WPCN @bTh'rZ[|t7Q .Wh #$Ej|CMBI_MyO(IjBpj_2`tcy Sf 3rqgēw]D2Y1=}{=o8ؘ-tԥ2@˄ߎS?=Y"~ '{G3+49ΐ jɵTۤ#wm@ڡ@V3 o«<^GlUI1 d_¾NWe)}Ɂ^BP7K+j㣿|wmg>gpАł~09)aD3VAWRSݰb V=oa\VFM圫{3l Q#UTNY % 0YNw4  / m1 0cHUD 1u 72d 0w 0  0 07 0 0 0 0D| 1 72I<{ 0 Nz 0U 0 0 0p 0) 0 0 00! 0! 0l" 0+# 0# 0$ 0J% 0% 0& 0' 0' 01( 0( 0) 0_* 0+ 0+ 09, 0, 0W- 0<--b.U7>. 0].n0N0 00 01 0K2 0> 3 0G3 0?4 0!5 06 06 07 08 0c9 025: 0g: 0 :c; 0Y; 0_; 0 U< 0_= 0> B*@ D/A D+@A 0ukA D5A BB 02B D/8D 0gD 065E 0kE 0:sF 0^F 0< G 1eGGU6GU*G HH(H:IU @JIIJJJJJJJJJJJJJ^ KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 0uKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 0A'L'L'L'L'L'L'L'L 0ThLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhLhL 0hLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL $M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M AS5MM 0DNNHP LaserJet 2200 Series PS0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$vOXXUSUS.,QK3:i+003|x U(;3$2#  0  .3  0  174Z,Bookman Old Style 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  xDGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets Listhttp://www.scotusblog.com/wp/(O$http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/07grantednotedlist.html*+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L  <:Default Para- -\  `&Times New Roman<:Release Text   2( 4 <DL2 S:\  `&Times New RomanSS:\  `&Times New RomanS  2( 4 <DL2  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/recent.htm,http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/cscm/cur.jsp0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKa<6X9`(Courier NewKS:\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Ka<6X9`(Courier NewKS:\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Ka<6X9`(Courier NewKS:\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7S(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?b%2A`Arial?  S:\  `&Times New RomanS7T(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dR)1dxd'dxd(M3Ƭ$ !ѯXXUSUS.,  WWWW)!dxdx d<:zTop of For7Y(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?b%2A`Arial?  S:\  `&Times New RomanS7T(X75+ ` hp x 5  R)2dxd0KS.SampleKa<6X9`(Courier NewKS:\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKa<6X9`(Courier NewKS:\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  %&'()*+, 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`ArialLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5   http://www.fdap.orghttp://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/(A Z(Times New Roman   Ƭ"ѯXXUSUS.,  _ ѯSpecialBonusFeature#2:  _Blakely_ԄCunninghamUpdate!#ѯ_#  Ƭ"ѯXXUSUS.,  _ ѯSpecialBonusFeature#1:  NinthCircuitEnBancCasesToo!#ѯ_# π68 (M3Ƭ$ !ѯXXUSUS.,  (Vm$0   (,!$0  0` (#(#  (@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# ` UVE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  !ѯXXUSUS.,  _gѯѯ gRQgѯ  @@> > FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  #RQQgR\#TRAININGSEMINAR#ѯQR~#RQѯgRQQR L @VV"@@VV"#gѯQgRF#ggѯJanuary26,2008 H #gѯg##ѯgѯe# Бѯ x-. v Б  THEPERILSOFPENDENCY# Б v x-.##ѯ Б~#  ( ѯPendingCasesintheU.S.andCaliforniaSupremeCourts#ѯ=#x vѯ H  ii5%!`|nd `E=ndttHui (#(#  #ѯvx #ѯ (#(#   `     h Butwait,theresmore.....#ѯ#    ih5%!`|)nd `EndttHUi (#(#x vѯ#ѯvx #gѯѯggѯ (#(##gѯgg#@*ggѯԈ  @@00$J.BradleyOConnell#gѯg#  AssistantDirector  B #ѯgѯH#  +@'  TRX3'* FDAP NEW LABELSX3' Letter3'*FDAP Large Mailing LabelABELS3'LetterT   8dd8 Бѯ ~ БTHEPERILSOFPENDENCY# ~ #  PendingCasesintheU.S.andCaliforniaSupremeCourts#ѯ #XXѯ $ #ѯXX蘇 #PreparedbyJ.BradleyOConnell  FirstDistrictAppellateProject,AssistantDirector   Jan.2008XXѯ   TABLEOFCONTENTS      on  Vm  Vm 0     I.0(#(#U.S.SUPREMECOURT!CERT.GRANTEDCASES:SelectedHighlights #""J(#.D D L(#(##1Vm  ݌ x  Ќ  Vm  Vm 0     II.0(#(#NINTHCIRCUIT!CASESPENDINGONENBANCREVIEW. #""J(#.?