Opinion ID: 2507854
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Facts Underlying Defendant's Prior Convictions for Battery, Vandalism, and Fighting in Public

Text: Defendant was convicted of fighting in public arising from the assault on a rival gang member near Anaheim High School in November 1989 and was convicted of battery and vandalism arising from the attack on Calvin Marshall and the damage to Marshalls' van in May 1990. The facts and circumstances underlying those convictions were offered as factors in aggravation at the penalty trial. (See parts III.B.1, III.B.2, ante. ) He contends the court erred in admitting the facts and circumstances underlying those convictions to the extent those facts tended to show that his conduct was more egregious than is revealed by the bare fact of conviction. In his view, reliance on facts and circumstances beyond the conviction itself or those minimally necessary to establish a conviction of those crimes violated the provisions listed above as well as the federal constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. As he concedes, however, we have repeatedly rejected this claim (e.g., People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 641-642, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 976 P.2d 683; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 710-711, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640), and do so again here. The facts presented to the jury, in each instance, constituted merely the circumstances of the crime of which defendant was convicted. ( People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 71, 40 Cal. Rptr.2d 481, 892 P.2d 1224; People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1241-1242, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 702, 842 P.2d 1.)