Title: P. v. McGee
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S123474
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: May 22, 2006

1 
Filed 5/22/06 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
THE PEOPLE,  
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S123474 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 1/5 A097749 
JAMES COREY McGEE, 
) 
 
) 
San Mateo County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. SC049252A 
___________________________________ ) 
 
 
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 (Wiley); People v. Kelii 
(1999) 21 Cal.4th 452, 455-459 (Kelii); People v. Epps (2001) 25 Cal.4th 19, 23-
28 (Epps).)   
2 
 
The issue presented in the case before us is whether, notwithstanding the 
foregoing rule established under California law, a criminal defendant has a right 
under the federal Constitution to have a jury, rather than the court, examine the 
record of the prior criminal proceeding to determine whether the earlier conviction 
subjects the defendant to an increased sentence when that conviction does not 
itself establish on its face whether or not the conviction constitutes a qualifying 
prior conviction for purposes of the applicable sentencing statute.  The Court of 
Appeal held that the federal Constitution grants a criminal defendant the right to 
have a jury make such a determination, interpreting the United States Supreme 
Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 (Apprendi) as 
compelling that conclusion.  Although the Court of Appeal recognized that 
Apprendi involved a statute providing for increased punishment on the basis of a 
factual circumstance related to the current offense (rather than on the basis of a 
prior conviction), and further that the decision in Apprendi, in setting forth its 
holding, specifically stated that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any 
fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory 
maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt” 
(Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 490, italics added), the Court of Appeal 
concluded that the exception in Apprendi relating to prior convictions is a narrow 
one and does not apply to the circumstances presented here.  We granted review to 
consider the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal.   
 
As we shall explain, we read the United States Supreme Court’s decisions 
that we cite and discuss as authority for our conclusion that defendant’s federal 
constitutional right to a jury trial was not implicated in the proceedings below.  
Unless and until the high court directs otherwise, we shall assume that the 
precedents from that court and ours support a conclusion that sentencing 
proceedings such as those conducted below do not violate a defendant’s 
3 
constitutional right to a jury trial.  Although we recognize the possibility that the 
high court may extend the scope of the Apprendi decision in the manner suggested 
by the Court of Appeal, we are reluctant, in the absence of a more definitive ruling 
on this point by the United States Supreme Court, to overturn the current 
California statutory provisions and judicial precedent that assign to the trial court 
the role of examining the record of a prior criminal proceeding to determine 
whether the ensuing conviction constitutes a qualifying prior conviction under the 
applicable California sentencing statute.  Such a function is a task for which a 
judge is particularly well suited and is quite different from the type of factual 
inquiry —assessing the credibility of witnesses or the probative value of 
demonstrative evidence — ordinarily entrusted to a jury.  Because of these 
considerations, we are not prepared to assume that the high court will interpret the 
federal constitutional right to a jury trial as requiring a state to assign this function 
to a jury.   
 
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court in the present case did not 
violate defendant’s rights by examining the record of the robbery convictions 
previously sustained by defendant in Nevada and by concluding that each of these 
offenses constituted a conviction of a “serious felony” for purposes of the 
applicable California sentencing statute.  Although the Court of Appeal reached a 
contrary conclusion, finding that the trial court’s action violated defendant’s right 
to a jury trial, the appellate court further concluded that, under the circumstances 
of the present case, the federal constitutional error that it believed had occurred 
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  For that reason, the court upheld the 
increased sentence imposed by the trial court on the basis of the prior Nevada 
convictions.  Because we conclude that no federal constitutional error occurred, 
we affirm the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal, upholding the sentence 
imposed by the trial court.   
4 
I 
As relevant here, the facts are briefly summarized as follows.  On 
January 11, 2001, Aaron Kelly, Leonardo Lopez, and Matty Ibarra were sitting in 
a parked car in East Palo Alto.  There was a knock on the window.  Lopez opened 
the door.  A man wielding a shotgun demanded money.  Lopez gave him $200.  
Within approximately one minute, Kelly and Lopez heard a shot.  Lopez saw the 
robber drive off in a red car.   
On January 22, 2001, Lopez and Serafin Andrade were in Lopez’s front 
yard when they heard a gunshot.  Lopez recognized the robber’s red car as it drove 
by.  Within a few minutes, the red car stopped close by, and the driver fired upon 
Lopez and Andrade.  Lopez was hit by a shotgun pellet and suffered a minor cut.  
Lopez and Andrade fled.   
Defendant ultimately was arrested and charged with a variety of crimes and 
sentence enhancements in connection with the foregoing incidents.1   
The relevant charging document further alleged that (1) defendant had been 
convicted of robbery in Nevada in 1988 and again in 1994, and of selling a 
controlled substance in California in 1989, (2) all three prior convictions were 
                                              
1   
An amended information charged defendant with two counts of attempted 
murder with premeditation (Pen. Code, §§  187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a); unless 
otherwise indicated, subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code); two 
counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)); two counts of possession of a 
firearm by a convicted felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)); one count of unlawful 
possession of ammunition (§ 12316, subd. (b)(1)); one count of robbery (§§ 211, 
212.5, subd.(c), 213, subd. (a)(2)); two counts of attempted robbery (§§ 211, 
212.5, subd.(c); 213, subd. (b)); two counts of witness intimidation (§ 136.1, subd. 
(c)(1)); and two counts of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle at another 
person (§ 12034, subd. (c)).  The amended information also alleged several 
firearm-use enhancements (former § 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)) and firearm-discharge 
enhancements (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)).   
5 
felonies (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)), (3) each of the Nevada robbery convictions was a 
serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a “strike” under California’s “Three Strikes” 
law (§ 1170.12), and (4) the 1994 Nevada robbery conviction resulted in a prior 
prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).   
Defendant moved to bifurcate trial of the charged offenses from the trial of 
the prior conviction allegations. 
A jury found defendant not guilty of attempted murder, but convicted him 
of the remaining charges.   
Defendant requested a jury trial on the prior conviction allegations.  The 
parties agreed that the elements of robbery under Nevada law differed in two 
respects from the elements of that offense under California law.  First, under 
Nevada law, robbery requires only general criminal intent (Litteral v. State (Nev. 
1981) 634 P.2d 1226, 1227-1229, disapproved on another point in Talancon v. 
State (Nev. 1986) 721 P.2d 764, 769), whereas under California law, robbery 
requires a specific criminal intent to permanently deprive another person of 
property (see, e.g., People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 52).  Second, under 
Nevada law, a taking accomplished by fear of future injury to the person or 
property of anyone in the company of the victim at the time of the offense qualifies 
as robbery (Nev. Rev. Stat., § 200.380), whereas under California law such a 
taking does not (§ 212).2   
                                              
2  
Under the California robbery statute, when the prosecution seeks to 
establish the “fear” element of robbery by reference to the fear sustained by a 
person who was in the company of the victim at the time of the robbery (other than 
a relative of the victim), the fear must be “of an immediate and unlawful injury to 
the person or property” of the other person, as contrasted with Nevada’s provision 
encompassing fear of future injury to the other person or his or her property.  
(§ 212, par. 2, italics added.)   
6 
In view of the foregoing distinctions between the elements of robbery under 
California law and those under Nevada law, it was at least theoretically possible 
that defendant’s Nevada convictions involved conduct that would not constitute 
robbery under California law.  Thus the parties agreed that inquiry into the record 
of the Nevada convictions was required in order to determine whether each 
constituted a qualifying felony for purposes of the relevant California sentencing 
statutes.  (See §§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 667.5, subd. (c)(9), 1170.12, subd. (b)(12), 
1192.7, subd. (c)(19); People v. Avery, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 53; People v. 
Hamilton (1996) 14 Cal.4th 101, 109.)   
Defendant contended he had a federal constitutional right to have the jury 
make this determination.  The trial court rejected defendant’s position, reserving to 
itself the question of the legal sufficiency of defendant’s Nevada robbery 
convictions and ruling that it would determine whether defendant was the person 
convicted in the Nevada cases and whether the Nevada convictions qualified as 
strikes under California law.   
With regard to the 1988 Nevada case, the prosecution introduced various 
documents, including the transcript of the preliminary hearing in that proceeding.  
This transcript included the testimony of the victim, Delmar D. Foust, reflecting 
that while waiting with his brother and two friends at a Reno bus station near 
midnight, he encountered defendant, who “threatened us and he [defendant] took 
my money.”  Asked what other actions defendant took, Foust testified he observed 
defendant “slapping another guy and saying that’s what will happen if anybody 
tells on him.”  Defendant demanded money from Foust, who gave him two dollars.  
Asked why he gave defendant the money, Foust testified:  “Because I was afraid 
7 
of being beat up.”  At the hearing at which he entered his plea of guilty, defendant 
admitted having committed the robbery.3 
With regard to the 1994 Nevada case, the prosecution introduced various 
documents, including the transcript of the preliminary hearing in that proceeding.  
This transcript included the testimony of the victim, Ian T. Baker, who described 
defendant asking him for money.  Baker offered defendant some change.  
Defendant, who was accompanied by another individual, replied, “No, we want 
money.”  Baker refused to further comply.  Defendant then struck him, causing 
him to fall.  Baker then gave defendant his wallet, and defendant took $120 from 
it, as well as Baker’s portable tape player.  The transcript of the proceedings 
reflects that defendant was asked in open court whether he took personal property 
from Baker against Baker’s will, and that defendant admitted having done so; in a 
written plea form, defendant acknowledged “willfully and unlawfully [having 
                                              
3  
The transcript of these proceedings includes the following colloquy (italics 
added):   
 
“The court:  ‘The elements of the offense are as follows: [t]hat you did on 
or about January 15, 1988, within Washoe County, Nevada, willfully and 
unlawfully take personal property, that being money, from the person of Delmar 
Foust, at the City Fare Bus transfer area in Washoe County, Nevada; that you did 
this against his will, and by means of fear or immediate or future injury to his 
person.  Do you understand that that is the charge against you?’ 
 
