Rule 4.437. Statements in aggravation and mitigation
(a) Time for filing and service
Statements in aggravation and mitigation referred to in section 1170(b) must be filed and served at least four days before the time set for sentencing under section 1191 or the time set for pronouncing judgment on revocation of probation under section 1203.2(c) if imposition of sentence was previously suspended.
(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(b) Combined statement
A party seeking consideration of circumstances in aggravation or mitigation may file and serve a statement under section 1170(b) and this rule.
(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(c) Contents of statement
A statement in aggravation or mitigation must include:
(1)A summary of evidence that the party relies on as circumstances justifying the imposition of a particular term; and
(2)Notice of intention to dispute facts or offer evidence in aggravation or mitigation at the sentencing hearing. The statement must generally describe the evidence to be offered, including a description of any documents and the names and expected substance of the testimony of any witnesses. No evidence in aggravation or mitigation may be introduced at the sentencing hearing unless it was described in the statement, or unless its admission is permitted by the sentencing judge in the interests of justice.
(Subd (c) amended effective May 23, 2007; previously amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(d) Support required for assertions of fact
Assertions of fact in a statement in aggravation or mitigation must be disregarded unless they are supported by the record in the case, the probation officer's report or other reports properly filed in the case, or other competent evidence.
(Subd (d) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(e) Disputed facts
In the event the parties dispute the facts on which the conviction rested, the court must conduct a presentence hearing and make appropriate corrections, additions, or deletions in the presentence probation report or order a revised report.
(Subd (e) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective January 1, 1991.)
Rule 4.437 amended effective May 23, 2007; adopted as rule 437 effective July 1, 1977; previously renumbered effective January 1, 2001; previously amended effective July 28, 1977, January 1, 1991, and January 1, 2007.
Advisory Committee Comment
Section 1170(b) states in part:
"At least four days prior to the time set for imposition of judgment, either party or the victim, or the family of the victim if the victim is deceased, may submit a statement in aggravation or mitigation to dispute facts in the record or the probation officer's report, or to present additional facts."
This provision means that the statement is a document giving notice of intention to dispute evidence in the record or the probation officer's report, or to present additional facts.
The statement itself cannot be the medium for presenting new evidence, or for rebutting competent evidence already presented, because the statement is a unilateral presentation by one party or counsel that will not necessarily have any indicia of reliability. To allow its factual assertions to be considered in the absence of corroborating evidence would, therefore, constitute a denial of due process of law in violation of the United States (14th Amend.) and California (art. I, § 7) Constitutions.
"[I]t is now clear that the sentencing process, as well as the trial itself, must satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause. Even though the defendant has no substantive right to a particular sentence within the range authorized by statute, the sentencing is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding at which he is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel . . . . The defendant has a legitimate interest in the character of the procedure which leads to the imposition of sentence . . . ." Gardner v. Florida (1977) 430 U.S. 349, 358.
The use of probation officers' reports is permissible because the officers are trained objective investigators. Williams v. New York (1949) 337 U.S. 241. Compare sections 1203 and 1204. People v. Peterson (1973) 9 Cal.3d 717, 727, expressly approved the holding of United States v. Weston (9th Cir. 1971) 448 F.2d 626 that due process is offended by sentencing on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations that were denied by the defendant. Cf., In re Hancock (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 943, 949.
The requirement that the statement include notice of intention to rely on new evidence will enhance fairness to both sides by avoiding surprise and helping to ensure that the time limit on pronouncing sentence is met.