People v. Wilford
12 Cal. App. 5th 827
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Defendant Johnny Wilford was convicted of multiple offenses including assault likely to cause great bodily injury (count 1), battery with serious injury, resisting an officer, and two counts of corporal injury to a cohabitant (counts 5–6); various enhancements and priors were found true and prison sentence totaled 22 years (with some stays).
- The jury deadlocked on a separate threat charge; a mistrial was declared as to that count.
- The challenged sentencing issue concerns counts 5 and 6 (§ 273.5): the amended information alleged a prior under § 273.5(h)(1) (a 15‑day probation/jail condition) but did not expressly allege the elevated sentencing scheme of § 273.5(f)(1) (2, 4, or 5 years).
- After conviction and a true-finding on the prior, the prosecutor requested (and the court imposed) sentencing under § 273.5(f)(1), which increased the potential term for counts 5 and 6; Wilford’s counsel did not object at sentencing.
- Wilford argued on appeal that imposing the higher § 273.5(f)(1) sentence violated due process because the information did not provide fair notice of that potential elevated sentence; the Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the sentences for counts 5 and 6 and remanded for resentencing on those counts only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilford could be sentenced under § 273.5(f)(1) when the information alleged only § 273.5(h)(1) | People: no separate pleading required because § 273.5(f)(1) is an alternative sentencing provision and every fact needed was alleged | Wilford: lack of notice of the elevated sentencing exposure violated due process and prejudiced plea/trial decisions | Court: held Wilford lacked fair notice; imposing § 273.5(f)(1) sentence violated due process; reversed and remanded for resentencing on counts 5 & 6 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jones, 51 Cal.3d 294 (Cal. 1990) (due process requires notice of charges to prepare a defense)
- People v. Mancebo, 27 Cal.4th 735 (Cal. 2002) (defendant must have fair notice of enhancements that increase punishment)
- People v. Tardy, 112 Cal.App.4th 783 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (charging an offense can give notice of necessarily included offenses and potential elevated penalties where defendant was apprised before waiver)
- People v. Cross, 61 Cal.4th 164 (Cal. 2015) (distinguishing enhancements and alternative sentencing schemes is often immaterial; protections apply when prior convictions increase punishment)
- In re Yurko, 10 Cal.3d 857 (Cal. 1974) (procedural protections for admissions increasing punishment)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (requirements for knowing and voluntary waiver of constitutional rights)