“Defendant:  ‘Yes.’ 
 
“The court:  ‘Is that in fact what you did?’ 
 
“Defendant:  ‘Yes.’ 
 
“The court:  ‘Did you force Mr. Foust to give you money?’ 
 
“Defendant:  ‘Yes.’ 
 
“The court:  ‘Did you do that by means of fear of immediate or future 
injury to him?  Did you make him afraid of what would happen if he did not give 
you money?’ 
 
“Defendant:  ‘Yes.’ ”  
8 
taken] personal property . . . from the person of Ian T. Baker . . . against his will 
and by means of force or violence.”  
After examining the record of the Nevada judicial proceedings, the trial 
court determined that defendant was the person convicted in each of the Nevada 
cases and that each of the Nevada convictions satisfied the elements of robbery 
under California law.  
The trial court thereafter submitted to the jury the narrow question whether 
defendant was, in fact, the person who had suffered the prior convictions.  The 
jury found the prior conviction allegations true. 
The trial court subsequently considered the Nevada robbery convictions as 
serious felonies or “strikes” in sentencing defendant to a prison term of 90 years to 
life.   
 
On appeal, defendant reiterated his contention that he had a federal 
constitutional right to have a jury, rather than the trial court, determine whether 
each of his Nevada robbery convictions constituted a qualifying serious felony 
conviction for purposes of California’s Three Strikes law.  Defendant did not 
dispute that the threshold comparison of the foreign jurisdiction’s law with 
California law is a question for the judge, but contended that when, as here, the 
elements of the foreign law differ from the elements of the California law so that 
the determination whether the foreign conviction constitutes a qualifying 
conviction for purposes of the relevant California sentencing statute cannot be 
made on the basis of the face of the foreign conviction itself, a defendant has the 
constitutional right to have a jury, rather than the court, examine the record of the 
criminal proceedings of the foreign conviction to determine whether that 
conviction constitutes a qualifying conviction for purposes of California law.   
 
The People challenged defendant’s framing of the issue as one involving a 
finding of fact that plausibly could be brought within Apprendi’s reach, instead 
9 
contending that the question presented by this case is whether the nature of a prior 
conviction is demonstrated by an examination of the documentary record of the 
conviction, a task more appropriately suited for a judge.   
 
The Court of Appeal agreed with defendant’s contention, concluding that 
the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi supported defendant’s 
position regarding the scope of the right to a jury trial under the federal 
Constitution.  The Court of Appeal’s conclusion reflected a view of Apprendi 
different from that set forth by another Court of Appeal in the earlier decision in 
People v. Thomas (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 212, 222-223 (Thomas) [rejecting the 
defendant’s argument that Apprendi conferred upon him the right to have a jury 
determine the truth of prior-prison-term allegations, and instead interpreting 
Apprendi narrowly to conclude  that a defendant has no federal constitutional right 
to a jury trial on factual issues related to recidivism].)  The Court of Appeal in the 
present case further determined, however, that the constitutional error in question 
was subject to harmless error review under the standard set forth in Chapman v. 
California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, and that, in light of the facts reflected in the record 
of defendant’s 1988 and 1984 Nevada robbery convictions, the denial of a jury 
trial with respect to such convictions was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.   
 
Both parties sought review of the Court of Appeal’s decision.  We granted 
the People’s petition to consider whether the appellate court properly concluded 
that, under circumstances such as those existing in the present case, the federal 
Constitution precludes a state from having a judge, rather than a jury, examine the 
record of a prior criminal conviction to determine whether that conviction 
constitutes a qualifying prior conviction that subjects the defendant to increased 
punishment under one of California’s applicable sentencing statutes.   
10 
II 
 
“To qualify as a serious felony, a conviction from another jurisdiction must 
involve conduct that would qualify as a serious felony in California.”  (People v. 
Avery, supra, 27 Cal.4th 49, 53; see also §§ 667, subd. (d)(2), 1170.12, subd. 
(b)(2).)  As we previously have emphasized, however, “[b]ecause the nature of the 
conviction is at issue, the prosecution is not allowed to go outside the record of 
conviction to ‘relitigat[e] the circumstances of a crime committed years ago 
. . . .’ ”  (People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448, 459, quoting People v. 
Guerrero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 343, 355.)  Instead, the relevant inquiry in deciding 
whether a particular prior conviction qualifies as a serious felony for California 
sentencing purposes is limited to an examination of the record of the prior criminal 
proceeding to determine the nature or basis of the crime of which the defendant 
was convicted.  (People v. Woodell, supra, 17 Cal.4th at pp. 454-461; People v. 
Myers (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1193, 1198-1201; see also People v. Guerrero, supra, 44 
Cal.3d at p. 355 [“To allow the trier of fact to look to the entire record of the 
conviction is certainly reasonable:  it promotes the efficient administration of 
justice and, specifically, furthers the evident intent of the people in establishing an 
enhancement . . . that refers to conduct, not a specific crime.  To allow the trier of 
fact to look at the record of conviction ― but no further ― is also fair:  it 
effectively bars the prosecution from relitigating the circumstances of a crime 
committed years ago and thereby threatening the defendant with harm akin to 
double jeopardy and denial of a speedy trial.”].)4   
                                              
4  
In People v. Guerrero, supra, 44 Cal.3d 343, we were “not called upon to 
resolve such questions as what items in the record of conviction are admissible 
. . . ” and therefore declined to address the issue.  (Id. at p. 356, fn. 1.)  Nor is that 
issue presented here; as is typically the case, the record of defendant’s prior 
robbery convictions does not contain conflicting documentary proof. 
11 
 
The question presented here is whether the Court of Appeal properly 
concluded the federal Constitution affords a defendant a right to have a jury, rather 
than the court, examine the record of a prior criminal proceeding to determine 
whether a conviction constitutes a qualifying serious felony conviction within the 
meaning of the relevant California sentencing statute. 
In their briefing in this court, the People contend that a criminal defendant 
has no federal constitutional right to a jury trial on factual circumstances and 
conduct underlying a prior conviction used to enhance punishment.  In support of 
their position, the People argue that the Court of Appeal misconstrued the high 
court’s decision in Apprendi.  Specifically, the People assert:  “The fundamental 
distinction Apprendi draws is between sentence enhancements based on facts 
related to the commission of the current offense, such as the hate-crime 
enhancement at issue in that case, as to which a defendant has a federal 
constitutional right to a jury trial, and sentence enhancements based on facts 
related to defendant’s recidivism, such as those at issue in the instant case, as to 
which a defendant has no such right.”  Echoing the position of the Court of 
Appeal, defendant contends in response that he has a “Sixth Amendment right to a 
jury determination on whether his Nevada conduct amounted to a serious felony.” 
In order to better understand the parties’ respective positions, we first 
review the relevant California judicial decisions and statutory provisions that 
preceded Apprendi and remain pertinent here, and then consider whether  
Apprendi mandates a revision of the governing California law. 
A.  Wiley 
 
