In California, a minor accused of a crime in a juvenile court proceeding—unlike a person accused in an adult criminal proceeding—has no right to a jury trial. The lack of that right becomes an issue when, as here, a juvenile court adjudication is based on one of certain statutorily specified felonies and later the juvenile, by then an adult, commits another felony. At that point, California’s “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) comes into play. Because of the prior juvenile court adjudication, the sentence for the new felony conviction is doubled, as happened here; with two such priors, the prison term is a minimum of 25 years to life.
Central here is the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 [147 L.Ed.2d 435, 120 S.Ct. 2348] (Apprendi), which holds that the federal Constitution requires a jury trial on “any fact” that increases the maximum penalty for a charged offense. Is that right violated when, as here, the additional punishment is imposed because of prior juvenile criminal conduct for which there was no right to a jury trial? The majority perceives no problem. I do.
I
As relevant in this case, defendant as an adult was charged with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, a felony. (Pen. Code, § 12021.1, *1029subd. (a).) The prosecution alleged that he had a prior juvenile court adjudication based on a violation of subdivision (a)(1) of Penal Code section 245 (assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to inflict great bodily injury),1 and that this adjudication was a “strike” under the Three Strikes law. Defendant pled guilty in return for dismissal of other charges against him. At a court trial on the alleged strike, defendant conceded the prior adjudication’s existence. But, citing Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466, he argued that the use of that prior adjudication to increase the maximum penalty for the new offense violated his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury because the adjudication occurred in juvenile court, where he had no right to a jury trial.
The trial court rejected that argument, found the allegation of the prior juvenile adjudication to be true, and sentenced defendant to a total of 32 months in prison (based on 16 months’ imprisonment for the current felony, doubled because of the prior adjudication). On defendant’s appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment. This court granted the Attorney General’s petition for review.
II
In a quintet of relatively recent decisions (Oregon v. Ice (2009) 555 U.S. _ [172 L.Ed.2d 517, 129 S.Ct. 711]; Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [166 L.Ed.2d 856, 127 S.Ct. 856]; United States v. Booker (2005) 543 U.S. 220 [160 L.Ed.2d 621, 125 S.Ct. 738] (Booker); Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403, 124 S.Ct. 2531]; Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466), the United States Supreme Court has set forth the constitutional principle that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 490.)
What led to the development of this constitutional rule was the high court’s concern about “a new trend in the legislative regulation of sentencing.” *1030(Booker, supra, 543 U.S. at p. 236.) The court noted in Booker that various legislatures had begun to enact sentencing laws providing that if the trial court found certain statutorily specified facts to exist, it was authorized—and sometimes mandated—to impose a sentence greater than would otherwise have been statutorily permitted. These sentencing laws effectively increased the power of trial courts but diminished that of juries. (Ibid.) In the words of Booker: “As the enhancements became greater, the jury’s finding of the underlying crime became less significant. And the enhancements became very serious indeed. ... [][].. . The new sentencing practice forced the Court to address the question how the right of jury trial could be preserved, in a meaningful way guaranteeing that the jury would still stand between the individual and the power of the government under the new sentencing regime.” (Id. at pp. 236-237, citations omitted.)
California’s Three Strikes law exemplifies that current trend of harsh sentence enhancements. Under this law, any felony, even relatively minor ones ordinarily punishable by a maximum of three years in prison, must be punished by a sentence of at least 25 years to life in prison when the defendant has two qualifying prior juvenile adjudications.2 (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (d)(3), (e)(2)(A).) When, as here, there is only one such adjudication, the sentence on the underlying felony is doubled. (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (d)(3), (e)(1).) Unlike an adult accused of a crime, a minor so accused in a juvenile court proceeding has, under California law, no right to have a jury determine the truth of the conduct underlying the offense.3 Yet, as I have just pointed out, under the Three Strikes law a prior juvenile court adjudication increases “the range of sentences possible” (Booker, supra, 543 U.S. at p. 236) for an adult charged with a felony, and the increased sentence, to use Booker’s words, can be “very serious indeed” (ibid.). In basing the additional punishment on alleged facts whose truth was never determined by a jury, the Three Strikes law is, in my view, contrary to the holding of Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at page 490, that under the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution a criminal defendant has a right to have a jury determine “any fact” that increases the penalty for a charged offense.
