People v. Schueren

In People v. Schueren (1973) 10 Cal.3d 553, the defendant was charged with assault with intent to commit murder but convicted of the lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon. (Id. at pp. 556, 558.) Under the laws then in effect, the penalty for assault with a deadly weapon was "imprisonment in the state prison for six months to life or a county jail term or fine" while the penalty for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder was "one to fourteen years in prison." (Id. at pp. 556-557.) As a result of being convicted of the lesser offense, the defendant faced a maximum term of life imprisonment rather than the maximum 14 years he would have faced if convicted as charged. Schueren explained that while earlier caselaw had held a punishment could be deemed unconstitutionally "unusual" only by means of a "'disproportionate' test," the California Supreme Court had subsequently adopted another method, giving "a literal interpretation to the word 'unusual.'" (Schueren, supra, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 559-560.) Schueren concluded: "Here had defendant pleaded guilty to the offense charged or been found guilty of that offense his prison term could not have exceeded 14 years but by asserting his constitutional rights against self-incrimination and to a jury trial and by successfully defending against the crime charged but not against an included offense, he is now faced with the possibility of life in prison. Under the circumstances we believe that a prison term exceeding 14 years is, literally, an 'unusual' punishment--i.e., a punishment that in the ordinary course of events is not inflicted. It would seem indisputable that an accused is normally not subject to an increased maximum prison term as a consequence of, inter alia, exercising his constitutional rights and successfully defending against the crime charged. In our opinion such a term under the circumstances is contrary to 'the requirements of regularity and fairness' embodied in article I, former section 6 now section 17 (see Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 276-277 conc. opn. by Brennan, J.)." (Schueren, at pp. 560-561.)