In Wiley, supra, 9 Cal.4th 580, 585, the statutory enhancement provision at 
issue imposed an additional five-year term of imprisonment for each prior serious 
felony conviction sustained by the defendant “on charges brought and tried 
separately” (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and the question before the court was whether, 
12 
under the relevant statutory and constitutional provisions, the determination 
whether the defendant’s prior convictions had been “brought and tried separately” 
was to be made by the jury or by the court.  In addressing that issue, we turned 
first to the relevant statutory provisions, sections 1025 and 1158, observing:  
“Section 1025 provides that if a defendant denies having suffered an alleged prior 
conviction, ‘the question whether or not he has suffered such previous conviction 
must be tried by the jury which tries the issue upon the plea of not guilty . . . .’  
Similarly, section 1158 states that if a defendant is found guilty of an offense 
charged in an accusatory pleading that also alleges that the defendant suffered a 
prior conviction, ‘the jury, or the judge if a jury is waived, must . . . find whether 
or not he has suffered such previous conviction.’  By their terms, sections 1025 
and 1158 grant a defendant the right to have the jury determine only whether he or 
she ‘suffered’ the alleged prior conviction, and not whether multiple prior 
convictions were separately brought and tried.”  (Wiley, supra, at p. 589.) 
In Wiley, we went on to conclude that the “question whether the charges 
leading to these two prior convictions had been ‘brought and tried separately’ 
within the meaning of section 667(a)(1) properly was a matter for the court, 
because that question is largely legal in nature. . . .  Although there are, of course, 
some underlying ‘facts’ that are relevant to the determination as to whether 
charges have been ‘brought and tried separately,’ such as the filing of charges 
either in a single complaint or multiple complaints, such facts generally are 
readily ascertainable upon an examination of court documents.  This is the type of 
inquiry traditionally performed by judges as part of the sentencing function.”  
(Wiley, supra, 9 Cal.4th 580, 590, italics added.)   
B.  Kelii 
In Kelii, supra, 21 Cal.4th 452, we considered whether the court or the jury 
was the appropriate entity to determine whether a prior felony conviction qualified 
13 
as a “serious felony” for purposes of the Three Strikes law.  (§§ 667, subd. (d)(1), 
1170.12, subd. (b)(1).)  Kelii involved a defendant who was convicted by a jury of 
two counts of second degree burglary and two counts of grand theft.  The jury 
subsequently found that the defendant previously had suffered three convictions of 
burglary and one of attempted burglary.  The trial court determined that the prior 
convictions were of first degree or attempted first degree burglary and that they 
therefore were residential and qualified as serious felonies.  The court sentenced 
the defendant to state prison for 25 years to life.  On appeal, the defendant 
contended that the jury, not the court, should have determined whether his prior 
convictions qualified as serious felonies.  (Kelii, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 454.)   
In rejecting the defendant’s position in Kelii, we relied heavily upon our 
decision in Wiley, supra, 9 Cal.4th 580, in holding as follows:  “Determining 
whether a prior conviction qualifies as a strike under the Three Strikes law is also 
the type of inquiry that judges traditionally perform as part of the sentencing 
function.  Often this determination is purely legal with no factual content 
whatever.  The Three Strikes law defines a strike as, among other things, ‘any 
offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 as a serious felony in this 
state.’  (§§ 667, subd. (d)(1), 1170.12, subd. (b)(1).)  Section 1192.7, subdivision 
(c), lists some felonies that are per se serious felonies, such as murder, mayhem, 
rape, arson, robbery, kidnapping, and carjacking.  If a defendant’s prior conviction 
falls into this group, and the elements of the offense have not changed since the 
time of that conviction, then the question whether that conviction qualifies as a 
serious felony is entirely legal.   
“Sometimes the determination does have a factual content, just as the 
question whether convictions were brought and tried separately has a factual 
content.  As we explained in [People v.] Woodell [supra, 17 Cal.4th 448], 
‘Sometimes the definition of the qualifying prior conviction is not completely 
14 
congruent with the definition of the crime of which the defendant has been 
convicted.  For example, in [People v. Guerrero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 343], the 
alleged prior conviction was for a “ ‘burglary of a residence.’ ”  (People 
v. Guerrero, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 346 [quoting Pen. Code, former § 1192.7, 
subd. (c)(18)].)  The statutory use of the phrase, “burglary of a residence,” posed a 
problem because “there is no offense specifically so defined in the Penal Code.”  
(Guerrero, supra, at p. 346.)  A particular burglary conviction might or might not 
have involved a residence.’  (People v. Woodell, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 452.) 
“But these factual questions are of limited scope.  In determining whether a 
prior conviction is serious, ‘the trier of fact may look to the entire record of the 
conviction’ but ‘no further.’  (People v. Guerrero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 343, 355, 
original italics.)  Thus, no witnesses testify about the facts of the prior crimes.  The 
trier of fact considers only court documents.  It is true that sometimes the trier of 
fact must draw inferences from transcripts of testimony or other parts of the prior 
conviction record.  (See, e.g., People v. Reed (1996) 13 Cal.4th 217, 220.)  But the 
factual inquiry, limited to examining court documents, is not significantly different 
from the one we considered in Wiley.  ‘[S]uch facts generally are readily 
ascertainable upon an examination of court documents.  This is the type of inquiry 
traditionally performed by judges as part of the sentencing function.’  (Wiley, 
supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 590.)  Accordingly, the statutory right to have a jury decide 
whether the defendant ‘has suffered’ (§§ 1025, 1158) the prior conviction does not 
include the inquiry whether the conviction qualifies as a strike.”  (Kelii, supra, 21 
Cal.4th at pp. 456-457, first italics added.) 
In so holding, we rejected the defendant’s position that an amendment to 
section 1025 had removed from the jury the question of his identity as the person 
who suffered the prior conviction while leaving all remaining factual 
determinations for the jury:  “The new section 1025, subdivision (b), is 
15 
substantially identical to the relevant portion of the previous version of section 
1025.  Only subdivision (c) is new.  That subdivision clearly narrows, rather than 
expands, the jury’s role.  It does not overrule Wiley’s interpretation of section 
1025 or expand the jury’s role beyond determining whether the defendant ‘has 
suffered’ the prior conviction.  The passage of this narrowing legislation soon after 
we narrowly interpreted the same statute strongly suggests legislative approval of 
our interpretation.”  (Kelii, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 457.)5 
In view of our decision in Wiley, and the Legislature’s response thereto (as 
discussed in Kelii), we are convinced that there has been a clear expression of 
legislative intent that a jury play a very limited role in determining prior offense 
allegations and that a court, not a jury, examine records of prior convictions to 
determine whether the conviction alleged qualifies as a conviction under the 
applicable sentence-enhancement provision.   
C.  Apprendi 
 
One year after we filed our decision in Kelii, supra, 21 Cal.4th 452, the 
United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 
466.  Defendant contends the Court of Appeal below correctly determined that in 
the wake of Apprendi, he was entitled to have a jury decide whether each of his 
                                              
5  
Having observed that the legislative history of the amendment to section 
1025 was “inconclusive,” we added that “[n]othing in the legislative history 
suggests the Legislature desired to expand the jury role in questions of prior 
convictions or to overrule Wiley.  To the contrary, the bill’s express purpose was 
to reduce significantly the number of jury trials on prior conviction allegations.  
The final statutory language appears to have been a compromise, limiting the bill’s 
reach to eliminate jury trials only on the issue of identity and to leave the law 
otherwise unchanged.  The Legislature seemed to want to leave other issues, such 
as those of Wiley and this case, for judicial decision.  Thus, if the former version 
of section 1025 did not grant a jury trial on these issues ― and we conclude it did 
not ― the current version also does not.”  (Kelii, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 458.)   
16 
Nevada robbery convictions was based upon conduct constituting robbery under 
California law and thus was considered a “serious felony” for the purpose of 
sentencing under California’s Three Strikes law.  The People respond that 
Apprendi did not address the question presented here, and that the high court has 
not extended its holding in Apprendi to require a state to assign to a jury, rather 
than to a court, the task of examining the record of a prior conviction to determine 
whether the conviction constitutes a qualifying conviction for the purposes of the 
various sentence enhancement statutes.   
In Apprendi, the high court was confronted with a state statute that 
classified the possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose as a “second-
degree” offense, punishable by imprisonment for “between five years and 10 
years.”  (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466, at p. 468.)  A separate statute, described 
by the New Jersey Supreme Court as a “ ‘hate crime’ law,” provided for an 
“ ‘extended term’ of imprisonment” of “between 10 and 20 years” if the trial 
court, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, determined that “ ‘[t]he 
defendant in committing the crime acted with a purpose to intimidate an individual 
or group of individuals because of race, color, gender, handicap, religion, sexual 
orientation or ethnicity.’ ”  (Id. at pp. 468-469.)  The question presented was 
“whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a 
factual determination authorizing an increase in the maximum prison sentence for 
an offense from 10 to 20 years be made by a jury on the basis of proof beyond a 
reasonable doubt.”  (Id. at p. 469.)  Significantly, Apprendi did not involve a prior 
offense enhancement.   
Apprendi arose out of an incident in which the defendant fired several 
bullets into the home of an African-American family that had moved into a 
previously all-white neighborhood.  (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466, 469.)  The 
defendant was arrested, made a statement to the police (later retracted) that 
17 
suggested a racial motivation for the incident, was charged with a number of 
offenses, and eventually pleaded guilty to certain offenses as part of a plea 
agreement.  (Id. at pp. 469-470.)  The trial court thereafter held an evidentiary 
hearing on the issue of the defendant’s “purpose” in committing the shooting.  The 
defense presented evidence from a psychologist and several character witnesses 
who testified that defendant did not have a reputation for racial bias.  (Id. at 
pp. 470-471.)  The defendant also testified, “explaining that the incident was an 
unintended consequence of overindulgence in alcohol, denying that he was in any 
way biased against African-Americans, and denying that his statement to the 
police had been accurately described.”  (Id. at p. 471.)  The trial court, however, 
finding the police officer’s testimony credible, concluded that the evidence 
supported a finding “ ‘that the crime was motivated by racial bias.’ ”  (Ibid.)  
Having found “ ‘by a preponderance of the evidence’ ” that the defendant’s 
actions were made “ ‘with a purpose to intimidate,’ ” as specified by the 
applicable state statute, the trial court concluded that the hate-crime enhancement 
applied.  (Ibid.)  The New Jersey appellate courts affirmed.  (Id. at pp. 471-474.) 
In reversing the judgment rendered by the New Jersey Supreme Court, the 
United States Supreme Court observed:  “At stake in this case are constitutional 
protections of surpassing importance: the proscription of any deprivation of liberty 
without ‘due process of law,’ [as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment], and 
the guarantee that ‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right 
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury’ [as provided by the Sixth 
Amendment].  Taken together, these rights indisputably entitle a criminal 
defendant to ‘a jury determination that [he] is guilty of every element of the crime 
with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”  (Apprendi, supra, 530 
U.S. 466, 476-477, fn. omitted.)  Notably, the high court’s framing of the issue in 
18 
Apprendi was confined to the elements of the charged offense ― not, as here, to 
the adjudication of aspects of the defendant’s criminal past.   
Reviewing “[t]he historic link between verdict and judgment and the 
consistent limitation on judges’ discretion to operate within the limits of the legal 
penalties provided,” the court in Apprendi noted “the novelty of a legislative 
scheme that removes the jury from the determination of a fact that, if found, 
exposes the criminal defendant to a penalty exceeding the maximum he would 
receive if punished according to the facts reflected in the jury verdict alone.”  
(Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466, 482-483, original italics omitted, italics added, fn. 
omitted.)  Here again, the high court’s focus on the jury’s verdict indicates quite 
clearly that the court was addressing itself to issues that pertained to the charged 
offense, not to issues involving the defendant’s previously adjudicated criminal 
conduct.   
The court in Apprendi continued:  “We do not suggest that trial practices 
cannot change in the course of centuries and still remain true to the principles that 
emerged from the Framers’ fears ‘that the jury right could be lost not only by 
gross denial, but by erosion.’  [Citation.]  But practice must at least adhere to the 
basic principles undergirding the requirements of trying to a jury all facts 
necessary to constitute a statutory offense, and proving those facts beyond 
reasonable doubt. As we made clear in [In re] Winship [(1970) 397 U.S. 358, 363], 
the ‘reasonable doubt’ requirement ‘has [a] vital role in our criminal procedure for 
cogent reasons.’  [Citation.]  Prosecution subjects the criminal defendant both to 
‘the possibility that he may lose his liberty upon conviction and . . . the certainty 
that he would be stigmatized by the conviction.’  [Citation.]  We thus require this, 
among other, procedural protections in order to ‘provid[e] concrete substance for 
the presumption of innocence,’ and to reduce the risk of imposing such 
deprivations erroneously.  [Citation.]  If a defendant faces punishment beyond that 
19 
provided by statute when an offense is committed under certain circumstances but 
not others, it is obvious that both the loss of liberty and the stigma attaching to the 
offense are heightened; it necessarily follows that the defendant should not ― at 
the moment the State is put to proof of those circumstances ― be deprived of 
protections that have, until that point, unquestionably attached.”  (Apprendi, supra, 
530 U.S. 466, 483-484, italics added, fn. omitted.)   
In a passage that bears directly upon the case before us, the court in 
Apprendi summarized its decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 
523 U.S. 224 (Almendarez-Torres).  In Almendarez-Torres, the court considered a 
federal grand jury indictment that charged the petitioner with having been found in 
the United States after having been deported, in violation of 8 United States Code, 
section 1326(a); the offense carried a maximum sentence of two years’ 
imprisonment.  (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466, 487.)  The petitioner pleaded 
guilty to the indictment, admitting that his “earlier deportation had taken place 
‘pursuant to’ three earlier ‘convictions’ for aggravated felonies.”  (Ibid.)  The 
prosecution thereafter filed a presentence report “indicating that Almendarez-
Torres’ offense fell within the bounds of § 1326(b) because, as specified in that 
provision, his original deportation had been subsequent to an aggravated felony 
conviction; accordingly, Almendarez-Torres could be subject to a sentence of up 
to 20 years.”  (Ibid.)  The petitioner objected.  In rejecting that objection, the high 
court observed:  “Because Almendarez-Torres had admitted the three earlier 
convictions for aggravated felonies ― all of which had been entered pursuant to 
proceedings with substantial safeguards of their own ― no question regarding the 
right to a jury trial or the standard of proof that would apply to a contested issue of 
fact was before the Court. . . .  More important, . . . our conclusion in Almendarez-
Torres turned heavily upon the fact that the additional sentence to which the 
20 
defendant was subject was ‘the prior commission of a serious crime.’ ”  (Id. at 
p. 488, italics omitted.)6   
The high court in Apprendi summarized the rationale upon which it had 
relied in Almendarez-Torres, making clear that it was the defendant’s recidivist 
conduct in that case that distinguished it from Apprendi.  The court further 
explained in Apprendi that recidivism was distinguishable from other matters 
employed to enhance punishment, because (1) recidivism traditionally has been 
used by sentencing courts to increase the length of an offender’s sentence, 
(2) recidivism does not relate to the commission of the charged offense, and 
(3) prior convictions result from proceedings that include substantial protections.  
(Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466, 487-488, citing Jones v. United States (1999) 526 
U.S. 227 and Almendarez-Torres, supra, 523 U.S. 224; see also Monge v. 
California (1998) 524 U.S. 721, 728 [the question whether the defendant’s prior 
conviction for assault with a deadly weapon involved personal use was a 
sentencing determination that fell within the Almendarez-Torres exception for 
recidivist behavior and therefore was not subject to double jeopardy protections]; 
People v. Seel (2004) 34 Cal.4th 535, 548 [“The high court has made clear that 
recidivism is different for constitutional purposes.”].)   
Furthermore, although the court in Apprendi acknowledged that the 
decision in  Almendarez-Torres could be viewed as inconsistent with the logic of 
                                              
