This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Monge (D) was charged with using a minor to sell marijuana and the sale or transportation of marijuana. D was also notified that the State would seek to prove two sentence enhancement allegations under the State three strike law. D had an assault conviction which qualified as a serious felony under the three-strike law if D either inflicted great bodily injury or personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon during the assault. State procedural safeguards surrounded the assessment of prior convictions in that D could invoke a jury trial, confront witnesses, had the privilege against self-incrimination and that the allegations must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that the rules of evidence applied. D waived his rights to the jury trial on the sentencing issues, and the jury found him guilty in a bifurcated trial. The truth of the prior allegations was then argued before the court, and the prosecutor asserted that D had used a stick but introduced only a prison record that D have been convicted of the prior assault with a deadly weapon. D was given enhanced sentencing under the three-strikes law and appealed. The court of appeals reversed on grounds that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt and that retrial of the issue would violate double jeopardy. The California Supreme Court reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.