Jazz Bradley was convicted by a jury on two counts of forcible rape against separate victims, including a 16-year-old, along with unlawful sexual intercourse with another minor and robbery. The crimes occurred over a span of two weeks in February 2023, when Bradley kidnapped and brutally assaulted his victims, with one suffering a nose 'broken in multiple pieces' and another sustaining multiple head contusions and a mild concussion. Bradley was wearing an ankle bracelet for parole monitoring from a previous rape conviction when he committed the new offenses.
Writing for the unanimous panel, Justice Do, joined by Acting Presiding Justice Dato and Justice Castillo, affirmed Bradley's primary sentences but struck multiple unauthorized stayed terms under both the One Strike law and Habitual Sexual Offender law. The court imposed life without parole on the rape of the minor victim under the One Strike law and 50 years to life on the second rape count, but found that the trial court had improperly imposed additional stayed sentences based on unused circumstances from the same sentencing schemes.
The court delivered particularly strong language in rejecting the practice of imposing multiple stayed sentences under the same sentencing scheme. As Justice Do wrote, 'The inclusion of the words "or more" in both subdivisions (a) and (l) of section 667.61 signal that the punishment applies only once to a qualifying offense committed under the minimum number of circumstances, even where there are additional circumstances above the minimum.' The court emphasized that alternative sentencing schemes are not enhancements and therefore cannot be treated like multiple enhancements that can be stayed.
The case originated when police tracked Bradley to a motel in February 2023 and found him with another 16-year-old victim. DNA evidence provided overwhelming support for the prosecution's case, with likelihood ratios reaching as high as 5.9 x 10^30 for one victim. San Diego County Superior Court Judge Marian F. Gaston had sentenced Bradley in April 2024, acknowledging the 'complexity of the sentencing rules' while denying defense requests to dismiss strike priors or reduce the life without parole sentence.
Bradley's defense had argued that the trial court violated dual-use prohibitions by using the same fact — that robbery was committed during rape — to both impose an upper term and make sentences consecutive. But the appellate court rejected this argument, explaining that the consecutive sentences were mandated by statute because the crimes involved separate victims, not because of the robbery-during-rape circumstance. 'Contrary to Bradley's claim, none of these terms were imposed consecutively because the robbery was committed during a rape,' Justice Do wrote.
The court's analysis focused heavily on the distinction between alternative sentencing schemes and enhancements. The court noted that both the One Strike law and Habitual Sexual Offender law 'are alternative sentencing schemes,' not enhancements, and therefore 'the trial court may impose sentence under one of the sentencing schemes, but not both.' The court rejected arguments from the Attorney General that staying unused sentences would preserve them in case primary sentences were later invalidated on appeal.
The ruling strikes eight separate stayed sentences across the two rape counts, including multiple terms of 25 years to life and additional life without parole terms that had been imposed based on unused One Strike circumstances. The court directed the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward it to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.