6  
Like the petitioner in Almendarez-Torres, defendant here admitted his 
involvement in the Nevada crimes pursuant to plea agreements entered into shortly 
after he committed those offenses.  The pleas were entered “pursuant to 
proceedings with substantial safeguards of their own.”  (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 
466, 488.)  Furthermore, as was the case in Almendarez-Torres, the additional 
sentence challenged by defendant in the present case stems directly from “the 
prior commission of . . . serious crime[s],” not from the commission of his current 
offense.  (Ibid.) 
21 
the court’s broad reasoning in Apprendi, the court in the latter case explicitly 
declined to overrule its decision in Almendarez-Torres, instead preserving “the 
case as a narrow exception” to the general rule that “ ‘any fact (other than prior 
conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an 
indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”  
(Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 476.) 
Accordingly, although the decision in Apprendi noted that tension existed 
between the rationale of its decision and the established rule permitting a court, 
rather than a jury, to determine sentence enhancements that are based upon a 
defendant’s prior convictions, the high court in that decision did not purport to 
overrule the prior case law pertaining to recidivist sentencing provisions.7 
D.  Epps 
Shortly after the high court filed its decision in Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 
466, this court had an opportunity to consider the implications of that decision.  In 
Epps, supra, 25 Cal.4th 19, an information charged the defendant with various 
criminal offenses and alleged a prior serious felony conviction for sentence 
enhancement purposes and the Three Strikes law.  The trial court bifurcated the 
trial of the prior conviction allegations from the trial of the substantive offenses.  
After the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, the trial court dismissed the 
jury over the defendant’s objection and held a bench trial on the prior conviction 
                                              
7  
More recently, in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, and United 
States v. Booker (2005) ___ U.S. ___ [125 S.Ct. 738], the high court applied 
Apprendi in a variety of circumstances, but neither Blakely nor Booker specifically 
involved a sentencing provision that authorized an increase in punishment based 
solely upon a prior conviction or convictions, and neither decision purported to 
interpret or apply the Almendarez-Torres exception.  Accordingly, in our view, 
neither Blakely nor Booker sheds any additional light on the issue before us here.   
22 
allegations, finding those allegations true.  (Id. at p. 22.)  The defendant appealed, 
arguing that section 1025 entitled him to a jury trial on the prior conviction 
allegations.  The Court of Appeal agreed with the defendant and reversed the 
judgment and remanded.   
We granted the Attorney General’s petition for review to consider whether 
the 1997 amendment to section 1025, which prescribed that “the question of 
whether the defendant is the person who has suffered the prior conviction shall be 
tried by the court without a jury[,]” in effect “eliminated the right to a jury trial of 
prior conviction allegations, and if not, whether the erroneous denial of a jury trial 
in this context is subject to harmless error analysis on appeal.”  (Epps, supra, 25 
Cal.4th 19, 21.) 
Relying upon our decisions in Wiley, supra, 9 Cal.4th 580, and Kelii, supra, 
21 Cal.4th 452, we held in Epps, supra, 25 Cal.4th 19, 21 that “the amendment did 
not completely eliminate the right to a jury trial, but it considerably narrowed the 
issues that the jury must decide” to “the question of authenticity, accuracy, or 
sufficiency of prior conviction records” (id. at p. 27), and that the “denial of this 
very limited right to a jury trial is subject to harmless error analysis.”  (Id. at p 21.) 
In responding to an argument raised by an amicus curiae in Epps that 
“Apprendi gives defendants a right to have a jury decide whether a prior 
conviction is a serious felony for purposes of the [T]hree [S]trikes law,” we 
observed:  “Apprendi . . . reaffirms that defendants have no right to a jury trial of 
‘the fact of a prior conviction,’ [citation], and here, at least, only the bare fact of 
the prior conviction was at issue . . . .  We do not now decide how Apprendi would 
apply were we faced with a situation like that at issue in Kelii, where some fact 
needed to be proved regarding the circumstances of the prior conviction ⎯ such as 
whether a prior burglary was residential ⎯ in order to establish that the conviction 
is a serious felony.”  (Epps, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 28.)   
23 
 
E.  Decisions of the California Courts of Appeal 
 
In the period since the high court handed down its decision in Apprendi, a 
number of decisions rendered by our intermediate appellate courts have addressed, 
in a variety of contexts, the claim that a defendant who faces a potential increase 
in sentence on the basis of a prior conviction is entitled, in light of Apprendi, to 
have a jury rather than the court decide one or more issues related to the prior 
conviction.  As we shall explain, these earlier Court of Appeal decisions followed 
an approach to Apprendi somewhat different from that taken by the Court of 
Appeal in the present case.   
 
In Thomas, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 212, the defendant faced an increased 
sentence under section 667.5 based on allegations that he had served two prior 
prison terms.  At trial, defense counsel purported to waive the defendant’s right to 
a jury trial on the prior-prison-term allegations, but the defendant did not 
personally waive a jury trial on those allegations.  The trial court found that the 
defendant had served two prior prison terms and imposed an increased sentence on 
the basis of those enhancements.  After the defendant was sentenced, the United 
States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Apprendi, and on appeal the 
defendant in Thomas argued that he was denied a jury trial on the prior-prison-
term allegations in violation of Apprendi, because the trial court failed to obtain 
his express personal waiver of that right.  The defendant in Thomas relied upon the 
following language in Apprendi:  “ ‘Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any 
fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory 
maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”  
(Thomas, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 216.) 
 
