People v. Cardenas, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 324 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)

The California 2nd District Court of Appeal vacated a sentence enhancement, finding that the trial court erred in denying defense counsel the opportunity to present a closing argument. The court stated in relevant part:

Under the determinate sentencing scheme, the court may not impose an upper term sentence unless an aggravating circumstance applies. (§ 1170, subd. (b)(2).) Current law further requires that “the facts underlying [any such aggravating] circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.” (Ibid.)

The right to a jury trial on aggravating circumstances has been a part of the determinate sentencing scheme only since 2022. (People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 747 [323 Cal. Rptr. 3d 675, 552 P.3d 877] (Lynch).)As a result, there is little case law on the procedures courts must follow in such a trial. In particular, the issue of whether a defendant has a right to argument by counsel on the subject of the aggravating circumstances is a matter of first impression

The right to closing argument at trial is well established. A criminal defendant’s attorney is entitled both under state law (§ 1093, subd. (e)) and as part of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel “to make a closing summation to the jury, no matter how strong the case for the prosecution may appear to the presiding judge.” (Herring v. New York (1975) 422 U.S. 853, 858 [45 L.Ed.2d 593, 95 S.Ct. 2550], fn. omitted; accord, People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 110 [24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 507, 105 P.3d 1099].) We see no principled reason why that right does not apply to a jury finding on aggravating circumstances, and the People do not offer one.