Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Montel Lee Clay was charged with second degree robbery after a September 11, 2021 holdup at a Redlands gas station in which an accomplice held a knife to the cashier while Clay took the cash register. A GPS tracker hidden in bait money led police to a vehicle containing Clay's wallet, and an officer arrested him nearby wearing clothing matching the surveillance video. The information also alleged two prior serious and violent felony convictions and numerous aggravating factors.
The jury found Clay guilty of robbery and, in a bifurcated proceeding, found true the two prior convictions and the aggravating factor that he had served a prior prison term. The trial court granted a section 1118.1 motion and dismissed the aggravating factor that defendant was on parole when the crime was committed. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the aggravating factors that the crime involved great violence and that the victim was particularly vulnerable, and the trial court declared a mistrial as to those factors. At sentencing, the court struck one of the prior convictions pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero), then imposed the upper term of five years in state prison on the robbery conviction, doubled due to the one remaining prior conviction, plus five years for one of the section 667, subdivision (a)(1), priors, for a total of 15 years.
The Court’s Holding
On appeal, Clay argued the trial court violated Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b), as interpreted in People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, by relying on aggravating factors not found true by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt—specifically that a principal was armed, that he engaged in violent conduct indicating a serious danger to the community, and that he was on parole when the crime was committed. The Court of Appeal rejected the claim based on the sentencing record. Before selecting the upper term, the trial court inquired of the prosecutor which aggravating factors had been found true; the prosecutor responded that the only factor recalled was defendant's prior conviction under section 1170, subdivision (h), and defense counsel concurred.
The court concluded that the trial court's references to other circumstances merely recited aggravating factors listed in the probation report after considering those and other factors in denying probation, rather than findings relied upon to justify the upper term. Because the single jury-found aggravating factor of a prior prison term was sufficient—only one aggravating factor need be cited to support imposition of an upper term under People v. Ortiz—the sentence was proper. The judgment was affirmed in full.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court's mention of additional circumstances from a probation report does not establish reliance on non-jury-found aggravating factors when the record shows the court confirmed which factor the jury actually found true before imposing the upper term.
- Under section 1170(b) and People v. Wiley, aggravating facts supporting an upper-term sentence must be found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or stipulated to, but a single properly established aggravating factor suffices.
- The court applied Wiley's framework, which followed Erlinger v. United States in requiring jury findings for facts that increase the prescribed sentencing range.
- The trial court independently exercised its Romero discretion to strike one strike prior and stated that the defense proffered waiving appellate rights did not enter into the Court's reasoning and decision making.
- The opinion is unpublished and may not be cited except as permitted by California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b).
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how California appellate courts apply the California Supreme Court's 2025 Wiley decision reviewing upper-term sentences imposed after bifurcated aggravating-factor trials. It underscores that the critical inquiry on review is what the sentencing court actually relied upon, not merely what it recited from a probation report.
The case also demonstrates the practical importance of the sentencing colloquy: the trial court's on-the-record confirmation with both counsel that only the prior-prison-term factor had been found true proved dispositive in defeating the appellate challenge.