People v. Tipton

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the bifurcated trial required by

People

v.

Bracamonte

(1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 644 [174 Cal.Rptr. 191], survived the enactment of “The Victims’ Bill of Rights” commonly referred to as Proposition 8. We hold the requirement of a bifurcated trial was not affected by Proposition 8 and the denial of defendant’s request for bifurcation was prejudicial error.

Facts and Proceedings Below

Defendant David Tipton was charged by information with burglary. It was further alleged, for purposes of enhancement, he had suffered a prior

[855]

felony conviction for robbery. Mr. Tipton pled not guilty and denied the prior conviction.

Before trial, defense counsel moved for a separate trial on the allegation of a prior felony conviction under the authority of

Bracamonte.

Relying on Proposition 8, the trial court denied the motion. As a result of this ruling Mr. Tipton admitted the prior conviction. The burglary charge was tried before a jury and Mr. Tipton was found guilty. The trial court imposed the midterm sentence plus a five-year enhancement for the prior robbery conviction.

Discussion

A.

Methods of Proof Are Not Limitations on the Use of Prior Felony Convictions for Purposes of Sentencing Enhancements.

In

Bracamonte

the court declared, as a rule of criminal practice, that whenever "... a defendant pleads not guilty of priors and a jury trial thereof is not waived, he 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.” (119 Cal.App.3d at p. 654.)