Opinion ID: 1172193
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applying Bullington to This Case

Text: Bullington found the federal double jeopardy clause applied to Missouri's capital sentencing hearing because that hearing bore the hallmarks of the trial on guilt or innocence. The high court found it significant that the defendant enjoyed the right to a separate hearing and to a jury and that the jury was not granted broad discretion to choose an appropriate punishment, but was instead required to choose between two alternates authorized by statute. Perhaps most importantly, the prosecution bore the burden of establishing necessary facts beyond a reasonable doubt. The presentence hearing resembled and, indeed, in all relevant respects was like the immediately preceding trial on the issue of guilt or innocence. It was itself a trial on the issue of punishment so precisely defined by the Missouri statutes. ( Bullington, supra, 451 U.S. at p. 438 [101 S.Ct. at p. 1858].) These same hallmarks of the trial on guilt or innocence apply to a trial on a sentence enhancement allegation. In such a hearing, the People bear the burden of proving the sentence enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt ( People v. Tenner, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 566; see also Pen. Code, § 1096 [applying standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to criminal actions]), and the defendant is entitled to a jury (Pen. Code, § 1025). The sentence enhancement must be pleaded and proved (see, e.g., Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (c); 1170.12, subd. (a), 667.5, subd. (d)), and the defendant must answer the charge in open court. (Pen. Code, § 1025; see also Pen. Code, § 969 1/2 [requiring defendant be arraigned on a prior conviction allegation added to the complaint after defendant has pleaded guilty].) The jury is limited to two alternatives (finding the allegation true or untrue) and is not authorized to choose among a wider array of sentencing choices. The trial court has discretion to order a separate hearing to determine the truth of the prior convictions ( People v. Calderon, supra, 9 Cal.4th 69), but in any event, the defendant is entitled to a contested trial on the enhancement allegations, including the right to present evidence. This trial on sentence enhancement allegations may be profitably contrasted with a traditional sentencing hearing, in which the People bear no burden of proof, the trial court can receive evidence from outside of court (such as a probation report), the trial court wields broad discretion to fashion a sentence appropriate to the defendant's crime, and, of course, a defendant has no right to a jury. As in Bullington, the trial on the sentence enhancement allegation is for all intents and purposes identical to the preceding trial on the question of the defendant's guilt or innocence of the substantive criminal charges. Under these circumstances, Bullington compels the conclusion the federal double jeopardy clause applies to this case to bar retrial of defendant's prior felony conviction sentence enhancement.