The Jury and Not The Judge Will Decide What Your Sentence Will Be If You Are Convicted of Most Felonies – Penal Code Section 1170

One crucial aspect of felony cases is determining whether “aggravating factors” exist, which can significantly increase your prison sentence if convicted. Under California Penal Code Section 1170, it’s not a judge but a jury that must decide on these aggravating factors. Let’s explore how this process works and why it matters to you if you’ve been accused of a felony crime.

Our experienced criminal defense attorneys can guide you through the legal process. Call Wallin & Klarich today toll-free at (877) 466-5245 for your free consultation with our experienced attorneys.

Understanding Aggravating Factors

What Are Aggravating Factors?

Aggravating factors are specific circumstances or details about a crime that can lead to harsher penalties. These factors may include the crime’s severity, the defendant’s criminal history, or whether the crime involved particular cruelty or vulnerability of the victim. Knowing what qualifies as an aggravating factor is essential for anyone facing felony charges.

Why Aggravating Factors Matter

Aggravating factors can turn a standard sentence into a significantly longer and more severe one. In California, most felony crimes offer three possible prison terms: the mitigated term, the aggravated term, and the mid-range term. If the court finds neither mitigating nor aggravating factors in your case, you will receive the mid-range term unless granted probation. The goal is to persuade the court that mitigating factors in your case outweigh the aggravating ones. Success in this effort could result in a reduced prison sentence.

Deciding on Aggravating Factors

Traditionally, judges determined whether aggravating factors existed in a case. However, a significant change in the law now requires that a jury, not a judge, make this decision. This shift ensures that a group of your peers evaluates the evidence, potentially offering a fairer assessment.

The Role of the Jury in Determining Aggravating Factors

Legal Basis Under Penal Code Section 1170

California Penal Code Section 1170 mandates that a jury must decide if the prosecutor has proven aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. This requirement aligns with the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to a jury trial in criminal cases. By involving a jury, the law aims to provide a more balanced and democratic process.

Jury Decision Making 

During trial, if a jury concludes that the defendant is guilty of a felony, the prosecutor will introduce evidence to demonstrate the presence of aggravating factors—circumstances that may increase the severity of the sentence. The defense has the opportunity to contest this evidence and argue that the felony jury trial should consider the “mitigated term,” or a reduced sentence, due to mitigating factors, which are conditions that might lessen the sentence’s severity.

The jury then deliberates to determine whether the aggravating factors surpass the mitigating factors or vice versa. If the jury finds that neither set of factors outweighs the other, the court is required to impose the “mid-range sentence,” which is a standard sentencing option when neither aggravating nor mitigating factors predominate.

Importance of Jury Deliberation

Jury deliberation is a critical part of ensuring fairness in the justice system. Unlike a single judge, a jury brings diverse perspectives and experiences to the table. This collective decision-making process can lead to more equitable outcomes, especially in complex cases involving aggravating factors.

People v. Lynch

Background of the Case

One notable case that highlights the importance of jury decisions on aggravating factors is People v. Lynch. In this case, the defendant was accused of domestic violence with several potential aggravating factors. The jury did not find the aggravating factors proven beyond a reasonable doubt, nor did they identify mitigating factors. As a result, the court concluded with the “mid-range term” of incarceration for the defendant, given that probation was not granted.

Understanding Your Rights

The case of People v. Lynch underscores a critical legal principle: a court cannot impose aggravated prison terms based solely on a list of aggravated factors outlined in the Judicial Council Rule (JCR) unless these factors are validated by a jury’s finding. This assertion rests on the constitutional requirement that a defendant’s rights to a fair trial and due process must be safeguarded throughout legal proceedings. In this case, if the jury did not find the alleged aggravated factors to be true—such as the defendant’s prior criminal history or any allegations of malice—they cannot be determined by the judge to influence the sentencing outcome. This protective measure ensures that the jury remains the fundamental arbiter of facts critical to sentencing, and it reinforces the notion that any enhancement of a sentence based on specified factors mandates a jury’s adjudication, thereby preventing judges from unilaterally imposing harsher penalties without the jury’s consensus.

If you are facing felony charges, it’s crucial to understand your rights regarding aggravating factors. Knowing that a jury, not a judge, will decide on these factors can shape your defense strategy. Your attorney can help you prepare to challenge the prosecution’s evidence and present a compelling counter-narrative.

Sentencing Options and Their Implications

At the outset, it is crucial to understand the three different sentences that the court may impose based on the jury’s verdict and the balance between mitigating and aggravating factors. The sentences typically range from the lowest term, middle term, to the highest aggravated term, dictated by the findings of the jury in relation to these factors.

Highest Sentence

The highest sentence is reserved for cases where the jury finds substantial aggravating factors as proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This could include a history of prior convictions, the severity of the crime, or any demonstrated malice on part of the defendant. In this scenario, the judge must impose the most stringent penalty available, underscoring the significance of the jury’s role in assessing these factors.

Mid-Range Term Sentence

The mid-range term sentence serves as a balanced approach when neither aggravating nor mitigating factors predominantly sway the jury’s decision. This sentence is applied when the circumstances align closely with the typical features of the offense as outlined by legal guidelines, without any significant deviation that would warrant the highest or lowest terms. The judge, guided by the jury’s neutral assessment of the case, opts for this intermediate sentence acknowledging both the presence of aggravating elements and the recognition of mitigating factors. This sentencing option underscores the court’s commitment to fairness and objectivity, ensuring that the punishment appropriately matches the nature of the crime without extreme leniency or severity.

Lowest Sentence

Conversely, if the jury acknowledges significant mitigating factors—such as a lack of prior criminal history, evidence of remorse, or external pressures leading to the defendant’s actions—the defendant may be eligible for the lowest sentence. This reduction reflects a legal system that recognizes rehabilitation potential and external influences that warrant leniency.

Understanding Sentencing Parameters

When probation is off the table, understanding these sentencing parameters based on the interplay of aggravating and mitigating factors is critical. If aggravating factors predominate, the defendant faces the harshest possible outcome, emphasizing the weight of evidence and trial strategy. Thus, effectively presenting mitigating factors is vital, as it can sway the balance towards a more lenient sentence, reinforcing why your defense strategy must robustly address both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. This comprehensive understanding ensures a fair trial process and can significantly influence the sentencing outcome, highlighting the pivotal role of a thorough defense.

Importance of Legal Representation

Facing a felony charge is undoubtedly a stressful and challenging experience. Collaborating with experienced legal counsel can significantly influence the outcome by ensuring that both aggravating and mitigating factors are effectively presented. Legal representation empowers you to navigate the complexities of the felony jury trial process and advocate for a just sentence, aiming for fairness in the face of serious charges. Working with a skilled attorney can provide clarity and confidence during this uncertain time, ultimately striving for an equitable resolution in the search for justice.

Contact Wallin and Klarich Today

If you face potential aggravating factors for your case you will want to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney who can answer all of your questions. Going to court without a lawyer is never a wise decision if your goal is for the court to rule in your favor in matters related to aggravated factors. Our law firm, Wallin & Klarich, has over 40+ years of experience with helping thousands of clients achieve a favorable outcome for their situation.

We offer a free phone consultation. Our legal fees are reasonable and in most cases, we offer a convenient payment plan. Calling our office costs you nothing, but picking up the phone could be the difference between years in prison and years of freedom. Wallin and Klarich is ready to assist with offices in Irvine, Tustin, Pasadena, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Torrance, Victorville, West Covina, and Anaheim.

Discover how our team can assist you. Contact us today, toll-free at (877) 466-5245 for a free phone consultation with one of our skilled criminal defense lawyers.