Supreme Court of California

The judicial factfinding that occurs when a judge exercises discretion to impose an upper term sentence or consecutive terms under California law does not implicate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/20/2005
• Published 06/20/2005

Judges

• GEORGE, C.J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Eileen S. Kotler, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Pacifica, for Defendant and Appellant., Deborah A. Kwast, Public Defender (Orange), Thomas Havlena, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Kevin J. Phillips, Assistant Public Defender, and Martin E. Schwarz, Deputy Public Defender, for Orange County Public Defender's Office as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant., John T. Philipsborn, San Francisco, and Charles D. Weisselberg, for California Attorneys for Criminal Justice as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant., Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Donald E. de Nicola, Deputy State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson and Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Mary Jo Graves and Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorneys General, J. Robert Jibson, Judy Kaida, Jaime L. Fuster, Kristofer Jorstad and Lawrence M. Daniels, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent., David R. LaBahn, Sacramento, George Kennedy, San Jose, James P. Fox and Martin Murray, Redwood City, for California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.