explicit Material to Minor During Crime of Child Molestation (Pen C §667.15)  11.7
      • 5.  Defendant Is Primary Caregiver for Minor Victim (Pen C §674)  11.8
      • 6.  Sexual Assault With Minor for Money or Other Consideration (Pen C §675)  11.9
      • 7.  Personal Use of or Arming With Firearm or Deadly Weapon (Pen C §12022.3(a)–(b))  11.10
      • 8.  “10–20–Life” Firearm-Use Enhancement (Pen C §12022.53)  11.11
      • 9.  Administration of Controlled Substance to Victim During Commission of Sex Crime (Pen C §12022.75(b))  11.12
      • 10.  Personal Infliction of Great Bodily Injury (Pen C §12022.8)  11.13
      • 11.  Sex Crime Committed by Defendant Who Has AIDS or Is HIV Positive (Pen C §12022.85)  11.14
      • 12.  Personal and Intentional Infliction of Injury Resulting in Termination of Pregnancy (Pen C §12022.9)  11.15
    • B.  Offender-Based Enhancements  11.16
      • 1.  Contacting Minor With Intent to Commit Sex Crime With Prior Conviction (Pen C §288.3(c))  11.17
      • 2.  Prior Sexual Assault Conviction (Pen C §667.6(a))  11.18
      • 3.  Prior Prison Terms for Sex Offenses (Pen C §667.6(b))  11.19
      • 4.  Prior Pen C §289 Conviction and Current Pen C §289 Crime (Pen C §667.10)  11.20
      • 5.  Prior Sex Offense and Current Pen C §288 or §288.5 Offense (Pen C §667.51(a))  11.21
  • IV.  INDETERMINATE SENTENCES  11.22
    • A.  Current Sex Offense and Two or More Convictions for Sex Offenses (Pen C §667.51(c))  11.23
    • B.  One Strike (Pen C §667.61)
      • 1.  Overview  11.24
      • 2.  Trial Considerations
        • a.  One Strike Factors Under Pen C §667.61(d)  11.25
        • b.  One Strike Factors Under Pen C §667.61(e)  11.26
      • 3.  Imposition of One Strike Penalty
        • a.  Current Law, Effective September 9, 2010  11.27
        • b.  Law Between September 20, 2006, and September 9, 2010  11.28
        • c.  Law Before September 20, 2006  11.29
    • C.  Habitual Sexual Offender (Pen C §667.71)  11.30

12

Property Loss, Money Laundering, and Fraud

Michael Begovich

  • I.  CHART: ENHANCEMENTS RELATED TO PROPERTY LOSS, MONEY LAUNDERING, AND FRAUD  12.1
  • II.  STRATEGY FOR CASES INVOLVING SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY LOSS, MONEY LAUNDERING, OR FRAUD  12.2
  • III.  ENHANCEMENT WHEN PROPERTY IS TAKEN, DAMAGED, OR DESTROYED IN COMMISSION OR ATTEMPTED COMMISSION OF FELONY (PEN C §12022.6(a))
    • A.  Terms and Elements of Enhancement  12.3
    • B.  Pleading and Proof Requirements  12.4
    • C.  Application
      • 1.  General Rules  12.5
      • 2.  Multiple Charges Arising From Common Scheme or Plan  12.6
      • 3.  Computer-Related Loss  12.7
      • 4.  Operation of Three Strikes Law  12.8
      • 5.  Operation of Pen C §654  12.9
    • D.  Authority to Dismiss, Strike, or Stay  12.10
  • IV.  MONEY LAUNDERING ENHANCEMENT (PEN C §186.10(c))
    • A.  Terms of Enhancement  12.11
    • B.  Application of Enhancement
      • 1.  General Rules  12.12
      • 2.  Multiple Charges Arising From Common Scheme or Plan  12.13
      • 3.  Application to Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering (Pen C §182)  12.14
      • 4.  Pleading and Proof Requirements  12.15
      • 5.  Operation With Three Strikes Law  12.16
      • 6.  Operation With Pen C §654  12.17
    • C.  Authority to Dismiss, Strike, or Stay  12.18
  • V.  FRAUD-RELATED ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Aggravated White-Collar Crime (Pen C §186.11(a))  12.19
    • B.  Insurance Fraud
      • 1.  Property Insurance Fraud—Prior Conviction (Pen C §548(b))  12.20
      • 2.  Unlawful Acts Related to Fraudulent Insurance Claims—Prior Conviction (Pen C §550(e)–(g))  12.21
    • C.  Workers’ Compensation Fraud
      • 1.  Fraud Related to Workers’ Compensation Claim—Prior Conviction (Ins C §1871.4(c))  12.22
      • 2.  Fraud for Purpose of Reducing Costs of Workers’ Compensation Insurance—Prior Conviction (Ins C §11760(b))  12.23
      • 3.  Fraud for Purpose of Reducing Costs of Workers’ Compensation Insurance From State Compensation Insurance Fund—Prior Conviction (Ins C §11880(b))  12.24
    • D.  Natural Disaster Fraud
      • 1.  Fraud Related to Natural Disaster Damage Repair (Pen C §667.16(a)–(b))  12.25
      • 2.  Scheme to Defraud in Connection With Natural Disaster Damage Repair (Pen C §670(c))  12.26
    • E.  Food Stamp Fraud by Electronic Transfer (Welf & I C §10980(h))  12.27
    • F.  Medi-Cal Fraud (Welf & I C §14107(d))  12.28
    • G.  Impersonation of Peace Officer (Pen C §667.17)  12.29

