Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Monge (D) was charged with using a minor to sell marijuana and the sale or transportation of marijuana. D was also notified that the State would seek to prove two sentence enhancement allegations under the State three strike law. D had an assault conviction which qualified as a serious felony under the three-strike law if D either inflicted great bodily injury or personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon during the assault. State procedural safeguards surrounded the assessment of prior convictions in that D could invoke a jury trial, confront witnesses, had the privilege against self-incrimination and that the allegations must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that the rules of evidence applied. D waived his rights to the jury trial on the sentencing issues, and the jury found him guilty in a bifurcated trial. The truth of the prior allegations was then argued before the court, and the prosecutor asserted that D had used a stick but introduced only a prison record that D have been convicted of the prior assault with a deadly weapon. D was given enhanced sentencing under the three-strikes law and appealed. The court of appeals reversed on grounds that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt and that retrial of the issue would violate double jeopardy. The California Supreme Court reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co