The majority advances two reasons for concluding otherwise. As explained below, its reasons are not persuasive.
*1031First, the majority asserts that defendant’s claim does not come within the “express holding” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 1015) of Apprendi that “[ojther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt” (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 490, italics added). According to the majority, here the “fact that increases the penalty . . . beyond the prescribed statutory maximum” (ibid.) was not defendant’s felonious conduct that led to the prior adjudication in juvenile court; rather, the majority asserts, it was the adjudication itself. And, the majority points out, under California law defendant did have the right to have a jury determine whether he was indeed the person who suffered that prior juvenile court adjudication, a right that defendant waived. Thus, the majority concludes, defendant was not denied the right to a jury trial that Apprendi requires.
The majority is correct that under California’s Three Strikes law the existence of a prior juvenile court adjudication of criminal conduct is the fact that triggers increased punishment. But I construe the italicized language of Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at page 490, which I quoted in the preceding paragraph, as requiring a jury trial not only on the “fact” of the existence of a prior adjudication, as the majority does, but also, unlike the majority, as requiring a jury trial on the conduct that led to that adjudication.
The prior juvenile court adjudication forming the basis for the increased punishment is simply a legal document telling us that, in a proceeding in which the accused minor had no right to a jury trial, a juvenile court judge determined that the minor committed a criminal offense. The essential teaching of the high court’s decision in Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466, is that such nonjury determinations cannot be used to increase criminal penalties beyond prescribed statutory máximums. Thus, to permit the mere existence of a prior nonjury juvenile court adjudication to increase the penalty for a later crime beyond the statutory maximum is contrary to the rationale underlying Apprendi. Indeed, the majority’s reasoning here opens the door to wholesale evasion or trivialization of the holding in Apprendi. Under the majority’s reasoning, the Legislature could enact or amend laws to define any sentence-increasing circumstance of the current offense in terms of the existence of a prior court determination or adjudication. Under such a law, a trial judge, rather than a jury, would determine whether a statutorily specified aggravating circumstance (for example, use of a firearm or infliction of great bodily injury) had occurred during the commission of the current crime, after which the jury would be permitted to decide only whether the trial judge had actually made that specific factual determination. This cannot be what the United States Supreme Court intended in Apprendi.
*1032Also, the majority’s conclusion here is inconsistent with this court’s recent decision in People v. Towne (2008) 44 Cal.4th 63 [78 Cal.Rptr.3d 530, 186 P.3d 10]. There, this court held that under Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. 466, a defendant’s sentence may not be increased based on a prior determination, in a nonjury revocation proceeding, that the defendant had violated the conditions of probation or parole. Towne explained that a sentence may be increased for a prior probation or parole violation only when that violation is based on a conviction for a criminal offense. (Towne, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 82-83.) In the latter situation, of course, the defendant would have had the right to a jury trial in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction. Implicit in the holding of Towne is the view that the constitutional jury trial right extends to the conduct underlying a prior nonjury adjudication and not merely to the existence of that nonjury adjudication. Thus, the majority’s conclusion here—that the high court’s holding in Apprendi can be satisfied by having a jury determine the mere existence of a prior nonjury juvenile court adjudication of criminal conduct—cannot be reconciled with this court’s decision in Towne that Apprendi is not satisfied by having a jury determine only the existence of a prior nonjury adjudication of a probation or parole violation.
I now turn to the majority’s second reason for concluding that the use of a prior juvenile court adjudication to increase an adult defendant’s sentence beyond the “prescribed statutory maximum” (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 490) does not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial, even though the defendant had no right in that prior proceeding to have a jury determine the truth of the facts underlying the prior adjudication. As mentioned earlier, this case is governed by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi, which holds: “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Ibid., italics added.)
The majority observes that juvenile priors “concern the defendant’s recidivism—i.e., his or her status as a repeat offender” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 1021, italics omitted), and “the prior criminal misconduct establishing this recidivism was previously and reliably adjudicated in proceedings that included . . . every substantial safeguard required in an adult criminal trial except the right to a jury” (ibid.). Thus, the majority reasons, “the Apprendi rule does not preclude use of nonjury juvenile adjudications to enhance later adult sentences.” (Id. at p. 1022.) Implicit in that reasoning is the majority’s view that juvenile priors fall within Apprendi’s “fact of a prior conviction” language, which creates an exception to Apprendi’s holding that a defendant has a right to have a jury determination of the truth of any factual allegations used to increase the defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum.
