People v. McGee

Filed 5/22/06

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, )

)

Plaintiff and Respondent, )

) S123474

v. )

) Ct.App. 1/5 A097749

JAMES COREY McGEE, )

) San Mateo County

Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. SC049252A

__________ )

Numerous California statutes subject a defendant who is convicted of a criminal offense to increased punishment if he or she previously was convicted of another offense. In determining whether a defendant is subject to increased punishment on the basis of a prior conviction, it sometimes is necessary to examine the record of the earlier proceeding to determine whether it involves the type of qualifying prior conviction that authorizes increased punishment under the applicable sentencing statute. In view of the unusual and somewhat specialized nature of the inquiry that must be conducted for this purpose -- an examination that is strictly limited to a review and interpretation of documents that are part of the record of the prior criminal proceeding -- our decisions establish that under California law it is the court, rather than the jury, that is entrusted with the responsibility of undertaking this inquiry and making the determination. (See, e.g., People v. Wiley (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 580, 586-592 (Wiley); People v. Kelii (1999) 21 Cal.4th 452, 455-459 (Kelii); People v. Epps (2001) 25 Cal.4th 19, 23-28 (Epps).)

The issue presented in the case before us is whether, notwithstanding the foregoing rule established under California law, a criminal defendant has a right under the federal Constitution to have a jury, rather than the court, examine the record of the prior criminal proceeding to determine whether the earlier conviction subjects the defendant to an increased sentence when that conviction does not itself establish on its face whether or not the conviction constitutes a qualifying prior conviction for purposes of the applicable sentencing statute. The Court of Appeal held that the federal Constitution grants a criminal defendant the right to have a jury make such a determination, interpreting the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 (Apprendi) as compelling that conclusion. Although the Court of Appeal recognized that Apprendi involved a statute providing for increased punishment on the basis of a factual circumstance related to the current offense (rather than on the basis of a prior conviction), and further that the decision in Apprendi, in setting forth its holding, specifically stated that â€