Title
Title
Rules and Forms | Criminal Procedure: Revisions to Felony Sentencing Rules (Action Required)
body
Summary
Summary
Recent case law has addressed the circumstances under which a trial court may rely on aggravating factors to justify the imposition of an upper term sentence in the context of a felony prosecution. The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends amending two rules of the California Rules of Court to reflect this case law as well as to clarify the scope of the trial court’s discretion when imposing an upper term sentence.
body
Recommendation
Recommendation
The Criminal Law Advisory Committee recommends that the Judicial Council, effective January 1, 2027:
Amend rule 4.420 of the California Rules of Court to:
Clarify that even when an aggravating factor has been properly pled and proved, the court has the discretion to determine what weight, if any, the aggravating factor merits;
Update the advisory committee comment to (1) specify that the above amendment is based on existing statutory and decisional authority and is not intended to expand or limit the scope of the court’s discretion in sentencing, and (2) clarify that consideration of the fact of a defendant’s prior conviction under subdivision (c) is limited to consideration of the bare fact of the prior conviction as described in People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069; and
Make technical amendments to the advisory committee comment to address minor, nonsubstantive errors; and
Amend rule 4.421 to:
Update the advisory committee comment to (1) clarify that although Lovelace v. Superior Court (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1081 prohibits courts from relying on the residual clause in subdivision (c) to justify the imposition of an upper term sentence, the residual clause may still be relied upon to justify the imposition of a middle term sentence or in making other discretionary decisions, and (2) clarify that consideration of the fact of a defendant’s prior conviction is limited to considerati...
Click here for full text