13

Increased Punishment for Prior Similar Offenses

Nancy Brewer

James P. Lambe

  • I.  COMMON OFFENSES FOR WHICH PUNISHMENT INCREASES WITH A SIMILAR PRIOR  13.1
  • II.  ELEMENT, ENHANCEMENT, OR ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING SCHEME?
    • A.  Concepts and Definitions  13.2
    • B.  Analysis  13.3
    • C.  Dual Use of Facts  13.4
  • III.  DOES JURY HAVE RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT PRIOR CONVICTION?  13.5
  • IV.  MUST PRIOR CONVICTION BE PLEADED AND PROVED?  13.6
  • V.  ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A VIOLATION OF PEN C §666 OR §666.5  13.7

14

Felony Committed While Released on Bail or Own Recognizance

Michael Begovich

  • I.  CHART: ENHANCEMENT FOR FELONY COMMITTED WHILE RELEASED ON BAIL OR OWN RECOGNIZANCE  14.1
  • II.  PURPOSE OF ENHANCEMENT  14.2
  • III.  DEFINITIONS
    • A.  Primary Offense  14.3
    • B.  Secondary Offense  14.4
  • IV.  CUSTODY STATUS  14.5
    • A.  Bail  14.6
    • B.  Release on Own Recognizance (OR)  14.7
    • C.  Client Introduction Letter: Communication Regarding Pen C §12022.1(b) Enhancement  14.8
  • V.  PLEADING AND PROOF REQUIREMENTS
    • A.  Overview  14.9
    • B.  Proof at Preliminary Hearing  14.10
    • C.  Proof at Trial  14.11
  • VI.  RULES GOVERNING IMPOSITION OF ENHANCEMENT
    • A.  Imposition of Enhancement Under AB 109  14.11A
    • B.  Imposition of Enhancement When Prison Sentences Imposed for Primary and Secondary Offenses (Pen C §12022.1(e))  14.12
    • C.  Imposition of Enhancement When Probation Granted for Primary Offense (Pen C §12022.1(f))  14.13
    • D.  Stay of Enhancement Pending Imposition of Sentence for Primary Offense (Pen C §12022.1(d))  14.14
    • E.  Suspension of Enhancement Pending Retrial of Primary Offense (Pen C §12022.1(g))  14.15
    • F.  Imposition of Multiple Enhancements  14.16
    • G.  Operation of Enhancement With Determination of Principal and Subordinate Terms Under Pen C §1170.1  14.17
    • H.  Operation of Enhancement With Pen C §654  14.18
    • I.  Operation of Enhancement With Three Strikes Law  14.19
    • J.  Application of Enhancement to Aiders and Abettors of Secondary Offense  14.20
    • K.  Application of Enhancement to Juveniles  14.21
    • L.  Application of Enhancement to Attempted Crimes  14.22

