People v. Hatfield CA3

DISCUSSION

Prior to January 1, 2022, section 1170, subdivision (b) stated: “When a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies three possible terms, the choice of the appropriate term shall rest within the sound discretion of the court.” (Stats. 2020, ch. 29, § 14.) However, the Legislature amended section 1170 via Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) to now require a trial court, in its sound discretion, to impose the lower or middle term, unless there are “circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.” (§ 1170, subd. (b)(2).) “[T]he court may consider the defendant’s prior

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466. Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296.

3 convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.” (§ 1170, subd. (b)(3).) On appeal, Hatfield contends that the trial court erred…