(#(##3Vm  ݌ T  Ќ  Vm  Vm 0     III.0(#(#CALIFORNIASUPREMECOURT!REVIEWGRANTEDCASES : Selected 0 Highlights #""J(#. (#(##4Vm ݌  p Ќ  Vm  Vm/0     IV.0(#(#_BLAKELY_ԄCUNNINGHAMUPDATE #`"`"I(#.((#(##11  Vm/K݌ L Ќ   #ѯXXl #  <   Бѯ x-. v Б98ѯdd8  d]THEPERILSOFPENDENCY# Б v x-.##ѯ Б#  ѯPendingCasesintheU.S.andCaliforniaSupremeCourts#ѯ#   ѯPreparedbyJ.BradleyOConnell <  FirstDistrictAppellateProject,AssistantDirector `  Jan.2008#ѯg#    XXѯ  I.0  U.S.SUPREMECOURT!CERT.GRANTEDCASES:SelectedHighlights  (#(# 0  ThesesummariesarebasedprimarilyontheGranted&NotedList,October2007Term,on l  theSupremeCourtswebsite:X (#(# 0  4 :O  5  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/07grantednotedlist.html6O  7 ԀD (#(# 0  AdditionalinformationhasbeenobtainedfromSCOTUSBlog!awebsiteonSupreme l CourtpracticemaintainedbytwoWashington,D.C.,firms,AkinGumpStraussHauer& X FeldandHowe&Russell:4 O  5  http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/6O  7 ԀD(#(#   Confrontation     (Dy3 " 3"   3>2D3  0    Gilesv.California,076053,cert.gr.,Jan.11,2008.Cal.SupremeCourtopinion:People  v.Giles(2007)40Cal.4th833. 3>k݌(#(# Ќ  0  ThislatestinstallmentintheCrawfordv.Washingtonsagaconcernsthe forfeitureby h wrongdoingexceptiontotheconfrontationclause: Doesacriminaldefendantforfeithis T orherSixthAmendmentConfrontationClauseclaimsuponamereshowingthatthe @ defendanthascausedtheunavailabilityofawitness,assomecourtshaveheld,ormustthere , | alsobeanadditionalshowingthatthedefendantsactionswereundertakenforthepurpose !h ofpreventingthewitnessfromtestifying,asothercourtshaveheld?"T(#(# 0  Search&Seizure #,(#(# " 3"   32D3  0    Virginiav.Moore,061082;cert.gr.,Sept.25,2007;arguedJan.14,2008. 3݌%!!(#(# Ќ  0  Mooreconcernstherelationshipbetweenstatelawontheauthorityforarrestsandthe '"# constitutionalityofasearchundertheFourthAmendment. DoestheFourthAmendment x(#$ requirethesuppressionofevidenceobtainedincidenttoanarrestthatisbaseduponprobable d)$% cause,wherethearrestviolatesaprovisionofstatelaw?Mooreconcernswhether P*%& violationsofstateprovisionsgoverningarrests,suchasstatutoryprohibitionsoncustodial <+&' arrestsforcertainminoroffenses,alsoaffecttheconstitutionalityofthearrestorsearchunder (,x'( theFourthAmendmentandtheavailabilityoftheexclusionaryremedy.#-d()(#(#: #Ї  FarettaSelfRepresentation,DefendantsCompetencyandRighttoFair Trial   " 3"   3,!2D3  0    Indianav.Edwards,07208,cert.gr.,Dec.7,2007. 3,!Y!݌(#(# Ќ  0  EdwardsposesissuesconcerningFarettasapplicationtoadefendantwhoismentallyill, d butmeetstheusualstandardforcompetencytostandtrial(akintoCal.Pen.Code1368), P  includingwhetheratrialcourtcandenyselfrepresentationongroundsofassuringthe <  defendantsrighttoafairtrial. Maystatesadoptahigherstandardformeasuring ( x competencytorepresentoneselfattrialthanformeasuringcompetencytostandtrial?" d(#(# 0  ProsecutorialMisconduct!BatsonandOtherEvidenceofRacialBias  < (#(# " 3"   3$2D3  0    Synderv.Louisiana,cert.gr.,June.25,2007;arguedDec.4,2007. 3$%݌ (#(# Ќ  0  ThisisthecapitalappealofanAfricanAmericanmanconvictedandsentencedbyanall   whitejury.Thecaseconcernstwodifferenttypesofallegedprosecutorialracialbias!   Batsonerrorintheuseofperemptorychallengesagainstblackjurorsandtheprosecutors t referencestotheO.J.Simpsoncaseduringclosingargumentsattrial.Inadditiontomore ` traditionalBatsonissues(suchastheroleofjurorcomparisonsandallegeddisparate L questioningofwhiteandblackjurors),thecaseconcernswhetherthelaterO.J.Simpson 8 referencesrelatebacktotheBatsonclaimandrepresentevidenceofprosecutorialracialbias $t andoflikelydiscriminatoryintentduringjuryselection?`(#(# 0  DeathPenalty 8(#(# " 3"   3)2D3  0    Baezv.Rees,075439;cert.gr.,Sept.25,2007;arguedJan.7,2008. 