McGee

Numerous California statutes subject a defendant who is convicted of a criminal offense to increased punishment if he or she previously was convicted of another offense. In determining whether a defendant is subject to increased punishment on the basis of a prior conviction, it sometimes is necessary to examine the record of the earlier proceeding to determine whether it involves the type of qualifying prior conviction that authorizes increased punishment under the applicable sentencing statute. In view of the unusual and somewhat specialized nature of the inquiry that must be conducted for this purpose—an examination that is strictly limited to a review and interpretation of documents that are part of the record of the prior criminal proceeding—our decisions establish that under California law it is the court, rather than the jury, that is entrusted with the responsibility of undertaking this inquiry and making the determination. (See, e.g., People v. Wiley (1995) 9 Cal.4th 580, 586-592 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 347 , 889 P.2d 541 ] (Wiley); People v. Kelii (1999) 21 Cal.4th 452, 455-159 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 , 981 P.2d 518 ] (Kelii); People v. Epps (2001) 25 Cal.4th 19, 23-28 […

In Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [ 147 L.Ed.2d 435 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 ] (Apprendi), the United States Supreme Court held that, as a general rule, the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution require that the existence of any fact increasing a defendant’s sentence beyond the “statutory maximum” be determined by the *710 jury, based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 490 .) The high court acknowledged there might be a narrow exception to this rule when the prosecution seeks to prove the “fact of a prior conviction” (ibid.), but the court also considered it “arguable” that its decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 224 [ 140 L.Ed.2d 350 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 ] (Almendarez-Torres), the origin of this exception, was “incorrectly decided” (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 489 ).

Because in Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466 , the high court itself has cast doubt on the continuing vitality of the “fact of a prior conviction” exception to the jury trial requirement, this court should construe it narrowly. Instead, the majority reads it broadly, applying it to this case even though the Apprendi court’s…

Numerous California statutes subject a defendant who is convicted of a criminal offense to increased punishment if he or she previously was convicted of another offense. In determining whether a defendant is subject to increased punishment on the basis of a prior conviction, it sometimes is necessary to examine the record of the earlier proceeding to determine whether it involves the type of qualifying prior conviction that authorizes increased punishment under the applicable sentencing statute. In view of the unusual and somewhat specialized nature of the inquiry that must be conducted for this purpose — an examination that is strictly limited to a review and interpretation of documents that are part of the record of the prior criminal proceeding — our decisions establish that under California law it is the court, rather than the jury, that is entrusted with the responsibility of undertaking this inquiry and making the determination. (See, e.g., People v. Wiley (1995) 9 Cal.4th 580, 586-592 , 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 347 , 889 P.2d 541 ( Wiley ); People v. Kelii (1999) 21 Cal.4th 452, 455-459 , 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 , 981 P.2d 518 ( Kelii ); People v. Epps (2001) 25 Cal.4th 19,…