Sentencing.

Existing law, until January 1, 2017, specifies, when a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies 3 possible terms, that the choice of the appropriate term shall rest within the sound discretion of the court. Existing law, on and after January 1, 2017, requires, in that situation, the court to order imposition of the middle term, unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime. Existing law also requires the court to set forth on the record the facts and reasons for imposing the upper or lower term and the reason for its sentencing choice. Existing law prohibits the court from imposing an upper term based upon the fact of any enhancement upon which sentence is imposed. This bill would also prohibit the court from imposing an upper term based upon aggravating facts unless those facts are presented to, and found to be true by, the factfinder. The bill would require the court to specify on the record the specific facts in aggravation, if any, the court relied upon to impose an upper term. The bill would also prohibit a fact pleaded in the indictment, information, or accusatory pleading in aggravation of sentence from being used as an aggravating factor in sentencing unless that fact has been proven to the trier of fact or admitted by the defendant. The bill would also require the bifurcation of the trial of all facts pleaded in aggravation of sentence, as specified. By increasing the duties of local prosecutors with regards to presenting and proving aggravating facts, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.