15

Prior Prison Commitments and Serious and Violent Felonies

Michael Ogul

  • I.  CHART: PRIOR PRISON COMMITMENTS AND SERIOUS- AND VIOLENT-FELONY ENHANCEMENTS  15.1
  • II.  USE OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS  15.2
  • III.  PROCEDURAL ISSUES
    • A.  Timing of Prior Conviction for Use as Enhancement or Strike  15.3
    • B.  Treatment of Foreign Priors and Juvenile Adjudications
      • 1.  Foreign Priors  15.4
      • 2.  Illustration: Federal Bank Robbery  15.5
      • 3.  Prior Juvenile Adjudications and Adult Court Convictions of Minors in General  15.6
    • C.  Admissions of Prior Convictions (Pen C §1025)  15.7
    • D.  Unitary or Bifurcated Trial on Prior Convictions  15.8
    • E.  Allocation of Issues Between Jury and Court  15.9
    • F.  Admissibility of Rap Sheets to Prove Prior Convictions  15.10
  • IV.  PRIOR-CONVICTION SENTENCING ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  Prior Serious-Felony Conviction (Pen C §667(a))
      • 1.  Definition of Serious Felony  15.11
      • 2.  “Separately Brought and Tried” Requirement  15.12
      • 3.  Determining Whether Prior Qualifies as Serious Felony: Record-of-Conviction Test and Constitutional Limitations  15.13
      • 4.  Documents That Qualify as Part of Record of Conviction  15.14
      • 5.  Admissible Contents of Documents That Are Part of Record of Conviction  15.15
      • 6.  Illustrations of Convictions Qualifying as Serious Felonies  15.15A
        • a.  Priors Involving Deadly Weapons  15.16
        • b.  Priors Involving Great Bodily Injury  15.17
        • c.  First-Degree Burglary  15.18
        • d.  Gang Offenses  15.19
      • 7.  Enhancement Cannot Be Stricken Pursuant to Pen C §1385  15.20
    • B.  Enhancements for Prior Sex Offense Convictions
      • 1.  Five- or 10-Year Enhancement Under Pen C §667.6  15.21
      • 2.  Requirement of Separately Served Terms  15.22
      • 3.  Court May Strike Enhancement  15.23
    • C.  Enhancements for Prior Drug Offense Convictions
      • 1.  Three-Year Enhancement Under Health & S C §11370.2  15.24
      • 2.  Dual Enhancements for Same Prior Drug Conviction  15.25
      • 3.  Prohibition on Probation Under Pen C §1203.07(a)(11)  15.26
  • V.  PRIOR-PRISON-COMMITMENT ENHANCEMENTS
    • A.  One-Year or 3-Year Enhancements (Pen C §667.5(a)–(b))  15.27
    • B.  Requirement of Prison Commitment  15.28
    • C.  Requirement of Separately Served Prison Term  15.29
    • D.  Washout Provision  15.30
    • E.  Prohibition Against Dual Enhancements for Same Prior Conviction  15.31
    • F.  Enhancement May Be Stricken Pursuant to Pen C §1385  15.32
    • G.  Operation of Prior Serious-Felony Conviction Enhancements With Prior Violent-Felony Prison-Commitment Enhancements  15.33
  • VI.  THREE STRIKES ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING PROVISION
    • A.  Strike Priors  15.34
    • B.  Determination Made on Date of Initial Sentencing  15.35
    • C.  Requirement That Prior Conviction Occurred Before Commission of Current Felony  15.36
    • D.  No Requirement That Conviction Have Been Separately Brought or Tried  15.37
    • E.  Dual Punishment Based on Single Strike Prior  15.38
    • F.  Court’s Discretion to Dismiss Pursuant to Pen C §1385  15.39
    • G.  Juvenile Adjudications as Strike Priors  15.40
    • H.  Out-of-State and Federal Convictions as Strike Priors  15.41

Selected Developments

2018 Update

Firearm enhancements. Effective January 1, 2018, Pen C §§12022.5 and 12022.53 were amended to give the court discretion to strike or dismiss firearm enhancements under Pen C §1385. This new authority extends to any resentencing that may occur under any other law. See chaps 2, 5, 10, 11.

