Opinion ID: 2582281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wiley

Text: In Wiley, supra, 9 Cal.4th 580, 585, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 347, 889 P.2d 541, 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, 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, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 347, 889 P.2d 541.) 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, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 347, 889 P.2d 541, italics added.)