People v. Calderon

• Citation: 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 333,9 Cal.4th 69,885 P.2d 83
• Decision Date: 22 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. S030127,S030127
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Parties: , 885 P.2d 83 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Tony Juan CALDERON, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 333

36 Cal.Rptr.2d 333

9 Cal.4th 69, 885 P.2d 83

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Tony Juan CALDERON, Defendant and Appellant.

No. S030127.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

Dec. 22, 1994.

[9 Cal.4th 71] [885 P.2d 86] Thomas M. Bohl, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Camarillo, for defendant and appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Carol Wendelin Pollack, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pamela C. Hamanaka, Tricia Ann Bigelow and Kenneth C. Byrne, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

GEORGE, Justice.

"Numerous California penal statutes allow increased punishment to be imposed upon a defendant if the prosecution alleges and proves that the defendant has suffered one or more prior convictions." (People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 585, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 638, 853 P.2d 1093.) In People v. Bracamonte (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 644, 655, 174 Cal.Rptr. 191 (Bracamonte ), the Court of Appeal stated, as a " 'judicially declared rule[ ] of practice,' " that a defendant is entitled to have the determination of the truth of such an allegation bifurcated from the jury's determination of the defendant's guilt of the currently charged offense.

In the present case we address, for the first time, the validity of the rule announced in Bracamonte. (See People v. Saunders, supra, 5 Cal.4th 580, 588, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 638, 853 P.2d 1093, fn. 4.) For the reasons that follow, we conclude that a trial court has the discretion, in a jury trial, to bifurcate the determination of the truth of an alleged prior conviction from the determination of the defendant's guilt of the charged offense, but is not required to do so if the defendant will not be unduly prejudiced by having the truth of the alleged prior conviction determined in a unitary trial.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant Tony Juan Calderon was charged with second degree burglary. (Pen.Code §§ 459, 460, subd. (b).) ¹ The information further alleged that defendant had suffered Prior to trial, defendant moved to have the trial court bifurcate, from the jury's determination of defendant's guilt of the currently charged offense, the determination of the truth of the allegation that he had suffered a prior conviction and served a resulting prison term. In support of his motion, defendant cited the decision in Bracamonte, supra, 119 Cal.App.3d 644, 174 Cal.Rptr. 191, but in denying the motion, the court relied instead upon the then very recently filed opinion of the Court of Appeal in People v. Saunders, which concluded that Bracamonte had been wrongly decided. (Shortly thereafter, we granted review in People v. Saunders, ultimately resolving that matter without deciding the validity of Bracamonte. (People v. Saunders, supra, 5 Cal.4th 580, 588, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 638, 853 P.2d 1093, fn. 4.)) Following appropriate advisements and waivers of rights, defendant admitted the foregoing allegation.

a prior conviction for attempted robbery (§§ 664/211) and had served a prior prison term for that offense within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).

The evidence admitted during the subsequent jury trial included the following. At approximately 1:30 a.m. on August 19, 1991, defendant entered a convenience store in the City of Industry, selected two cases of beer, and walked toward the exit. The cashier, Roland Tannenhill, asked defendant where he was going and told him he would have to pay for the beer. Defendant replied, "nope," and walked out the door.

As defendant left the store, two uniformed deputy sheriffs drove into the parking lot in a marked, black and white vehicle. Defendant looked in the direction of the deputy sheriffs and immediately turned around and reentered the store. Deputy Sheriffs Alan Bennett and Darryl Stone entered the store, spoke with the cashier, and approached defendant, who was returning the beer to the cooler. The deputy sheriffs arrested defendant and searched him, finding that he had no money in his possession.

After the prosecution rested its case, the trial court ruled that if defendant testified, he could be impeached with evidence that he had been convicted of a "theft-related felony."

Defendant and his friend, Sandra Jaso, testified that on the night in question they went to the convenience store to use the telephone and a group of juveniles approached defendant, asking him to purchase beer for them. Defendant agreed, entered the store with one of the juveniles, took two cases of beer from the cooler, and approached the cash register. The deputy sheriffs then arrived, and the juvenile left the store without giving defendant money to purchase the beer. Defendant returned the beer to the cooler and was arrested without having left the store. Defendant admitted having been convicted recently of "a theft-related felony."