Injury and death. Two cases came to opposite conclusions about whether the defendant personally inflicted an overdose. Compare People v Slough (2017) 11 CA5th 419 (defendant did not personally inflict overdose by selling drugs to victim) with People v Martinez (2014) 226 CA4th 1169, 1186 (defendant personally inflicted overdose by repeatedly furnishing drugs to victim while observing her increasing intoxication over course of evening). See chap 4.

Use enhancements. The burden of proof to establish that a defendant is ineligible for Proposition 36 relief is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See People v Frierson (2017) 4 C5th 225. In addition, two cases discussed how an enhancement under Pen C §12022.53 was not cruel and unusual punishment. See People v Garcia (2017) 7 CA5th 941 (15-year-old’s 35-to-life sentence for attempted murder reduced to 32-to-life); People v Phung (2017) 9 CA5th 866 (Pen C §12022.53 enhancement at juvenile abettor’s sentence was not de facto LWOP). See chap 5.

Gang subsets. In People v Lara (2017) 9 CA5th 296, the court found a sufficient “associational or organizational connection” between the Barrio Conway and Triple Six Gangsters subsets to which defendants belonged and the Norteño umbrella gang. See also People v Resendez (2017) 13 CA5th 181 (record provided “substantial, indeed compelling, evidence of collaboration, association, and direct contact among the various subsets of the East Side Bolen Parque gang”); People v Garcia (2017) 9 CA5th 364 (gang expert’s explanation of how Black P-Stones gang developed to include Bittys and Jungles subsets provided “significant evidence of an associational connection” between subsets responsible for predicate crimes and umbrella gang for whose benefit defendant committed charged offense). See chap 7.

Gangs and expert testimony. Several cases discussed the development of the admissibility of gang expert testimony following People v Sanchez (2016) 63 C4th 665. See People v Jeffrey G. (2017) 13 CA5th 501 (defendant’s “lengthy history” of rules violations and “spotty attendance at treatment programs” were case-specific facts in sexually violent predator trial); People v Ochoa (2017) 7 CA5th 575 (evidence regarding gang membership of those who committed predicate crimes was case-specific). Police reports and field identification (FI) cards have all been considered testimonial. See People v Iraheta (2017) 14 CA5th 1228 (FI cards) and People v Vega-Robles (2017) 9 CA5th 382 (suggesting that FI cards and police reports must be “sworn” and involve “completed” crimes to be testimonial). See chap 7.

Drug enhancements. Effective January 1, 2018, Health & S C §11370.2 was amended to limit the current 3-year enhancement for a prior conviction related to the sale or manufacture of specified controlled substances to prior convictions of Health & S C §11380 (use of a minor as agent). Previously, the enhancement was imposed for any of an additional 10 prior convictions of enumerated trafficking offenses. The California Supreme Court has granted review in People v Maita (review granted Jan. 25, 2016, S230957; superseded opinion (Oct. 19, 2015, C074872) at 2015 Cal App Unpub Lexis 7506) to decide whether a Health & S C §11370.2 enhancement can be imposed for a prior conviction of Health & S C §11379. See chaps 8, 15.

Preplea diversion and DUI. Effective August 7, 2017, Pen C §1001.80(l) provides for preplea diversion for those charged with misdemeanor DUI offenses eligible for preplea diversion. Section 1001.80(l) “does not limit the authority of the Department of Motor Vehicles to take administrative action concerning the driving privileges of a person arrested for a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 of the Vehicle Code.” See chap 9.

Kidnapping. In People v Ledesma (2017) 14 CA5th 830, the court held that language in Pen C §§209 and 667.61 concerning the movement of a victim and an increased risk of harm is not unconstitutionally vague. Removing someone from public view does not necessarily satisfy the requirement that the risk of harm to a victim is increased. See People v Williams (2017) 7 CA5th 644 (robbers moved victims into other rooms within location). See chap 10.