*1033It is unclear whether Apprendi’s “fact of a prior conviction” exception applies to prior juvenile court adjudications. As the majority notes, federal and state courts are divided on the issue. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1021, fn. 10.)
Apprendi itself says that the exception to the jury trial right applies only to the “fact of a prior conviction.” (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 490, italics added.) As used in the field of law, the term “conviction” ordinarily does not include juvenile court adjudications. (People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 633 [276 Cal.Rptr. 874, 802 P.2d 376] [“Juvenile court adjudications under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 are not criminal convictions . . . .”].) This is not a matter of semantics: A conviction is obtained in a trial court proceeding at which the adult defendant has the right to a jury trial. By contrast, a juvenile court adjudication results from a proceeding at which the accused juvenile has no right to a jury trial. Therefore, it is the right to a jury trial afforded under the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution that is at stake here. To borrow language from Apprendi, “there is a vast difference between accepting the validity of a prior judgment of conviction entered in a proceeding in which the defendant had the right to a jury trial” (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 496) and one in which the defendant lacked that right. (See also Jones v. United States (1999) 526 U.S. 227, 249 [143 L.Ed.2d 311, 119 S.Ct. 1215] [“[U]nlike virtually any other consideration used to enlarge the possible penalty for an offense ... a prior conviction must itself have been established through procedures satisfying the fair notice, reasonable doubt, and jury trial guarantees.” (Italics added.)].) It is thus reasonable to infer that when the high court in Apprendi created a “prior conviction” exception to the general right to a trial by jury on any fact supporting a sentence increase beyond the statutory maximum, it did so only for proceedings in which the accused did have that right.
The majority’s reasoning here—that prior juvenile court adjudications may constitutionally be used because they have been “reliably adjudicated in proceedings that included . . . every substantial safeguard” except the right to jury trial (maj. opn., ante, at p. 1021)—misses the point. “The Sixth Amendment jury trial right . . . does not turn on the relative rationality, fairness, or efficiency of potential factfinders.” (Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584, 607 [153 L.Ed.2d 556, 122 S.Ct. 2428].) The problem here is not that prior juvenile court adjudications are unreliable. The problem is that the facts underlying a juvenile court adjudication were determined by “a single employee of the State,” namely, the judge (Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 498 (conc. opn. of Scalia, J.)), which is contrary to “the system envisioned by a Constitution that guarantees trial by jury” (ibid., italics added).
*1034For the reasons given above, I conclude that the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial does not permit a trial court to impose additional punishment that is based on prior juvenile criminal conduct for which there was no right to a jury trial. Thus, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which held that the trial court erred in doubling defendant’s sentence on the underlying crime because of his prior juvenile adjudication.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied August 19, 2009, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Kennard, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.
A prior adult conviction for violating subdivision (a)(1) of Penal Code section 245 is a strike if the assault was committed with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (d)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(31)), but not if it was committed by means of force likely to inflict great bodily injury. (People v. Haykel (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 146, 148 [116 Cal.Rptr.2d 667]; see also People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1065 [77 Cal.Rptr.3d 259, 183 P.3d. l226].) But a prior juvenile court adjudication for violating the same statute is a strike not only when the assault was committed with a deadly weapon but also when it was committed by means of force likely to inflict great bodily injury. (See Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (d)(3)(B), 1192.7, subd. (c)(31); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (b)(14).) This difference between the two categories of priors appears to present a serious constitutional issue. But it was not raised in this case and thus need not be resolved now.
Although the increased penalties of California’s Three Strikes law are mandatory, a trial court has the power to order a juvenile prior as well as a prior adult conviction struck in the interest of justice. (See Pen. Code, § 1385; People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161 [69 Cal.Rptr.2d 917, 948 P.2d 429].)
When the juvenile court agrees with the prosecution that the minor is “not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(1)), the minor is charged as an adult, in which case the minor has the right to a jury trial.