Defendant was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to a term of four years in prison, consisting of the upper term of three years for burglary plus a one-year enhancement for having served a prior prison term. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction.

DISCUSSION

As we observed recently in People v. Saunders, supra, 5 Cal.4th 580, 587, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 638, 853 P.2d 1093, "[t]he procedure established by the Legislature for the proof of allegations of prior convictions has not been altered substantially for nearly a century." Section 1025, enacted originally in 1874 (see People v. Saunders, supra, 5 Cal.4th 580, 587, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 638, 853 P.2d 1093, fn. 2), provides that, when a defendant pleads not guilty and denies having suffered an alleged prior conviction, "the question whether or not he has suffered such previous conviction must be tried by the jury which tries the issue upon the plea of not guilty.... In case the defendant pleads not guilty, and answers that he has suffered the previous conviction, the charge of the previous conviction must not be read to the jury, nor alluded to on the trial."

"At the time section 1025 was enacted, a defendant who was alleged to have suffered a prior conviction had two choices: admit the alleged prior conviction, or have the truth of the allegation determined concurrently-- during This was the state of the law until 1981, when the Court of Appeal in Bracamonte, supra, 119 Cal.App.3d 644, 174 Cal.Rptr. 191, adopted a rule providing that a defendant who denies an alleged prior conviction "is entitled to a bifurcated proceeding wherein the jury is not informed of his prior convictions, either through allegations in the charge or by the introduction of evidence, until it has found the defendant guilty." (Id. at p. 654, 174 Cal.Rptr. 191.) The court in Bracamonte observed that bifurcating the determination of the truth of a prior conviction allegation from the issue of guilt would not violate section 1025 because, although "section 1025 does state that 'the question whether or not [the defendant] has suffered such previous conviction must be tried by the jury which tries the issue upon the plea of not guilty ' (italics added), it does not state nor imply that the jury should try both issues simultaneously." (119 Cal.App.3d at p. 652, 174 Cal.Rptr. 191, italics in original.)

the trial of the current charges--by the jury entrusted with deciding the defendant's guilt or innocence of those charges. On numerous occasions, this procedure was upheld against challenges by defendants. [Citations.]" (People v. Saunders, supra, 5 Cal.4th 580, 588, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 638, 853 P.2d 1093.)

The court in Bracamonte was correct in concluding that section 1025 does not require that the truth of a prior conviction allegation be determined by the jury at the same time it decides whether the defendant is guilty of the charged offense. Nothing in the language of section 1025 prohibits a trial court from bifurcating the determination of the truth of a prior conviction allegation from the determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence of the charged offense. This conclusion is consistent with our holding in People v. Morton (1953) 41 Cal.2d 536, 543, 261 P.2d 523, that, when the determination of the truth of a prior conviction allegation is reversed on appeal, the case may be remanded solely for a redetermination of the truth of that allegation, because "the issue of guilt of the primary offenses ... and the proof of prior convictions are clearly severable. [Citations.]" (Cf. People v. Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 179-180, 228 Cal.Rptr. 25, 720 P.2d 913, fn. 3 [The determination of the ex-felon status of a defendant charged with being an ex-felon in possession of a concealable firearm is not clearly severable, because it is "directly related to the substantive issue of guilt."].)

Although section 1025 does not prohibit a trial court from bifurcating the jury's determination of the truth of a prior conviction allegation from the remainder of the trial, it also does not expressly authorize such bifurcation. General authority to bifurcate trial issues may be found, however, in section 1044, which vests the trial court with broad discretion to control the conduct of a criminal trial: "It shall be the duty of the judge to control all proceedings during the trial ... with a view to the expeditious and effective ascertainment of the truth regarding the matters involved." (See People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 700, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351.) "The object of a trial is to ascertain the facts and apply thereto the appropriate rules of law, in order that justice within the law shall be truly administered. It is not only the right but the duty of a trial judge to so supervise and regulate the course of a trial that the truth shall be revealed in so far as it may be, within the established rules of evidence." (People v. Mendez (1924) 193 Cal. 39, 46, 223 P. 65.)

Having a jury determine the truth of a prior conviction allegation at the same time it determines the defendant's guilt of the charged offense often poses a...