State Supremes Clear Cunningham Backlog

The post-Cunningham  house cleaning has begun in earnest.

Earlier today, the state Supreme Court took a closer look at 265 cases to see whether they were affected by Cunningham v. California, 127 S.Ct. 856, in which the nation’s highest court on Jan. 22 threw out California’s determinate sentencing law.

After all was said and done, the California Supreme Court announced it had dismissed review in 145 cases in which the state appellate courts had affirmed the defendant’s sentence. The court determined that the sentence in those cases would have been the same under its July 19 ruling in People v. Black, 41 Cal.4th 799 — one of two opinions aimed at bringing California’s sentencing law into Cunningham compliance.

In Cunningham, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is violated when a sentence is increased beyond the norm based on factors decided by a judge rather than a jury.

In Black, the state Supreme Court responded by saying that this right isn’t violated when the only issue involves consecutive terms, or if at least one aggravating factor has been established by jurors.

In the companion case of People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 — issued the same day as Black — the court ruled, in part, that a sentence can be upheld as long as the violation of a right to jury trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Today, the state court dismissed review in another 11 cases they felt had been resolved on grounds not affected by Black and Sandoval.

However, the court transferred 75 cases back to the appellate courts for reconsideration. In those cases, the courts of appeal had either ordered resentencing in light of Cunningham or had denied relief to the defendants even though there appears to be a Sixth Amendment violation under Black and Sandoval.

“The latter category,” the court said today, “includes cases in which the trial court imposed the upper term, but did not cite any aggravating circumstance based upon the defendant’s recidivism, defendant’s admissions or the jury’s findings.”

Twenty-two cases were held by the court, pending its decision in People v. Towne, S125677, which hasn’t yet been argued.

“Towne will address whether the exception to the federal Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial … applies to other recidivism-related aggravating circumstances,” the court said.

Finally, another 12 cases — involving guilty and nolo contendere pleas, as well as some forfeiture issues — were held until the court resolves those matters in People v. French, S148845. Now, have you got that all straight?

—  Mike McKee