Property loss, money laundering, or fraud. In People v Avignone (2017) 16 CA5th 1233, the court of appeal found that the defendants were given an unauthorized sentence under Pen C §1170(f). They had been charged with securities fraud and grand theft involving a real estate investment scheme. The trial court gave an indicated sentence that included striking, under Pen C §1385(c)(1), the white collar enhancements imposed under Pen C §186.11(a)(2). See chap 12.

Prior similar offenses. In People v Wilford (2017) 12 CA5th 827, the court held that Pen C §273.5(f) should have been pleaded in the information to give the defendant notice that he could be subject to the higher sentencing range; it was not enough to allege a conviction of a qualifying offense within the previous 7 years. The prosecutor had sought the increased sentence only after the jury returned its verdict and the court found true a qualifying prior conviction. In this context, the court concluded, it was “inconsequential whether [Pen C §273.5(f)] is labeled an enhancement, alternative sentencing scheme, or a sentencing statute.” 12 CA5th at 840. See chap 13.

Record of conviction test. In People v Gallardo (2017) 4 C5th 120, the California Supreme Court overruled People v McGee (2006) 38 C4th 682 and held that, in light of Descamps v U.S. (2013) 570 US ___, 133 S Ct 2276, and Mathis v U.S. (2016) 579 US ___, 136 S Ct 2243, the Sixth Amendment prohibits the current sentencing court from increasing defendant’s punishment based on a prior conviction as a result of its finding that the prior conviction involved certain conduct unless that conduct was necessarily found to be true by the jury or admitted by the defendant in pleading guilty to the previous charge. See chap 15.

Prison priors. When the prosecution alleges a prior serious felony conviction as a strike (Pen C §§667(c) and (e)(1), 1170.12(c)(1)) and a prison prior (Pen C §667.5(b)), but not as a five-year enhancement (Pen C §667(a)), the prosecution is deemed to have exercised its discretion not to charge defendant with the five-year prior, and the five-year enhancement cannot be imposed on defendant even if he admits the serious felony prior conviction. See People v Nguyen (2017) 18 CA5th 260. See chap 15.

About the Authors

Michael Begovich, Esq., B.A., 1981, University of California, Davis; J.D., 1985, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Mr. Begovich is the Deputy Director of the Office of Assigned Counsel for San Diego County and an adjunct professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. He worked for over 20 years as a San Diego County Deputy Public Defender and is the past Chair of the State Bar of California Criminal Law Section Executive Committee. Mr. Begovich is the update author of Chapter 29, “Jury Selection,” in California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice (Cal CEB) and in California Criminal Law Forms Manual (2d ed Cal CEB). He is also the author of Chapter 3, “Preparing and Presenting Expert Testimony on Scientific Evidence,” in Scientific Evidence in California Criminal Cases (Cal CEB) and additional articles related to jury selection and trial practice. Mr. Begovich has an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell and received the 2009 “Spirit of CEB” Award for his selfless sharing of information for the betterment of the legal profession. He is the author of “Property Loss, Money Laundering, and Fraud” and “Felony Committed While Released on Bail or Own Recognizance” (see chaps 12 and 14, respectively).

William R. Bennett, Esq., B.A., 2002, University of California, Berkeley; J.D., 2006, Santa Clara University School of Law. Mr. Bennett is a criminal defense attorney in San Jose. Mr. Bennett is the coauthor with the Hon. Philip Pennypacker of “Sentencing Overview” and “Enhancements Overview” (see chaps 1 and 2, respectively). Mr. Bennett wishes to thank Mr. Yoni Frankel, law student at Santa Clara University School of Law, for his contributions to the original research on chaps 1 and 2.