3))݌(#(# Ќ  0  ThisistheKentuckylethalinjectioncase,whichhasresultedinadefactonational  moratoriumonexecutions,astheSupremeCourthasstayedotherscheduledexecutions  pendingBaez.Thecasedoesnotrepresentablanketchallengetotheconstitutionalityof p lethalinjections,butconcernsthestandardsunderwhichcourtsmustevaluatewhethera \  statesexecutionprotocolconstitutescruelandunusualpunishmentbyinflictingunnecessary H! orexcessivepainandsuffering.4" (#(# " 3"   3)-2D3  0    Kennedyv.Louisiana,07343;cert.gr.,Jan.4,2008. 3)-V-݌ $\"(#(# Ќ  0  Kennedyconcernstheconstitutionalityofthedeathpenaltyforanonhomicideoffense: %4!$  WhethertheEighthAmendmentsCruelandUnusualPunishmentClausepermitsaState & "% topunishthecrimeofrapeofachildwiththedeathpenalty.PriorSupremeCourtcaselaw ' #& barscapitalpunishmentforrapeofanadultvictim,sotheissueiswhetherthevictimsage (#' (under12)renderstheoffensesoegregiousandsufficiently narrowstheclassofeligible )$( offensesthatthestatutecomportswithEightAmendmentstandards.*%)(#(#  l+&*   Retroactivity&Federalism   " 3"   3!12D3  0    Danforthv.Minnesota,068273,cert.gr.,May21,2007;arguedOct.31,2007. 3!1N1݌(#(# Ќ  0  LikeVirginiav.Moore(summarizedunderSearch&Seizure),Danforthconcernsthe ` interplaybetweenstatelawandtheremediesforfederalconstitutionalviolations!including L  whetherastatecourtmaychoosetoapplyanewfederalconstitutionalrule(Crawfordv. 8  Washington)retroactivelyinstatepostconvictionproceedings,eveniftherelevantfederal $ t decisiondoesnotmeetthe_Teague_Ԁtestforretroactiveapplicationinfederalhabeas  ` proceedings. ArestatesupremecourtsrequiredtousethestandardannouncedinTeaguev.  L  Lane,489U.S.288(1989),todeterminewhetherUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecisions  8  applyretroactivelytostatecourtcriminalcases,ormayastatecourtapplystatelaworstate $  constitutionbasedretroactivityteststhataffordapplicationofSupremeCourtdecisionsto   abroaderclassofcriminaldefendantsthantheclassdefinedbyTeague? (#(#  II.0  NINTHCIRCUIT!CASESPENDINGONENBANCREVIEW.  (#(# 0  TheNinthCircuitswebsiteincludesalinktoalistofcasescurrentlypendingonenbanc \ review;thelistalsoincludessummariesoftheholdingsinrecentlydecidedenbanccases: H 4fheO  5  http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/6)8O=8ight  7he>k8Ԁ4(#(# Ѐ0  Generalnote:󀀀Bothofthependingenbanccasessummarizedbelowhavearisenonfederal  \ habeasreviewofstateconvictions.Consequently,ineachcase,theCircuitisreviewingthe H meritsunderthedeferentialAEDPA/2254(d)(1)standardofreview,allowinghabeasrelief 4 onlywherethestatecourtdecisionwas contrarytooran unreasonableapplicationof   clearlyestablishedfederallaw. (#(#   Miranda   " 3"   3_;2D3  0    Andersonv.Terhune,0417237.9thCir.panelopn.,467F.3d1208;rehearingenbanc h granted,Apr.24,2007;arguedOct.9,2007. 3_;;݌T (#(# Ќ  0  Whetheradefendantscommentsduringinterrogationweresufficientlycleartoinvokehis ,"|  MirandarightsunderDavisv.UnitedStates(1994)512U.S.452.Atonepoint,Davis #h! stated IpleadtheFifth.Incrediblyenough,theCaliforniaappellatecourtviewedthat $T" statementas ambiguous,ratherthanasasufficientlyclearandunequivocalinvocationof $@ # hisrighttoremainsilent.Bya21vote,theNinthCircuitpanelfoundthatthestatecourts %,!$ decisionwasneitheran unreasonabledeterminationoffactsnoranunreasonable &"% applicationofestablishedfederallaw,asrequiredundertheAEDPAstandard.However, '#& eventhepanelmajorityintimated: :XXXXIfthiscasewerenotbeforeuson28U.S.C.#XXX:X@#:XXXX#XXX:X~@#:XXXX2254 (#' habeasreview,wemightbewritingaverydifferentopinion.#XXX:X@#)$((#(# 0  SelfRepresentationandAEDPAIssuesonReviewofStateCourtDecisions d+&*(#(# Ї" 3"   3A2D3  0    Frantzv.Hazey,0516024.Enbancreviewordered,Dec.29,2006;arguedMarch22,2007. 