Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 770

524US2

Unit: $U98

[09-06-00 19:40:38] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 721 (1998)

725

Opinion of the Court

sonally used a dangerous or deadly weapon during the as-
§§ 1192.7(c)(8) and (23). According to California law,
sault.
a number of procedural safeguards surround the assessment
of prior conviction allegations: Defendants may invoke the
right to a jury trial, the right to confront witnesses, and the
privilege against self-incrimination; the prosecution must
prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt; and the
rules of evidence apply. See, e. g., 16 Cal. 4th 826, 833–834,
941 P. 2d 1121, 1126 (1997).

Here, petitioner waived his right to a jury trial on the
sentencing issues, and the court granted his motion to bifur-
cate the proceedings. After a jury entered a guilty verdict
on the substantive offenses, the truth of the prior conviction
allegations was argued before the court. The prosecutor as-
serted that petitioner had personally used a stick in commit-
ting the assault, see Tr. 189–190 (June 12, 1995), App. 12, but
introduced into evidence only a prison record demonstrating
that petitioner had been convicted of assault with a deadly
weapon and had served a prison term for the offense, see
People’s Exh. 1 (ﬁled June 12, 1995), App. 3–6. The trial
court found both sentencing allegations true and imposed an
11-year term of imprisonment: 5 years on count one, doubled
to 10 under the three-strikes law, and a 1-year enhancement
for the prior prison term. The court also stayed a 3-year
sentence on count 2 and ordered the 2-year sentence on count
3 to be served concurrently.

Petitioner appealed, and the California Court of Appeal,
on its own motion, requested brieﬁng as to whether sufﬁcient
evidence supported the ﬁnding that petitioner had a qualify-
ing prior conviction. The State conceded that the record of
the sentencing proceedings did not contain proof beyond a
reasonable doubt that petitioner had personally inﬂicted
great bodily injury or used a deadly weapon, but requested
another opportunity to prove the allegations on remand.
See Respondent’s Supplemental Brief (Cal. App.), pp. 2–3,
App. 33–35. The court, however, determined both that the