Summary
Companion cases before the California Supreme Court involving criminals who received upper-term sentences under the state’s determinant sentencing law. The law had allowed a trial judge to sentence criminals to one of a range of three terms (such as 2, 4, or 6 years), based upon mitigating or aggravating factors related to the crime or the defendant. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Cunningham v. California, that aggravating factors used to make a defendant eligible for the upper term must be found by a jury, rather than the judge. The state Supreme Court is reviewing these two cases to determine the extent that the Cunningham decision disrupts California sentencing. Joel Hernandez and Aida Sandoval were both convicted of felonies and sentenced to upper terms. Hernandez had a number of prior felonies, which the judge considered during sentencing for reckless driving and evading a police officer. Sandoval did not have priors, but the judge gave her an upper term and required her to serve her sentences consecutively, after considering the particularly cold-blooded nature of the circumstances of her crimes of voluntary manslaughter which left two people dead and her attempt to kill a third victim. CJLF argues that the Cunningham decision does allow judges to base an upper-term sentence upon a defendant’s prior convictions and require that multiple sentences be served consecutively. Further, once a single aggravating factor has been properly found, the judge may find and consider additional factors in deciding whether to impose the upper term. In deciding Sandoval's case and another case, the California Supreme Court agreed with each of the major points of CJLF's brief. Hernandez's case is still pending. [CJLF brief in PDF.]