3A&B݌(#(# Ќ  0  Theunderlyingclaimconcernswhetheraselfrepresenteddefendantsinabilitytoparticipate  inabenchconferenceonthejurysrequesttoheara911taperepresentedastructuraldefect t (asadenialofhisrighttoselfrepresentation)orwassusceptibletoharmlesserrorreview, ` astheArizonaappellatecourtfound.TheCircuittooktheunusualstepoforderingenbanc L  reviewonitsownmotion,priortoanydecisionbytheoriginal3judgepanel.Apparently 8  becausethepetitionerchosetorepresenthimselfinthefederalappeal,theCircuitappointed $ t anattorneytofilebriefsasanamicusaddressingseveralsubtleissuesconcerningapplication  ` oftheAEDPA/2254(d)(1)standard.Theseincludewhetherthefederalcourtmustlimit  L  its2254(d)(1)reviewtothereasonsstatedinthestatecourtdecision.Seebriefingorder,  8  465F.3d910(9thCir.2006).$ (#(#  III.0  CALIFORNIASUPREMECOURT!REVIEWGRANTEDCASES : Selected   Highlights  (#(# 0  ThesummariesbelowarebasedprimarilyontheJudicialCouncilsweeklypressreleases t onreviewgrantedcases,4< O  5  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/recent.htm,6HOH  7 HԀandonthe ` appellateopinions.(Citationsareincludedonlywheretheappellateopinionwaspublished; L however,theunpublishedreviewgrantedopinionsarereadilyavailable,aswell,onthe 8 SupremeCourtswebsite.)Unlessotherwiseindicated,anyquotationsarefromtheJudicial $t Councilssummary.AnotherusefulsourcefortrackingCaliforniaSupremeCourtcasesis ` CalLaw(affiliatedwithTheRecorder):4= O  5  http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/cscm/cur.jsp6|KOK  7 B K.L(#(# 0  Thisisnotacompletelistofreviewgrantedcriminalcases. Instead,thissummary $ focusesontheissueslikelytobeofgreatestinteresttoCaliforniacriminalappellate  practitioners.Counselshouldconsultoneofthesourcesaboveforamorecomprehensive  listingofpending leadcases.(#(# 0  Finally, BlakelyCunninghamdevelopments,includingissuesstillpendingonreviewin t theCaliforniaSupremeCourt,aresummarizedseparatelyinthefinalsectionofthis d  outline(PartIV). P!(#(# 0  Homicide (#x!(#(# " 3 "   3`O2D3  0    Peoplev.Chun,S157601.Appellateopn.,155Cal.App.4th170;reviewgr.,Dec.19,2007. 3`OO݌%P #(#(# Ќ  0  Felonymurder. Doestheoffenseofdischargingafirearmatanoccupiedvehiclein &("% violationofPenalCodesection246mergewitharesultinghomicideunderPeoplev.Ireland '#& (1969)70Cal.2d522,ifthereisnoadmissibleevidenceofanindependentandcollateral ($' criminalpurposeotherthantocommitanassault?Chunarisesfromthetensionbetween: )$( (1)theCourtsrecentcases(RandleandRobertson)conditioninguseofnegligentfirearm *%) discharge(Pen.Code246.3)asafelonymurderpredicateonthepresenceofa collateral t+&* purpose,distinctfromassault,and(2)its1995Hansenopinionwhichdeclinedtoapplya  collateralpurposetestandrejectedasimilarmergerchallengetouseof246asapredicate  offense.(#(# " 3 "   3WT2D3  0    :XXXXPeoplev.Medina,S155823L  M  .Appellateopn.,153Cal.App.4th610#XXX:XT#;reviewgr.,Oct.31,2007. 3WTT݌`(#(# Ќ  0  Naturalandprobableconsequencesdoctrine.Medinaconcernstheouterboundsofuseof 8  a naturalandprobableconsequencestheorytoholdparticipantsinagangrelatedfight $ t liableforahomicidecommittedbyanothergangmember. DidtheCourtofAppealerrin  ` holdingtheevidenceinsufficienttosupportdefendantsconvictionsformurderand  L  attemptedmurderunderthenaturalandprobableconsequencesdoctrinebasedonthetarget  8  offensesofassaultandbattery?$ (#(# " 3 "   3KX2D3  0    Peoplev.Moye,S157980.Reviewgr.,Jan.16,2008.:XXXX 3KXxX݌ (#(# Ќ  0  Voluntarymanslaughter/heatofpassion.Moyeconcernswhethertherewassufficient   provocationtosupportrequestedinstructionsontheheatofpassiontheoryofvoluntary p manslaughterand,ifso,whethertherefusalofthatinstructionwasprejudicial.Asphrased \ intheAttorneyGeneralspetitionforreview(2007WL4593072): #XXX:XX#:XXXXDid[theappellatecourt] H errinholdingthattheclaimthatappellantwasactinginfearforhislife,byitself,was 4 sufficienttorequireanadditionalinstructiononheatofpassionvoluntarymanslaughter,  p withoutconsideringtheeffectoftheothermanslaughterinstructions? \(#(#  0  Robbery 4(#(# " 3 "   3\2D3  0    Peoplev.Gomez,S140612.Appellateopn.,134Cal.App.4th1241;reviewgr.,Mar.22,   2006;setforargument,Feb.6,2008. 