The California Supreme Court has released its opinions in People v. Black, following a GVR for reconsideration in light of Cunningham v. California, and People v. Sandoval. Here are some notes following a very quick read.

For cases pending on appeal, only one valid finding of an aggravating circumstance is needed to make the defendant eligible for the upper term and therefore satisfy the requirement of Cunningham and allow affirmance of the sentence. In Black's case, the jury made a finding that rendered Black ineligible for probation under California law and was also an aggravating circumstance for the term choice. The judge may find additional circumstances to inform the sentence choice. The sentence was therefore affirmed outright.

For cases where a remand is necessary, the Court in Sandoval eliminated the requirement that an aggravating circumstance be found, instead giving the judge the discretion to choose any of the three terms without such a finding. This is the same fix the Legislature enacted, but the statute did not specify whether it applied to pending cases. It also follows, in general approach, the remedial portion of United States v. Booker, where the U.S. Supreme Court took the mandatory portion of the law that created the constitutional problem and made it not mandatory. An ex post facto objection to such a fix is discussed and rejected.

Both opinions are unanimous, by Chief Justice Ronald George.