Hon. Matthew C. Braner was appointed San Diego Superior Court Judge in 2014. He previously served as the Supervisor of the Appeals and Writs Unit in the San Diego Primary Public Defender’s Office from 1998–2014 and as an adjunct professor at California Western School of Law beginning in 2002. Before that, Judge Braner worked as a trial deputy in San Diego and San Bernardino counties. He received his B.A. in 1981 from the University of California, Berkeley, and his J.D. in 1985 from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Judge Braner coauthored the 2006 revision and is the update author of Chapter 37, “Felony Sentencing,” in California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice (Cal CEB). He is the author of “DUI” (see chap 9).

Nancy Brewer, Esq., B.S., 1978, California State University, Fresno; J.D., 1981, Santa Clara University School of Law. Ms. Brewer is an Assistant Public Defender for Santa Clara County and has been an attorney in that office since 1982. Ms. Brewer is a member of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the California Public Defenders Association, and the National Legal Aid & Defender Association. She has a special interest in felony sentencing, Fourth Amendment violations, and speedy trial issues. She has been the author of Chapter 19, “Right to Speedy Trial,” in California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice (Cal CEB) since the first edition. She is the author of “Injury and Death” and “Increased Punishment for Prior Similar Offenses” (see chaps 4 and 13, respectively).

Robyn L. Chew, Esq., B.A., 1985, University of California, Davis; J.D., 1989, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Ms. Chew is an Alternate Public Defender in Los Angeles County. She is an advisor and past Chair of the California State Bar Criminal Law Executive Committee and a regular volunteer and board member of Reading to Kids, a nonprofit organization dedicated to inspiring children by instilling in them a love of reading. Ms. Chew is the coauthor with Steven I. Katz of “Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons,” “Other Instruments of Injury or Death,” and “Kidnapping, Robbery, and Carjacking” (see chaps 5, 6, and 10, respectively).

Ronald J. Freitas, Esq., B.S., 1984, California Polytechnic State University (San Luis Obispo); J.D., 1988, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. Mr. Freitas is the Assistant District Attorney of the Homicide and Gang Division for San Joaquin County. He is a co-chairperson of the California District Attorneys Association, Gang Violence Committee, and the Technical Advisor of the CDAA’s Gang Symposium. Mr. Freitas is the author of “Gangs” (see chap 7).

Steven I. Katz, Esq., B.A. cum laude, 1985, University of California, Berkeley; J.D., 1989, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. Mr. Katz is the Head Deputy of the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. He is also an advisor to the Executive Committee of the Criminal Law Section of the State Bar of California. Mr. Katz is the coauthor, with Robyn L. Chew, of “Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons,” “Other Instruments of Injury or Death,” and “Kidnapping, Robbery, and Carjacking” (see chaps 5, 6, and 10, respectively).

Michael Ogul, Esq., B.A., 1977, University of Southern California; J.D., 1980, University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Mr. Ogul is a deputy public defender in the Santa Clara County Public Defender Office and has been a public defender throughout his career. He is the author of “Prior Prison Commitments and Serious and Violent Felonies” (see chap 15).

Hon. Philip Pennypacker, B.A. with honors, 1969, University of California, Santa Barbara; J.D., 1972, Santa Clara University School of Law. Judge Pennypacker is the supervising judge of the criminal courts for Santa Clara County. He is also an adjunct faculty member of Lincoln Law School and Santa Clara University School of Law. He has taught at the Stanford Law School’s Trial Advocacy Institute for approximately 10 years. Judge Pennypacker formerly was a deputy public defender and acting public defender for Santa Clara County. As the Conflicts Administrator for Santa Clara County from 1980 to 1986, he established the court-appointed program for indigent defendants at the trial level. He also established the Sixth District Appellate Project in 1984, which coordinated the appointment of counsel in that district. Judge Pennypacker is a past president of the Santa Clara County Bar Association and Santa Clara County Bar Foundation. He is a current member of the State Bar of California Criminal Law Section Executive Committee and the California Judges Association. Judge Pennypacker is the coauthor with William R. Bennett of “Sentencing Overview” and “Enhancements Overview” (see chaps 1 and 2, respectively). Judge Pennypacker and his coauthor, William R. Bennett, wish to thank Mr. Yoni Frankel, law student at Santa Clara University School of Law, for his contributions to the research on their chapters.