3\"]݌(#(# Ќ  0  Immediatepresence.Gomezinvolvesavariationonasocalled Estesrobbery(i.e.,onein  whichtheoriginaltakingisnonforciblebutthethiefsubsequentlyusesforcetoretain l possessionofthegoods).ThetwistinGomezisthatthetakingapparentlydidnotoccurin X  thevictims immediatepresence. Canadefendantbeconvictedofrobberyforusingforce D! orfearinthevictimsimmediatepresencewhilecarryingawaystolenproperty,ordoessuch 0"  aconvictionrequirethatthedefendantuseforceorfearinthevictimsimmediatepresence #l! whiletakingthepropertyorpreventingthevictimfromregainingit?#XXX:X%[#:XXXX$X"(#(# " 3 "   3a2D3  0    Peoplev.Scott,S136498.Reviewgr.,Nov.16,2005. 3aa݌%0!$(#(# Ќ  0  Multiplerobberyconvictionsduringrobberyofstore.Scottconcernsthenumberofrobbery '#& convictionspermissiblewhenmultiplestoreemployeesarepresentandsubjecttoforceor (#' fear,butonlyoneemployeehadaccesstothepropertyultimatelytaken: Didthetrialcourt )$( errininstructingthejurythatallemployeeshaveconstructivepossessionoftheiremployers |*%) propertyduringarobbery,and,ifso,whatistheproperstandardfordeterminingwhetheran h+&* employeehasconstructivepossessionoftheemployerspropertyduringarobbery?#XXX:X蘈a#:XXXX(#(# 0  Joinder#XXX:X蘉e#:XXXXԀ&Severance ; CrossAdmissibilityofOffenses (#(# " 3"   3{f2D3  0    #XXX:Xf#Peoplev.:XXXXԀSoper,S152667.Reviewgr.,June27,2007. 3{ff݌d(#(# Ќ  0  Crossadmissibility.󀀀Infindingthedefendantwasentitledtoseveranceoftwomurder <  counts,theappellatecourtheldthatthetrialcourterredinbelievingthatevidenceoftwo ( x homicideswouldbecrossadmissible.Consequently,thejoinder/severanceissueturnsupon  d whetherthatevidencewouldbeadmissibleanywayunder otheroffenses(Evid.Code#XXX:Xg#:XXXX  P  1101,352)principles: [D]#XXX:X蘏i#:XXXXidthe[appellatecourt]errinholdingthatevidenceofeach  <  murdercouldnotbeadmittedonthequestionofintentormotiveastotheothermurder (  becauseidentitywasatissueandthecrimeswerenotcrossadmissibleonthatpoint?#XXX:Xj#:XXXX (#(# #XXX:X]k#  Search&Seizure    " 3"   3k2D3  0    Peoplev.Galland,S149890.Appellateopn.,146Cal.App.4th277;reviewgr.,Apr.18, t 2007. 3k$l݌`(#(# Ќ  0  Sealedwarrantaffidavit.󀀀Gallandconcernstheconsequencesofacourtsormagistrates 8 failuretoretainacompleterecordofanyconfidentialinformationsubmittedinsupportof $t awarrantaffidavit!includingapplicationoftheexclusionaryruleasasanctionforthe ` courtspracticeofreturningthesealedshowingtothepolice,ratherthanretainingitforthe L courtsrecords.8(#(# " 3"   3>o2D3  0    InreRaymondC.,S149728.Appellateopn.,145Cal.App.4th1320;reviewgr.,March21,  2007. 3>oko݌(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3kp2D3  0    Peoplev.Hernandez,S150038.Appellateopn.,146Cal.App.4th773;reviewgr.,March  21,2007. 3kpp݌(#(# Ќ  0  Trafficstops!licenseplates.󀀀 RaymondC.andHernandezbothpresentthefollowing \  issue:Ifapoliceofficerseesthatamotorvehiclelacksarearorbothlicenseplates,maythe H! officermakeatrafficstoptodetermineifthevehiclehasatemporarypermitorifadisplayed 4"  temporarypermitisavalidone? #p!(#(#    WheelerBatson  $H # " 3"   3s2D3  0    Peoplev.Lenix,S148029.Reviewgr.,Jan.24,2007. 3ss݌&"%(#(# Ќ  0  TheU.S.SupremeCourtsMillerElcaseshaveaffirmedthematerialityofjurorcomparisons (#' toassessmentofthebonafidesofaprosecutorsstatedreasonsforstrikingminorityjurors )$( (contrarytopriorCaliforniacaseswhichhadinsistedthatsuchcomparisonswereirrelevant |*%) toWheelerBatsonanalysis).But,evenafterMillerEl,someCaliforniacourtshaveresisted h+&* d]  d d  jurorcomparisonsonproceduralgrounds,andtheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasnowgranted  reviewonthefollowingquestion: Mustanappellatecourtperformacomparativejuror  analysisforthefirsttimeonappealtoevaluatethegenuinenessoftheprosecutorsreasons  forperemptorilychallengingprospectivejurors?