Imposing a Greater Sentence Than That Authorized Example Case
In People v. Haskin (1992) the defendant admitted an allegation of a prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b), for a prior 1979 burglary conviction.
The information did not allege the burglary was of an inhabited dwelling.
Based on the People's exhibit containing proceedings of the 1979 burglary conviction, the court made a factual finding that it was a residential burglary after the defendant had admitted the enhancement allegation.
At sentencing, the court imposed an enhancement term of five years for the prior 1979 burglary under section 667.
It did so instead of imposing a one-year term as provided by section 667.5, subdivision (b), which was what the information had alleged and the defendant had admitted.
The Court of Appeal held "because appellant was neither statutorily nor factually charged with, nor consented to, a substituted section 667 enhancement in conjunction with the 1979 offense, the trial court was without authority to impose a sentence greater than that authorized by section 667.5, subdivision (b), the charging statute which appellant admitted." (People v. Haskin, supra, 4 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1440.)
Haskin is distinguishable because it involved an admission rather than a conviction following a jury trial.