Hon. Kenneth L. Shapero, B.S., 1974, University of California, Berkeley; J.D., 1977, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. Judge Shapero is a judge of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. He is a former deputy public defender with the Santa Clara County Public Defender Office. Judge Shapero is the author of “Victims” and “Drugs” (see chaps 3 and 8, respectively).

Catherine Stephenson, Esq., B.S., California State University, San Diego; J.D., 1983, University of San Diego School of Law. In 1984, Ms. Stephenson joined the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office and served there as a career prosecutor for the next 25 years. She prosecuted felony child abuse, sexual assault, and murder cases for most of those years. She is the former Chief of the Family Protection, Central Pretrial, and Appellate Divisions. Ms. Stephenson has taught charging and sentencing in sexual assault cases for the California District Attorneys Association for 20 years. She retired from the District Attorney’s Office in 2008 and continues to teach for CDAA, the National District Attorneys Association, and the paralegal program at the University of San Diego. She is the author of “Sex Crimes” (see chap 11).

About the 2018 Update Authors

Michael Begovich, Esq., updated chaps 12 and 14; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

William R. Bennett, Esq., updated chaps 1 and 2; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

Hon. Matthew C. Braner updated chap 9; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

Robyn L. Chew, Esq., updated chaps 5, 6, and 10; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

Charles Denton, Esq., J.D., 1983, University of California, Davis, School of Law. He is a Deputy Public Defender with the Alameda County Public Defenders Office, where he has practiced for more than 28 years. He has tried cases from drunk driving to the death penalty. He is the co-author of Criminal Defense Jury Instructions (Knowles Publishing) and was one of the original authors of California Criminal Law Procedure and Practice (Cal CEB). He has been a lecturer with the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law for the past 15 years. He updated chap 7.

Ronald J. Freitas, Esq., updated chap 7; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

Steven I. Katz, Esq., updated chaps 5, 6, and 10; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

James P. Lambe, A.B., 1974, University of Michigan; J.D., 1977, University of Illinois. Before entering private practice, Mr. Lambe spent 28 years with the Fresno County Public Defender’s Office, where he was a Senior Defense Attorney. He is a Certified Specialist in both Criminal Law and Criminal Trial Advocacy. A Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, he is listed in Who’s Who in American Law and Who’s Who in America. In 2006, he became the first public defender from the San Joaquin Valley to be listed in Super Lawyers. He has served on the State Bar of California Criminal Law Advisory Commission, the State Bar of California Criminal Law Section Executive Committee, and the Board of Governors of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. He updated chaps 4 and 13.

Michael Ogul, Esq., updated chap 15; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

Hon. Kenneth L. Shapero updated chaps 3 and 8; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

Catherine Stephenson, Esq., updated chap 11; see biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

Rachel Thomas, Esq., B.S., 2002, University of Utah; J.D., 2006, University of San Francisco School of Law. Ms. Thomas is a criminal attorney in the Bay Area. During law school, she served as extern to the Honorable Chief Justice Ronald George (Ret.) of the California Supreme Court. She is a former research attorney in the criminal division of Santa Clara County Superior Court and a former deputy district attorney at the Contra Costa County and Santa Clara County District Attorneys’ Offices. Ms. Thomas developed and taught the course, “Know Your Rights: The U.S. Constitution, Individual Liberties, and Governmental Power,” through Stanford Continuing Studies. Ms. Thomas updated chaps 1 and 2. Ms. Thomas wishes to thank the Hon. Philip Pennypacker for his original authorship on chaps 1 and 2.

OnLAW System Requirements:
Desktop: Windows XP, 7 or 8, Mac OS 10.8
Mobile: iOS6, iOS7, Android 4.2
Firefox, Chrome, IE and Safari browsers

Note: OnLAW may work with some devices running older versions of these Operating Systems or Windows RT; however, functionality is not guaranteed.

Please see FAQs for more details.
Products specifications
PRODUCT GROUP Publication
PRACTICE AREA Criminal Law
Products specifications
PRODUCT GROUP Publication
PRACTICE AREA Criminal Law