(InitsownpostMillerElIIcasestodate, t theCaliforniaSupremeCourthas assumedwithoutdecidingthatsuchcomparisonsare ` necessaryonappeal,evenifnotspecificallyraisedbelow.)L (#(# 0  ProsecutorialMisconduct $ t(#(# " 3"   3y2D3  0    Peoplev.Lopez,S143615.Appellateopn.,138Cal.App.4th674;reviewgr.,July19,2006;  L  argued,Nov.6,2007. 3yy݌ 8 (#(# Ќ  0  Lopezconcernsavarietyofallegedinstancesofprosecutorialmisconductinthemolestation   trialofaCatholicpriest.Theappellatecourtfoundtheprosecutorengagedinapervasive   patternof guiltbyassociationarguments,drawingfromthewellpublicizedscandals   involvingotherCatholicpriests.(TheLopezappealpresentstheprosecutorialmisconduct   issuesinanineffectiveassistanceenvelope,duetotrialcounselsfailuretoobjectonthese p grounds.)\(#(#   Enhancements BasedonFactsofCurrentOffense  4 " 3"   3}2D3  0    Peoplev.Anderson,S152695.Appellateopn.,149Cal.App.4th183,mod.150Cal.App.4th ` 305a;reviewgr.,July11,2007. 3}}݌L(#(# Ќ  " 3"   3~2D3  0    Porterv.SuperiorCourt,S152273.Appellateopn.,148Cal.App.4th889;reviewgr.,July 8 11,2007. 3~*݌$(#(# Ќ  0  Doublejeopardy.AndersonandPortereachpresentissuesconcerningtheapplicabilityof  doublejeopardyprinciplestoseparateretrialofanenhancementallegation(withoutany  retrialoftheunderlyingcriminalcount).InAnderson,thejurydeadlockedona onestrike  allegationconcerningasexualassault,and,inPorter,thecourtgrantedanewtriallimited p topremeditationandgangallegations(whilelettingtheattemptedmurderconvictionstand). \  Eachcaseconcernswhetherdoublejeopardybarsretrialofthoseseparateenhancing H! allegations,inlightofApprendistreatmentofenhancementsascomparabletoadditional 4"  elementsoftheunderlyingoffense. #p!(#(# " 3"   32D3  0    Peoplev.Pitto,S139609.Appellateopn.,133Cal.App.4th1544;reviewgr.,Feb.8,2006; $H # :XXXXarguedJan.9,2008.#XXX:X蘤# 3݌%4!$(#(# Ќ  0  Weapons.Pittoconcernswhetherthestandardinstructionsforanarmingenhancement(Pen. ' #& Code12022(c);CALJICNo.17.15) adequatelyapprisethejuryoftheneedfora (#' facilitativenexusbetweenthehandgunandtheunderlyingcrime,asthosetermsareutilized )$( inPeoplev.Bland(1995)10Cal.4th991.*%)(#(# Ї" 3"   32D3  0    Peoplev.Cross,S139791.Appellateopn.,134Cal.App.4th500;reviewgr.,Mar.1,2006. 3)݌(#(# Ќ  0  GBI/pregnancy.Whereachildmolestationoffenseresultsinpregnancy,caneitherthe  pregnancyitselfora legalsurgicalabortiontoterminatethepregnancysupportagreat t bodilyinjuryenhancement(Pen.Code12022.7)?`(#(# 0   Strikes&OtherPriorConvictionEnhancements 8 (#(# " 3"   32D3  0    Peoplev.Nguyen,S154847.Appellateopn.,152Cal.App.4th1205;reviewgr.,Oct.10,  d 2007. 3݌ P (#(# Ќ  0  Juvenilepriors.Nguyenposesoneofthemostcrucialunresolvedissuesconcerningthe (   priorconvictionexceptiontotheApprendirightstojurydeterminationandproofbeyond   areasonabledoubtofenhancingfactswhichincreasethemaximumterm.The prior   convictionexceptionrests,inpart,onthefactthatthedefendanthadthefullrangeof   constitutionalrightsinthepriorproceeding.Theinclusionofjuvenileadjudicationsin   Californias threestrikeslaw(andthoseofsomeotherjurisdictions)invitesthequestion t whetherthejurytrialrightisessentialtotheconstitutionalityofaprioradjudicationsuse ` asanenhancement: :XXXXL  M  CanapriorjuvenileadjudicationofacriminaloffenseinCalifornia L constitutionallysubjectadefendanttotheprovisionsofthethreestrikeslaw(Pen.Code,L  M  #YYdd#ddYYL  M   8 667,subds.(b)(i),1170.12)althoughthereisnorighttoajurytrialinjuvenilewardship $t proceedingsinthisstate?#XXX:X?#`(#(# " 3"   3d2D3  0    :XXXXPeoplev.Delgado,S141282.#XXX:Xא#:XXXXReviewgr.,Mar.29,2006. 3d݌8(#(# Ќ  " 3"   32D3  0    Peoplev.Miles,S140413.#XXX:X<#:XXXXReviewgr.,Mar.29,2006.