FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

115.1 Sentence Enhancements: General Principles

    115.1.1 Sentencing Enhancements: Links To Other Sources [Reserved]
    115.1.2 Sentencing Enhancements: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes [Reserved]
    115.1.3 Non Recidivist Sentence Enhancements
    115.1.4 Recidivist Sentence Enhancements: Prior Convictions
    115.1.5 Sentence Enhancements: Juror Unanimity
    115.1.6 Sentence Enhancements: Jury Should Consider Substantive Offense First Before Considering Enhancement
    115.1.7 Sentence Enhancements: Double Jeopardy/Collateral Estoppel As Defense Theories
    115.1.8 Separate Consideration For Each Defendant: Applicability To Sentence Enhancements
    115.1.9 Sentence Enhancements: Prior Prison Term -- Multiple Convictions Constitute One Term
    115.1.10 Sentence Enhancements: Defense Theory That Prior Conviction Was Not Adjudicated Prior To The Current Offense

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 8 - CHAPTER 115

    115.1.1    Sentence Enhancements: Links To Other Sources [Reserved]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 8 - CHAPTER 115

    115.1.2    Sentence Enhancements: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes [Reserved]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 8 - CHAPTER 115

PRACTICE NOTE: Examples of nonrecidivist sentencing enhancements are the following:

    1.    Firearms:

           A.    Use

           B.    Armed

    2.    Dangerous Weapons

    3.    Great Bodily Injury (GBI)

    4.    Drug Quantity

    5.    Great Taking

    6.    Hate Crimes

    7.    Habitual Offenders

    8.    Elderly Victims

    9.    Gang

    10.   Drug Sale Offenses: School Proximity Enhancement

    Such enhancements must be pled and proven beyond a reasonable doubt if they increase the range of punishment which may be imposed for violation of the predicate offense. (See Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 US 466 [120 SCt 2348; 147 LEd2d 435]; see also FORECITE National™ 300.21.2 [Apprendi: Constitutional Rights Apply To Sentencing Decisions That Increase The Range Of Punishment].)

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 8 - CHAPTER 115

PRACTICE NOTE: Sentencing enhancements for prior convictions include a myriad of sentencing schemes including single conviction enhancements as well as multiple conviction enhancements such as Three Strikes and Continuing Criminal Enterprise statutes. (See generally FORECITE National™ Chapter 120 [Career Criminal, Three Strikes, Etc.].)

    Under current United States Supreme Court jurisprudence it may be argued that federal constitutional protections apply to such recidivist enhancements. (See FORECITE National™ 300.21.3 [Apprendi: Applicability Of Federal Constitutional Rights To Prior Convictions].)

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 8 - CHAPTER 115

    See FORECITE National™ 273.9.1 [Jury Unanimity Required As To Predicate Acts Which Are Elements].

    See FORECITE National™ 273.10.5.6 [Jury Unanimity As To Object Of Conspiracy When Relevant To Sentencing].

    See FORECITE National™ 273.10.12 [Sentencing Enhancements].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 8 - CHAPTER 115

    See FORECITE National™ 275.3.7 [Jury Should Consider Substantive Offense First Before Considering Enhancement].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 8 - CHAPTER 115

PRACTICE NOTE: Pettaway v. Plummer (9th Cir. 1991) 943 F2d 1041, 1048 held the defendant may not be retried for murder based on his personal use of a firearm where the first jury rejected gun use enhancement and it is not "clear" that this rejection was simply an inconsistent verdict. (Id. at 1048.) However, Santamaria v. Horsley (9th Cir. 1998) 133 F3d 1242, 1245 overruled Pettaway v. Plummer (9th Cir. 1991) 943 F2d 1041 and held that double jeopardy doesn't prevent reintroduction of weapon use despite the first jury's finding of no weapon enhancement.

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.5.6 [Equitable Estoppel].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 8 - CHAPTER 115

    See FORECITE National™ 276.7.3 [Separate Consideration For Each Defendant: Applicability To All Decisions And Findings].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 8 - CHAPTER 115

PRACTICE NOTE: In California multiple convictions and sentences constitute only one "prior separate term" regardless of whether the priors were served concurrently or consecutively, and regardless of whether they resulted from a single sentencing proceeding or from separate proceedings. (People v. James (CA 1980) 102 CA3d 728, 732 [162 CR 548]; People v. Burke (CA 1980) 102 CA3d 932, 943 [163 CR 4]; see also People v. Jones (CA 1998) 63 CA4th 744, 746-49 [74 CR2d 328] [court erred by imposing separate enhancements for prior convictions involving concurrent sentences].) On the other hand, conviction and sentence for in-prison offenses may constitute a separate term. (People v. Carr (CA 1988) 204 CA3d 774, 780 [251 CR 458]; People v. Cardenas (CA 1987) 192 CA3d 51, 56 [237 CR 249].)

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.13 [Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE)].

See 5th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.90.

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 8 - CHAPTER 115

PRACTICE NOTE: The prior conviction must have been adjudicated prior the defendant's commission of the criminal behavior upon which the current conviction is predicated. (See People v. Bizieff (CA 1990) 226 CA3d 130, 139 [276 CR 235].)

RESEARCH NOTES:

Annotation, Chronological Or Procedural Sequence Of Former Convictions As Affecting Enhancement Of Penalty Under Habitual Offender Statutes, 7 ALR5th 263.

Wharton’s Criminal Law (West, 15th ed. 1993) § 1, p. 11.

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.13 [Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE)].

See 5th Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 2.90.