The Court of Appeal in Thomas rejected the defendant’s claim.  Citing a 
number of authorities from other jurisdictions, that court observed:  “[O]ther 
courts have construed Apprendi as requiring a jury trial except as to matters 
24 
relating to ‘recidivism.’  Courts have not described Apprendi as requiring jury 
trials on matters other than the precise ‘fact’ of a prior conviction.  Rather, courts 
have held that no jury trial right exists on matters involving the more broadly 
framed issue of ‘recidivism.’  [Citations.]”  (Thomas, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 212, 
221.)  Concurring in these decisions, the court in Thomas concluded that “[i]n 
terms of recidivism findings that enhance a sentence and are unrelated to the 
elements of a crime, Almendarez-Torres is the controlling due process authority. 
. . .  Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres.  The language . . . in Apprendi, 
‘[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction,’ refers broadly to recidivism 
enhancements which include section 667.5 prior prison term allegations.”  (Id. at 
pp. 222-223.)  Finally, the court in Thomas observed that the evidence in that case 
consisted of documents that demonstrated, without dispute, that the defendant on 
two separate occasions had been sentenced to and had completed prison terms.  
(Id. at p. 223.) 
 
In People v. Belmares (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 19 (Belmares), the 
defendant’s sentence similarly was increased under section 667.5 on the basis of 
two prior prison terms, and on appeal the defendant contended he had a 
constitutional right to a jury trial on the issue whether he was the person whose 
name appeared on the section 969b packet admitted into evidence to establish the 
allegations that he had served prior prison terms.8  Relying upon our decision in 
Epps, supra, 25 Cal.4th 19, the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s position, 
observing:  “ ‘The right, if any, to a jury trial of prior conviction allegations 
derives from sections 1025 and 1158, not from the state or federal Constitution.  
                                              
8  
Section 969b permits the prosecution to prove that a defendant served a 
prior prison term by introducing into evidence a packet of certified prison records.   
25 
[Citations.]’ ”  (Belmares, supra, at p. 27, fns. omitted.)  The Court of Appeal 
further observed that “[c]ase law sets out the procedure for the court to find and 
instruct on [the issue] of identity . . . .”  (Id. at p. 28, italics added.)  In light of 
these state law mandates, the Court of Appeal concluded that the defendant had no 
constitutional right to a jury trial on the question of his identity as the person 
identified in the section 969b packet.  (Ibid; see also People v. Garcia (2003) 107 
Cal.App.4th 1159 (Garcia) [same].) 
 
Although acknowledging the foregoing appellate court decisions, the Court 
of Appeal in the present case disagreed with their broad interpretation of the 
Almendarez-Torres exception as encompassing all questions relating to 
recidivism, and instead suggested that the exception should be interpreted 
narrowly:  “[W]e conclude that the Almendarez-Torres exception to Apprendi is 
confined to determinations about the past legal consequences of a defendant’s 
conduct, such as whether his conduct has given rise to a conviction or prison term, 
and does not extend to determinations about the conduct itself, such as the intent 
with which a defendant acted.”  Reasoning that the question whether defendant 
was subject to an increased sentence on the basis of the prior Nevada robbery 
convictions required a factual finding as to whether his conduct at the time he 
committed the prior offense satisfied the elements of the California robbery 
statute, the Court of Appeal concluded that this was the type of factual issue on 
which defendant had a right to a jury trial under Apprendi.  In so holding, the 
Court of Appeal distinguished Thomas, Belmares, and Garcia as involving only 
“factual issues related to the legal consequences [a recidivist] had suffered as a 
result of past criminal conduct, not whether that conduct was criminal in the first 
place.”   
 
As we shall explain in the discussion that follows, we believe the Court of 
Appeal erred in framing the issue as one calling for a finding of fact regarding 
26 
defendant’s conduct at the time he committed the prior offense.  Instead, we 
believe it is more accurate to characterize the inquiry that is required under 
California law as a legal determination of the nature of defendant’s prior 
convictions as established by the record of the prior criminal proceedings. 
 
F.  The Appropriate Inquiries to be Made 
 
As the foregoing discussion suggests, resolution of the issue presented in 
this case involves two related inquiries:  (1) the breadth or scope of the so-called 
Almendarez-Torres exception applicable to an increase in sentence based upon a 
defendant’s recidivism, and (2) the specific nature of the inquiry that is required to 
be made under California law in this matter.  We address each of these inquiries in 
turn. 
 
 
1.  The Scope of the Exception:  Other Jurisdictions 
With regard to the first inquiry ― the scope of the Almendarez-Torres 
exception ― we note that, as the Thomas decision recognized, numerous out-of-
state decisions have interpreted the Almendarez-Torres exception more broadly 
than did the Court of Appeal in the present case.   
In State v. Dixon (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div. 2001) 787 A.2d 211, for example, 
the court held there is no right to a jury trial where “[t]he required fact-finding 
does not relate to the present offense or its elements.”  (Id. at p. 221, italics 
added.)  In that case, after a jury convicted the defendant of various charges, the 
trial court sentenced him under a repeat offender statute.  The court rejected the 
defendant’s argument that he had a right to have a jury determine the existence of 
the factors that increased his sentence.  “In short, we read Apprendi as leaving to 
the judge, consistent with due process, the task of finding not only the mere fact of 
previous convictions but other related issues as well.  Judges frequently must 
make factual determinations for sentencing, so it is hardly anomalous to require 
27 
that they also determine the ‘who, what, when and where’ of a prior conviction. 
[Citation.]”  (Ibid., italics added.) 
 
In Wright v. State (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2001) 780 So.2d 216, the defendant 
asserted that a statute permitting the trial court to determine the fact of his prior 
conviction and whether the conviction was “for a qualified offense committed 
within five years” was unconstitutional.  The court disagreed and held that even in 
the wake of Apprendi, the defendant had no right to have a jury decide these 
issues.   
 
In People v. Hill (Ill.App.Ct. 2003) 803 N.E.2d 138, the court considered 
whether the state’s mandatory recidivist sentencing provision was unconstitutional 
under Apprendi.  The court held that there is no right to a jury trial on facts 
relating to recidivism, including “the fact of the timing, degree, number and 
sequence of defendant’s prior convictions,” or on his age for purpose of 
enhancement under the recidivist sentencing statute.  (Id. at p. 150.)  The court 
also relied upon its previous decision in People v. Lathon (Ill.App.Ct. 2000) 740 
N.E.2d 377, noting that decision’s extensive review of Apprendi and Almendarez-
Torres:  “Lathon looked at Apprendi’s review of Almendarez-Torres and 
determined that the Apprendi Court not only endorsed the recidivism exception, 
but articulated reasons for such an exception, including the fact that procedural 
safeguards enhance the validity of any prior conviction, recidivism is not an 
essential element of the underlying criminal offense[,] and recidivism does not 
relate to the commission of the underlying offense.”  (Hill, at p. 150.)   
 
In State v. Stewart (Md. 2002) 791 A.2d 143, the defendant was convicted 
of possession and distribution of crack cocaine and was sentenced to 10 years in 
prison after the trial court determined that he had served a prior prison term.  (Id. 
at p. 144.)  The defendant argued that he had a right to a jury trial on the prior-
prison-term issue and to have the prosecution prove that matter beyond a 
28 
reasonable doubt.  (Ibid.)  The Maryland Court of Appeals disagreed:  “[I]n light 
of the language in Apprendi suggesting that sentencing courts traditionally 
consider matters related to recidivism [citation], courts have found that the 
Almendarez-Torres exception to the right to a jury trial is not limited solely to 
prior convictions.”  (Id. at p. 151.)  The court further observed in Stewart:  “[T]he 
Almendarez-Torres exception covers questions related to recidivism, not merely 
the fact of prior conviction.  Appellee’s previous term of incarceration, like prior 
convictions arising from crimes committed on separate occasions [citation], or the 
aggravated nature of a prior conviction [citation], is a fact related to recidivism, 
and, as stated above, recidivism is a question that traditionally has been reserved 
for the sentencing court.”  (Id. at p. 152, italics added.)  Thus, the defendant in the 
Stewart case had no right to a jury trial on the issue of the length of his 
confinement upon a prior conviction, for the purpose of sentence enhancement 
under the subsequent offender statute.   
 
Finally, in People v. Rosen (2001) 96 N.Y.2d 329, 335, the New York 
Court of Appeals held the “[d]efendant had no constitutional right to a jury trial to 
establish the facts of his prior felony convictions” (citing Apprendi, supra, 530 
U.S., at p. 488), including matters “ ‘pertaining to the defendant's history and 
character and the nature and circumstances of his criminal conduct.’ ”  (Rosen, at 
p. 335.)   
 
Similarly, a number of federal lower court decisions have reaffirmed the 
vitality of judicial fact finding with regard to a defendant’s prior convictions.  As 
summarized below, the decisions of these courts have opined that the Almendarez-
Torres exception is not limited simply to the bare fact of a defendant’s prior 
conviction, but extends as well to the nature of that conviction, thereby permitting 
sentencing courts to determine whether the prior conviction is the type of 
29 
conviction (for example, a conviction of a “violent” felony) that renders the 
defendant subject to an enhanced sentence.   
 