#XXX:Xo# 3݌$(#(# Ќ  0  Proofof seriousfelonystatus.BothDelgadoandMilesconcernwhetherthedescription  oftheconvictionoffenseinthepriorjudgmentdocumentswassufficienttoestablishthatit  qualifiedasa seriousfelony(asnecessarytosupporta strikeor seriousfelony  enhancement). InDelgado,theissueiswhetherthereferenceto245(a)(1)ASSLTW p DWPNintheabstractofjudgmentforthepriorconvictionsufficedtoprovethatthe \  245(a)(1)convictionwasbasedon assaultwithadeadlyweaponratherthanassaultby H! meansofforcelikelytoproducegreatbodilyinjury.Milesconcernswhetherafederal 4"  judgmentdescribingaconvictionfor18U.S.C.2113(a)as armedbankrobbery  #p! establishedthattheconvictionwasfor anoffensethatwouldconstituterobberyunder  $\" Californialawratherthantheversionofthefederalcrimethatwouldbecommercialburglary $H # underCalifornialaw.%4!$(#(# 0  Juveniles ' #&(#(# " 3"   3"2D3  0    InreJoseC.,S158043.Appellateopn.,155Cal.App.4th115;reviewgr.,Jan.16,2008. 3"O݌)$((#(# Ќ   *%) 0  MayaCaliforniajuvenilecourtexercisejurisdictionoverawardshippetitionwherethe  chargedoffenseisaviolationoffederallaw(bringingaliensintotheU.S.)?(#(# " 3"   392D3  0    SeealsoPeoplev.Nguyen,summarizedaboveunder Strikes&OtherPriorConviction t Enhancements(constitutionalityofuseofpriorjuvenileadjudicationas strike). 39f݌`(#(# Ќ  0  GuiltyPleaAppeals 8 (#(# " 3"   3 2D3  0    Peoplev.Cuevas,S147510.Appellateopn.,142Cal.App.4th1141;reviewgr.,Jan.3,2007. 3 8݌ `(#(# Ќ  0  Whereapleaagreementspecifiesa lid(amaximumtermallowableunderthebargain),a  8  defendantmustobtainacertificateofprobablecauseinordertoraiseaPen.Code654 $  challengetoasentencewhichiswithinthe lid,becausetheclaimisconsideredachallenge   tothevalidityofthepleabargain.(Peoplev.Shelton(2006)37Cal.4th759.)Cuevas   concernswhetheradefendantmustalsoobtainacertificateinordertoraisea654claim   where thepleaagreementdidnotspecifyamaximumsentencebut heenteredhisno   contestpleawithanunderstandingofthemaximumsentencehefaced.Although_Cuevas_ p isa654case,itsdispositionmayalsoaffectBlakelyCunninghamclaims.Someappellate \ courtshavebarredCunninghamchallengestouppertermsonasimilartheorythat,in H enteringhispleaafterbeingadvisedofthemaximumpotentialsentenceforanoffense,the 4 defendantimplicitlyagreedthatthecourtcouldsentencehimtoanytermwithinthatrange.  p SeePeoplev.French,summarizedinthe BlakelyCunninghamUpdate,PartIV,infra. \(#(# 0  HabeasCorpus 4(#(# " 3"   32D3  0    :XXXXPeoplev.Villa,S151561.Appellateopn.,148Cal.App.4th473;#XXX:X蘇#reviewgr.June13,2007. 3A݌ (#(# Ќ  0  Custody.Villapresentsanimportantquestiononthe custodyrequirementforhabeas  corpus,whichhasparticularsignificancetotheavailabilityofthatremedytochallengea  priorconvictioninordertoavoiddeportationorotherimmigrationconsequences. Isa l habeascorpuspetitionerrestrainedofhislibertywithinthemeaningofPenalCodesection X  1473,subdivision(a),whenheisinthecustodyoffederalimmigrationofficialssolely D! becauseofaCaliforniaconvictiononwhichthesentencehasfullyexpired?0" (#(# 0  SexOffenders/Prop.83ResidencyRestrictions $X"(#(# " 3"     32D3  0 `   InreE.J.,S156933;InreS.P.,S157631;InreJ.S.,S157633;InreK.T.,S157634. %0!$ OSCsissuedinallfourcases,Dec.12,2007. 3݌&"%` (#` (# Ќ  0  UnderProposition83'srevisionoftheresidencyrestrictionsonregisteredsexoffenders, :XXXXit (#' isunlawfulforanypersonforwhomregistrationisrequiredpursuantto[Pen.Code]Section )$( 290toresidewithin2000feetofanypublicorprivateschool,orparkwherechildren |*%) regularlygather.(Pen.Code#XXX:Xh#:XXXX#XXX:X蘿#:XXXX3003.5(b).)#XXX:X# :XXXXIneachofthesefourmatters,the[Supreme  Court]issuedanordertoshowcausewhythepetitionerisnotentitledtorelieffromthe  residencyrestrictionsimposedbyPenalCodesection3003.5...onthegroundthestatute  violatestheexpostfactoclausesofthestateandfederalConstitutions,hasbeen t impermissiblyretroactivelyapplied,constitutesanunreasonableparolecondition,impinges ` onthepetitionerssubstantivedueprocessrights,andisunconstitutionallyvague.