CALIFORNIA DUE PROCESS TRAVESTY
HARMLESS CUNNINGHAM ERROR
The court imposed upper term based on the victims being particularly vulnerable, but the defendant didn’t admit that nor did the jury find that fact. And so the sentencing must be reversed as a violation of Cunningham (549 U.S. 270), right?
Nope. They find harmless error: a jury would have found that the victims were particularly vulnerable. Hey, just deny the defendant a jury trial on everything and then affirm by finding that any jury would have convicted anyway.
Why do we bother with these troublesome juries?
People v. Esquibel; 2008 DJ DAR 13876; DJ, 9/3/08; C/A 2nd, Div. 8