One such decision is Chamberlain v Pliler (C.D.Cal. 2004) 307 F.Supp.2d 
1128.  In that case, after the jury found that the defendant had suffered prior felony 
convictions for robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, the trial court in the 
underlying state court proceeding determined that those convictions were serious 
or violent felony convictions for purposes of California’s Three Strikes law, based 
in part upon the court’s determination that the record of the prior criminal 
proceedings underlying the conviction for assault with a deadly weapon 
established that this conviction rested upon the defendant’s personal use of a 
deadly weapon.  In subsequent federal proceedings challenging the increased 
sentence under Apprendi, the federal district court in Chamberlain rejected the 
defendant’s challenge, reiterating:  “ ‘As we understand [defendant’s] position, he 
believes that because the fact that he personally used a dangerous weapon or 
caused great bodily harm was never specifically submitted to a jury and proved 
beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, it could not be used to increase the penalty 
for his crimes. We do not agree with his interpretation of Apprendi . . . .  [¶]  By 
carving out an exception for proof of a prior conviction, we believe the Court [in 
Apprendi] left state courts free to undertake the analysis set forth in Kelii to 
ascertain the facts underlying a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon 
which had been submitted to a jury and previously found to be true beyond a 
reasonable doubt.  In the case of a prior conviction which might or might not 
constitute a strike, such as conviction under section 245, subdivision (a)(1), the 
trial court searches the underlying record for clear evidence of the type of injury 
suffered by the victim or the identity of the person who wielded the dangerous or 
deadly weapon.  If there was any dispute about these matters and the issue was not 
resolved by the jury, the prior offense must be deemed ambiguous and not counted 
30 
as a strike.  If, on the other hand, the record is clear that the offense involved 
personal use of a dangerous weapon or actual infliction of great bodily harm, the 
court is free to impose the greater sentence.  As the court said in Kelii, this is the 
type of inquiry traditionally performed by judges as part of the sentencing 
function. . . .  We do not believe the holding in Apprendi undercuts the foundation 
for the decision in Kelii.’ ”  (Id. at pp. 1141-1142, quoting the California Court of 
Appeal’s decision, fns. omitted, italics added.)   
 
In United States v. Santiago (2d Cir. 2001) 268 F.3d 151, the defendant 
pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a firearm by a felon.  (18 U.S.C. 
§§ 922(g), 924(e).)  The federal district court found the defendant had three 
serious prior convictions that had occurred on separate occasions, and sentenced 
him pursuant to a prior conviction sentence enhancement.  (Santiago, supra, 268 
F.3d at p. 153.)  On appeal, the defendant argued that only the fact of a prior 
conviction is exempted from the rule of Apprendi and that the issue of whether his 
prior convictions were committed on the same occasion must be proved to a jury 
beyond a reasonable doubt.  (Id. at pp. 153-154.)  In Santiago, the Second Circuit 
disagreed, observing that “[t]he determination of ‘the fact of a prior conviction’ 
implicitly entails many subsidiary findings . . . .  [¶]  . . .  [¶]  . . .  [W]e read 
Apprendi as leaving to the judge, consistent with due process, the task of finding 
not only the mere fact of previous convictions but other related issues as well.  
Judges frequently must make factual determinations for sentencing, so it is hardly 
anomalous to require that they also determine the ‘who, what, when, and where’ of 
a prior conviction.”  (Id. at p. 156; accord, United States v. Morris (7th Cir. 2002) 
293 F.3d 1010, 1012-1013 [no right to a jury trial on the issue of whether prior 
convictions were committed on a single occasion, for purposes of the armed 
career-criminal enhancement].)   
31 
 
In United States v. Kempis-Bonola (8th Cir. 2002) 287 F.3d 699, the federal 
district court determined that the defendant was not entitled to have a jury 
determine whether a prior conviction was an aggravated felony for purposes of 
enhancement under 8 United States Code section 1326, subdivision (b)(2).  On 
appeal, the defendant argued that because the inquiry regarding the prior 
conviction required fact finding beyond the fact of conviction, Apprendi 
necessitated reversal of the judgment rendered against him.  In rejecting the 
defendant’s position, the Eighth Circuit explained:  “The reason that there can be 
no reversal here based on Apprendi is because . . . the issue involves a prior 
conviction, and the holding of Apprendi expressly excepts the issue of recidivism 
from the rule it announced . . . .  [¶]  . . .  [T]he sentencing-related circumstances 
of recidivism are facts that may be found by the sentencing judge and are not 
within the scope of Apprendi’s holding.”  (Id. at pp. 702-703, italics added.) 
 
2.  The Nature of the Inquiry Under California Law 
With regard to the second issue noted above ― the nature of the inquiry 
required (and permitted) in this context under California law ― we observe that 
the matter presented is not, as the Court of Appeal appears to have assumed, a 
determination or finding “about the [defendant’s earlier] conduct itself, such as the 
intent with which a defendant acted.”  Instead, it is a determination regarding the 
nature or basis of the defendant’s prior conviction — specifically, whether that 
conviction qualified as a conviction of a serious felony.  California law specifies 
that in making this determination, the inquiry is a limited one and must be based 
upon the record of the prior criminal proceeding, with a focus on the elements of 
the offense of which the defendant was convicted.  If the enumeration of the 
elements of the offense does not resolve the issue, an examination of the record of 
the earlier criminal proceeding is required in order to ascertain whether that record 
reveals whether the conviction realistically may have been based on conduct that 
32 
would not constitute a serious felony under California law.  (See, e.g., People v. 
Woodall, supra, 17 Cal.4th 448, 452-461.)  The need for such an inquiry does not 
contemplate that the court will make an independent determination regarding a 
disputed issue of fact relating to the defendant’s prior conduct (see id. at p. 460), 
but instead that the court simply will examine the record of the prior proceeding to 
determine whether that record is sufficient to demonstrate that the conviction is of 
the type that subjects the defendant to increased punishment under California law.  
This is an inquiry that is quite different from the resolution of the issues submitted 
to a jury, and is one more typically and appropriately undertaken by a court.   
As the foregoing discussion makes clear, numerous state and federal court 
decisions have interpreted the Almendarez-Torres exception more broadly than 
defendant urges here, and have concluded that Apprendi does not preclude a court 
from making sentencing determinations related to a defendant’s recidivism.  In the 
present case, the trial court had before it the colloquies from the relevant Nevada 
proceedings, in which defendant pleaded guilty to the Nevada robbery charges.  
From this “factual inquiry, limited to examining court documents” (Kelii, supra, 
21 Cal.4th 452, 457), the trial court fairly could determine whether each of the 
prior convictions constituted a serious prior felony conviction for purposes of the 
California sentencing statute.  As we previously have observed, but wish to 
reiterate, “ ‘This is the type of inquiry traditionally performed by judges as part of 
the sentencing function.’ ”  (Ibid.)  
 
In his supplemental briefing filed in this court, defendant contends that 
even if Apprendi and its constitutional progeny leave the scope of the Almendarez-
Torres exception unclear, the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court 
in Shepard v. United States (2005) 544 U.S. 13 [125 S.Ct. 1254] (Shepard) 
indicates that a jury trial is required in the present context.  In Shepard, the high 
court addressed whether, under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) 
33 
(18 U.S.C., § 924(e)), a sentencing court may look to police reports or complaint 
applications in determining whether a guilty plea in an earlier criminal proceeding 
formed the basis for a conviction of “generic” burglary, qualifying the defendant 
for a minimum 15-year prison sentence under the ACCA.  In Shepard, a majority 
of the high court held that “a later court determining the character of an admitted 
burglary is generally limited to examining the statutory definition, charging 
document, written plea agreement, transcript of plea colloquy, and any explicit 
factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented.”  (Id. at p. ___ 
[125 S.Ct. at p. 1257].)  In reaching this conclusion — and rejecting the assertion 
that the sentencing court properly could consider all the documents contained 
within the record of the prior criminal proceeding — the majority opinion in 
Shepard stated, in the course of its analysis, that “[w]hile the disputed fact here 
can be described as a fact about a prior conviction, it is too far removed from the 
conclusive significance of a prior judicial record, and too much like the findings 
subject to Jones [v. United States (1999) 526 U.S. 227] and Apprendi, to say that 
Almendarez-Torres clearly authorizes a judge to resolve the dispute.  The rule of 
reading statutes to avoid serious risks of unconstitutionality, see Jones, supra, at 
239, . . . therefore counsels us to limit the scope of judicial factfinding on the 
disputed generic character of a prior plea . . . .”  (Shepard, supra, 544 U.S. at p. 
___ [125 S.Ct. at pp. 1262-1263], italics added;9 see also id. at pp. ___ [125 S.Ct. 
                                              
9  
Although only four justices ⎯ Justices Stevens, Scalia, Souter, and 
Ginsburg ⎯ joined in part III of the opinion in Shepard in which the quoted 
passage appears, Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in Shepard indicates that he 
would go further and that he did not join in this part of Justice Souter’s opinion 
only because, in Justice Thomas’s view, “The factfinding procedure the court 
rejects gives rise to constitutional error, not doubt . . . .”  (Shepard, supra, 544 
U.S. 13, ___ [125 S.Ct. 1254, 1264] (conc. opn. of Thomas, J.).)   
34 
at p. 1257] [“[A] later court determining the character of an admitted burglary is 
generally limited to examining the statutory definition, charging document, written 
plea agreement, transcript of plea colloquy, and any explicit factual finding by the 
trial judge to which the defendant assented.”].)   
 
Although the Shepard decision may suggest that a majority of the high 
court would view the legal issue presented in the case before us as presenting a 
serious constitutional issue, the high court’s decision did not purport to resolve 
that issue.  The issue before the high court in Shepard was resolved as a matter of 
statutory interpretation, and the court did not purport to decide whether a state is 
constitutionally precluded from permitting a court to conduct the kind of 
examination of the record of a prior criminal proceeding that occurred in the case 
before us in determining whether a conviction constitutes a qualifying prior 
conviction for purposes of enhancement under a state sentencing statute.10  
Accordingly, we believe that Shepard fails to establish the validity of the Court of 
Appeal’s application of Apprendi. 
 
In this regard, it is worth noting that in the several months following the 
Shepherd decision, a number of federal lower courts have reaffirmed the viability 
of the Almendarez-Torres exception.  (See, e.g., United States v. Reeves (8th Cir. 
2005) 410 F.3d 1031, 1035, quoting United States v. Marcussen (8th Cir.2005) 
403 F.3d 982, 984 [“We previously have rejected the argument that the nature of a 
prior conviction is to be treated differently from the fact of a prior conviction”; 
Shepard supports “the rule that the sentencing court, not a jury, must determine 
                                              
10  
We also observe that the high court in Shepard reviewed a lower court’s 
consideration of police reports and complaint applications ― documents arguably 
distinguishable from the sworn testimony considered by the trial court below in 
examining transcripts of the preliminary hearing and plea proceedings from the 
two Nevada matters.   
35 
whether prior convictions qualify as violent felonies”]; United States v. Williams 
(7th Cir. 2005) 410 F.3d 397, 402 [trial court can make findings of fact respecting 
criminal history, “be they findings as to the fact of [a defendant’s] prior 
convictions or as to the nature of those convictions,” because Shepard 
“acknowledges the continuing validity of Almendarez-Torres”].) 
 
In view of the foregoing circumstances, we conclude that Shepherd does 
not provide the type of clear resolution of the issue that would justify overturning 
the relevant California precedents.   
 
G.  Conclusion 
 
As noted above, the Court of Appeal in the present case narrowly construed 
the Almendarez-Torres exception for recidivist conduct as preserved by Apprendi.  
In so holding, however, we believe the Court of Appeal improperly minimized the 
distinction between sentence enhancements that require fact finding related to the 
circumstance of the current offense, such as whether a defendant acted with the 
intent necessary to establish a “hate crime” ― a task identified by Apprendi as one 
for the jury ― and the examination of court records pertaining to a defendant’s 
prior conviction to determine the nature or basis of the conviction ― a task to 
which Apprendi did not speak and “the type of inquiry that judges traditionally 
perform as part of the sentencing function.”  (Kelii, supra, 21 Cal.4th 452, 456.)   
We recognize the possibility that the United States Supreme Court, in 
future decisions, may extend the Apprendi rule in the manner suggested by the 
Court of Appeal below.  But because in our view there is a significant difference 
between the nature of the inquiry and the fact finding involved in the type of 
sentence enhancements at issue in Apprendi and its progeny as compared to the 
nature of the inquiry involved in examining the record of a prior conviction to 
determine whether that conviction constitutes a qualifying prior conviction for 
purposes of a recidivist sentencing statute, we are reluctant to assume, in advance 
36 
of such a decision by the high court, that the federal constitutional right to a jury 
trial will be interpreted to apply in the latter context.   
 
In view of our determination that defendant was not entitled to have a jury 
decide whether his Nevada robbery convictions qualified as strikes under 
California law, we do not reach the People’s alternate argument that any error 
committed by the trial court in this regard was harmless.  For the reasons 
discussed above, we have concluded that the trial court did not err in examining 
the record of the Nevada proceedings and in determining that the prior Nevada 
robbery convictions constituted serious felony convictions for the purpose of the 
relevant California sentencing provisions.   
III 
 
Because the Court of Appeal upheld (on the basis of harmless error) the 
trial court’s imposition of the sentencing enhancements, we affirm the judgment of 
the Court of Appeal. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GEORGE, C. J. 
WE CONCUR: 
 
BAXTER, J. 
CHIN, J. 
MORENO, J. 
CORRIGAN, J. 
 
 
1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISSENTING OPINION BY KENNARD, J. 
 
In Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 (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 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 (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 
justifications for the exception are inapplicable here.  According to the majority, it 
is proper for a trial court to deny a defendant a jury trial, with a beyond-a-
reasonable-doubt standard of proof, not only on the fact of a prior conviction but 
also on the truth or falsity of factual allegations pertaining to the conduct that gave 
rise to a prior conviction, even though those allegations were not elements of the 
prior offense.  I disagree. 
 
 
2
In my view, when the prosecution seeks to increase a defendant’s sentence 
based on a prior conviction, the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal 
Constitution entitle the defendant to a jury trial, with proof beyond a reasonable 
doubt, on facts pertaining to the conduct underlying the prior conviction when, as 
here:  (1) those facts were never determined by a jury or by the court that 
convicted the defendant of the prior offense, (2) those facts were never admitted 
by the defendant, and (3) those facts, if found true, would increase the defendant’s 
sentence beyond the statutory maximum.   
Here, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 90 years to life in 
prison, based on its finding that defendant had acted with the requisite state of 
mind in committing two crimes of which he was convicted in Nevada many years 
earlier.  The courts that accepted defendant’s guilty pleas to the prior crimes never 
decided whether he acted with that mental state, because his guilt of those offenses 
did not turn on whether he acted with that state of mind.  Defendant has never 
admitted that he acted with that mental state when he committed either crime.  
Thus, in denying defendant’s request that a jury, applying a beyond-a-reasonable-
doubt standard of proof, determine whether he acted with the requisite mental state 
when he committed the two prior offenses, the trial court here violated defendant’s 
rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.   
I 
Defendant was charged with numerous felonies not pertinent here.  It was 
also alleged, for purposes of sentence enhancement, that defendant had been 
previously convicted in Nevada of two robberies, and that each of those 
convictions was for conduct constituting a “strike” under California’s “Three 
 
 
3
Strikes” law.  (Pen. Code, § 1170.12.)1  The trial court bifurcated the trial on the 
prior convictions from the trial of the offenses charged in this case, and a jury 
convicted defendant of most of the charges.   
Whether defendant’s two prior Nevada convictions for robbery qualify as 
strikes under California’s Three Strikes law is a difficult issue.  Under our law, a 
prior conviction is a strike if the conviction is for a “serious felony” as defined in 
subdivision (c) of section 1192.7.  Robbery is listed in that provision.  Nevada’s 
robbery statute, however, differs from California law in at least two respects:  
(1)  The Nevada statute requires only that the defendant act with general criminal 
intent, whereas in California the defendant must act with the specific intent to 
permanently deprive the victim of the property taken.  (2)  Under Nevada law, 
robbery is committed if property is taken by placing the victim in fear of either 
present or future harm to a person in the victim’s company (Nev. Rev. Stat., 
§ 200.380); by contrast, although in California taking property by placing the 
victim in fear of immediate harm to a companion is robbery, taking property by 
placing the victim of fear of future harm to the companion is not robbery (§§ 211, 
212) but extortion (§§ 518, 519), which is generally not a strike (see §§ 1192.7; 
667.5, subd. (c)).2  Therefore, in Nevada a robbery conviction can be based on 
conduct that under California law would not be robbery, and thus would not 
qualify as a serious felony strike.  
                                              
1  
Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
2  
Defendant contends that the California and Nevada statutes also differ in 
that in California, unlike Nevada, taking property by means of fear of future harm 
to the victim (as opposed to a companion) is extortion, not robbery.  The Attorney 
General, however, argues that such an act would be robbery in California as well 
as in Nevada.  I agree with the majority and the Court of Appeal that the dispute 
need not be resolved here. 
 
 
4
When, as here, the elements of the crime underlying a defendant’s out-of-
state prior conviction do not make that offense a strike under California law, the 
conviction is nevertheless a strike if the conduct that gave rise to it would be a 
serious felony, and thus a strike, under California law.  (People v. Avery (2002) 27 
Cal.4th 49, 53; People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448, 453.)  But in that 
situation, the prosecution may not call witnesses to establish the defendant’s prior 
conduct; rather, it can rely only on conduct shown in the record of the proceedings 
pertaining to the prior conviction.  (Ibid.)  The purpose of that limitation is to 
“bar[] the prosecution from relitigating the circumstances of a crime committed 
years ago . . . thereby threatening the defendant with harm akin to double jeopardy 
and denial of speedy trial.”  (People v. Guerrero (1988) 44 Cal.3d 343, 355; see 
also People v. Reed (1996) 13 Cal.4th 217, 223.) 
Defendant here denied that the conduct underlying his two Nevada 
convictions for robbery would qualify as serious felonies under California law, 
and he asked for a jury trial on the issue.  The trial court denied the request.  After 
examining the preliminary hearing transcripts of defendant’s Nevada convictions, 
the trial court found that the conduct underlying those prior robbery convictions 
satisfied the elements of robbery under California law.  The only issue the trial 
court submitted to a jury was whether the records of defendant’s prior convictions 
were authentic; the jury so determined.  The trial court sentenced defendant under 
the Three Strikes law to a prison term of 90 years to life.  Defendant appealed. 
The Court of Appeal held that the trial court violated defendant’s right to a 
jury trial, with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, when it denied his request to have 
a jury determine whether his prior Nevada robberies constituted “serious felonies” 
under California law.  But the Court of Appeal nevertheless affirmed the 
judgment, based on its conclusion that the trial court’s error did not prejudice 
defendant.  This court granted review. 
 
 
5
II 
Two decisions of the high court are pertinent here:  Almendarez-Torres, 
supra, 523 U.S. 224, and Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466.   
In Almendarez-Torres, the defendant pled guilty to illegally returning to the 
United States after having been deported.  The maximum sentence under federal 
law for that crime was two years unless the previous deportation resulted from a 
conviction for an aggravated felony, in which case the maximum sentence became 
20 years.  The trial court sentenced the defendant to seven years and one month in 
prison based on its finding that he had been deported for three aggravated felonies.  
The high court upheld that determination, rejecting the defendant’s contention that 
the federal Constitution gave him the right to a jury trial, with proof beyond a 
reasonable doubt, on the question of whether he had been convicted of an 
aggravated felony.  (Almendarez-Torres, supra, 523 U.S. at pp. 239-247.)   
Some two years later, the high court decided Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 
466.  In that case, the defendant pled guilty to an offense that ordinarily carried a 
maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, but New Jersey law permitted imposition 
of a greater prison term if the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence 
that the defendant committed the crime because of racial bias.  The trial court so 
found, and it imposed a prison term of 12 years.   
The parties’ plea bargain had preserved the defendant’s right to challenge 
the constitutionality of the New Jersey law that allowed the trial court to decide 
the truth of the racial bias allegation under a preponderance of the evidence 
standard.  The United States Supreme Court held that the law was 
unconstitutional, and that the defendant was entitled to a jury trial, with a beyond-
a-reasonable-doubt standard of proof, on the question of whether his commission 
of the crime was because of racial bias.  As to whether this holding was consistent 
with its then recent decision in Almendarez-Torres, supra, 523 U.S. 224, the high 
 
 
6
court observed it was “arguable that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided.”  
(Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 489.)  The court concluded, however, that it need 
not decide whether to overrule its decision in Almendarez-Torres because it was 
distinguishable in three respects:  (1)  The defendant in Almendarez-Torres “had 
admitted the three earlier convictions for aggravated felonies” (Apprendi, supra, 
530 U.S. at p. 488); (2) those admissions “had been entered pursuant to 
proceedings with substantial procedural safeguards” (ibid.) which included the 
right to a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt on contested issues of 
fact; and (3) at issue in Almendarez-Torres was the defendant’s recidivism, “ ‘a 
traditional, if not the most traditional, basis for a sentencing court’s increasing an 
offender’s sentence’ ” (ibid.).  The high court in Apprendi went on to say that 
“[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a 
crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and 
proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”  (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 490, italics 
added.)3  At issue here is whether, under that “fact of a prior conviction” 
exception, it was proper for the trial court rather than a jury to determine not 
                                              
3  
In Apprendi, the United States Supreme Court said that a defendant’s right 
to jury trial, with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, on facts that increase the 
sentence beyond the statutory maximum is based on the due process clause of the 
Fourteenth Amendment.  (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 469.)  But more recent 
decisions by the high court say that Apprendi is based on the Sixth Amendment’s 
right to jury trial, and do not mention the Fourteenth Amendment.  (United States 
v. Booker (2005) 543 U.S. 220, 232; Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, 
298, 305, 308-312.)  In my view, Apprendi is best viewed as being based on both 
amendments:  Its requirement of a jury trial originates in the Sixth Amendment, 
and its requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is mandated by the due 
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
 
 
 
 
7
merely the existence of defendant’s two prior Nevada convictions for robbery, but 
also facts pertaining to the conduct that gave rise to the prior convictions. 
To resolve that issue I look to the first and second of the three reasons for 
the exception to the jury trial right that the high court carved out in Apprendi:  
(1) whether the defendant admitted the prior convictions, and (2) whether those 
admissions occurred with “substantial procedural safeguards” (Apprendi, supra, 
530 U.S. at p. 488).  I do not consider the third reason, that recidivism is “ ‘is a 
traditional . . . basis for a sentencing court’s increasing an offender’s sentence’ ” 
(ibid.), because the United States Supreme Court recently abandoned that ground.  
In United States v. Booker, supra, 543 U.S. 220, in which the high court applied 
its holding in Apprendi to the federal sentencing guidelines, the court said that 
traditional judicial authority “does not provide a sound guide to enforcement of the 
Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial in today’s world.”  (Id. at p. 236.)   
Here, defendant never admitted the factual allegations pertaining to the 
conduct underlying his prior Nevada convictions that are now being used in 
California to increase his sentence.  (He never admitted that he committed the two 
robberies in Nevada with the intent to permanently deprive the victims of their 
property, and that he placed the victims or persons in the victims’ company in fear 
of immediate injury.)  The trial courts that accepted defendant’s guilty pleas to the 
two robbery offenses never determined the truth of those factual allegations, and 
they did not provide defendant with any procedural safeguards pertaining to those 
allegations, because his guilt of the Nevada offenses did not turn on the truth or 
falsity of those allegations.  The trial court in this case, based on its determination 
that the factual allegations relating to the prior robbery convictions were true, 
imposed a sentence beyond the statutory maximum.  Thus, by denying defendant a 
jury trial on the truth of those factual allegations, the trial court violated 
defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a jury trial. 
 
 
8
The majority here insists that “the nature of the inquiry required . . . under 
California law . . . is not . . . a determination or finding ‘about the [defendant’s 
earlier] conduct itself.’ ”  (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 31.)  “Instead,” the majority says, 
“it is a determination regarding the nature or basis of the defendant’s prior 
conviction – specifically, whether that conviction qualified as a conviction of a 
serious felony.”  (Ibid., italics added and omitted.)  Thus, the majority concludes 
that the Court of Appeal was wrong when it held that the trial court made a factual 
determination pertaining to the conduct underlying defendant’s two prior 
convictions for robbery in Nevada.   
I disagree.  The only way to determine the “nature or basis” of a 
defendant’s prior conviction is to determine the conduct that gave rise to that 
conviction.  Indeed, the majority recognizes this elsewhere in its opinion, when it 
explains that a trial court, to decide whether an out-of-state prior conviction is a 
strike, must determine “whether the conviction realistically may have been based 
on conduct that would not constitute a felony under California law.”  (Maj. opn., 
ante, at pp. 31-32, italics added.)  Moreover, as this court explained nearly 20 
years ago, California’s law imposing increased penalties for prior convictions 
“refers to conduct, not a specific crime.”  (People v. Guerrero, supra, 44 Cal.3d at 
p. 355.)  This court has repeatedly explained that in determining the truth of an 
alleged prior conviction when, as here, the necessary elements of that conviction 
do not establish that it is a serious felony, and thus subject to California’s Three 
Strikes law, the trier of fact must decide whether the defendant’s conduct, as 
demonstrated in the record of the prior conviction, shows that the crime was a 
serious felony.  (See, e.g., People v. Avery, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 53 [“To qualify 
as a serious felony, a conviction from another jurisdiction must involve conduct 
that would qualify as a serious felony in California”]; People v. Kelii (1999) 21 
Cal.4th 452, 457 [describing the determination as a “factual inquiry”]; People 
 
 
9
v. Woodell, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 453 [trier of fact must determine “ ‘whether the 
offense . . . involved conduct which satisfies all of the elements of the comparable 
California serious felony offense’ ”].)  
True, there is an unusual limitation on the type of evidence that the 
prosecution may use to prove the conduct underlying a defendant’s prior 
conviction:  It may rely only on matters appearing in the record of the prior 
conviction.  This limitation appears to be the basis for the majority’s conclusion 
here that the trial court determined the “nature or basis” of defendant’s two prior 
convictions rather than the conduct underlying those convictions.  (Maj. opn., 
ante, at p. 31.)  As I have explained earlier, the purpose of this limitation is to 
protect defendants from “harm akin to double jeopardy and denial of speedy trial.”  
(People v. Guerrero, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 355.)  It is ironic indeed that the 
majority uses a rule designed to protect the accused from one type of unfairness as 
the basis for subjecting the accused to a far greater unfairness:  denial of the right 
to a jury trial, with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, on the truth or falsity of 
factual allegations that determine whether the accused can be sentenced to a term 
of life imprisonment under California’s Three Strikes law.  
III 
Having concluded above that the trial court violated defendant’s 
constitutional right to a jury trial on the facts underlying his two prior convictions, 
the remaining question is whether this error requires reversal of the judgment.   
The Court of Appeal held that the error was harmless.  Applying the test for 
“non-structural” constitutional error the high court articulated in Chapman v. 
California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, the Court of Appeal concluded that, beyond a 
reasonable doubt, the sentence enhancement allegations would have been found 
true had the issue been submitted to a jury with a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt 
standard of proof.  It is unclear, however, whether that is the applicable test.  
 
 
10
Pending before the United States Supreme Court is Washington v. Recuenco (Oct. 
17, 2005, No. 05-83 ___ U.S. ___ [163 L.Ed.2d 362, 126 S.Ct. 478]), which will 
decide whether Apprendi error is a “structural” error and thus reversible per se, or 
whether Chapman’s harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard applies.  The 
high court has already heard argument in Recuenco, and it will decide the case 
before the court’s current term ends in July 2006, which is just a few weeks away.  
Given that circumstance, I would vacate submission of this matter pending the 
outcome of Recuenco.  Once the high court has decided Recuenco, I would then 
recalendar this case for oral argument and decide the question of prejudice by 
applying whatever harmless error standard the high court adopts in Recuenco. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KENNARD, J. 
I CONCUR: 
WERDEGAR, J. 
 
 
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. 
 
Name of Opinion People v. McGee 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Unpublished Opinion 
Original Appeal 
Original Proceeding 
Review Granted XXX 115 Cal.App.4th 819 
Rehearing Granted 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Opinion No. S123474 
Date Filed: May 22, 2006 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Court: Superior 
County: San Mateo 
Judge: Carl W. Holm 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Attorneys for Appellant: 
 
John Halley, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Attorneys for Respondent: 
 
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief 
Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Seth K. Schalit, Stan Helfman, 
John H. Deist, George F. Hindall III and Jeffrey M. Laurence, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): 
 
John Halley 
Law Office of John A. W. Halley 
620 Jefferson Ave. 
Redwood City, CA  94063 
(650) 366-6789 
 
Jeffrey M. Laurence 
Deputy Attorney General 
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 
San Francisco, CA  94102-7004 
(415) 703-5897