#XXX:XY#L (#(#   SVP&OtherMentalHospitalCommitments  $ t " 3 "   3Z2D3  0    ݀Peoplev.Price,S151207.Appellateopn.,147Cal.App.4th955;reviewgr.,June13,2007. 3Z݌ L (#(# Ќ  0  UntimelyNGIpetition.Pricepresentsyetanotherexampleofarecurringproblemunder $  Californiasvariousmentalcommitmentregimens(SVP,NGI,MDO)!whetherthe   defendanthasanymeaningfulremedyfortheprosecutionslatefilingofanextension   petitionorthefailuretobringittotrialontime: :XXXXDidtheuntimelyfilingofthepetitionto   extendaninsanitycommitment[Pen.Code1026.5(b)]denydefendantdueprocess,when   therewasnogoodcauseforthedelayandthelatefilingallegedlylefthimwithinsufficient p timetoprepareforthehearingonthepetition?\(#(# #XXX:X#" 3!"   32D3  0    :XXXXInreSmith,S145959.Appellateopn.,141Cal.App.4th217;reviewgr.,Oct.25,2006; 4 arguedJan.9,2008.#XXX:X+#:XXXXԀ 3݌ p(#(# Ќ  0  SVP!effectofreversalofunderlyingconviction.SVPproceedingscanonlybeinitiated H uponthecompletionofthedefendantsprisonterm(orparolerevocation)foraprior 4 conviction(thoughtheexpiringsentenceneednotbeforoneofthepredicatesexoffenses).   SmithconcernswhethertheSVPproceedingcancontinuewhentheprisonsentencewhich   allowedtheoriginalfilingofthepetitionisvacatedbythereversaloftheunderlying  conviction: Canaproceedingtocommitadefendantasasexuallyviolentpredatorbe  maintainediftheconvictiononwhichthedefendantwasservingaprisonsentenceatthetime  thatthesexuallyviolentpredatorproceedingswereinitiatedhasbeensubsequentlyreversed l onappeal?X (#(# #XXX:X#0  Parole 0" (#(# " 3""   3p2D3  0    InreLawrence,S154018.Appellateopn.,:XXXX150Cal.App.4th1511#XXX:X#;reviewgr.,Sept.19,2007. 3p݌$X"(#(# Ќ  " 3#"   3ɹ2D3  0    InreJacobson,S156416.Appellateopn.,154Cal.App.4th849;reviewgr.Dec.12,2007. 3ɹ݌$D #(#(# Ќ  0  Inthepastfewyears,severaldecisions(bothstateandfederal)havegrantedhabeasrelief &"% fromdenialsofparolebytheBoardofParoleHearings(BPH)orfromgubernatorialvetoes '#& ofBPHgrantsofparole.ArecurringthemeinthosecaseshasbeenthatBPHand/orthe (#' Governorhaveplacedexcessiveemphasisonthe immutablefactorofthecircumstances )$( oftheoriginalmurder,withoutsufficientconsiderationofsubsequentcircumstances,such |*%) asthestrengthoftheevidenceofthedefendantsrehabilitationovertheensuingdecadesin  prison.(Mostofthecasesinvolvemurdersintheearlytomid1980's.)BothLawrenceand  Jacobsonposethesameissue: Inmakingparolesuitabilitydeterminationsforlife  prisoners,towhatextentshouldtheBoardofParoleHearings,underPenalCodesection t 3041,andtheGovernor,underArticleV,section8(b)oftheCaliforniaConstitutionand ` PenalCodesection3041.2,considertheprisonerscurrentdangerousness,andatwhatpoint, L  ifever,isthegravityofthecommitmentoffenseandpriorcriminalityinsufficienttodeny 8  parolewhentheprisonerotherwiseappearsrehabilitated?$ t(#(# " 3$"   32D3  0    InreShaputis,S155872.Reviewgr.Oct.24,2007. 3݌ L (#(# Ќ  0  (1)InassessingwhethersomeevidencesupportsadecisionbytheGovernortodeny $  parole,istheinquirylimitedtowhetherthereasonsstatedhaveafactualbasisorshoulda   reviewingcourtalsoexaminewhethertheevidencesupportsafindingthattheinmate   presentsanunreasonablecurrentriskofdangertothepublic?(2)Whenareviewingcourt   determinesthatagubernatorialparoledecisionisnotsupportedbysufficientevidence,   shoulditremandthemattertotheexecutivebranchtoproceedinaccordancewithdue p process,orshoulditordertheinmatesimmediaterelease?\(#(#  IV.0  BLAKELYCUNNINGHAMUPDATE 4(#(#   Cert.deniedinBlackII   \ 0  ShortlyafteritsopinioninCunninghamv.California(2007)549U.S.___[127S.Ct.856], 4 sustainingtheBlakelychallengetoCaliforniasDeterminateSentenceLaw,theU.S.   SupremeCourtvacated BlackI(theCal.SupremeCourtdecisionupholdingtheDSL)and   remandeditforreconsiderationinlightofCunningham.Onremand,theCaliforniaSupreme  CourtheldthatthereisnoSixthAmendmenterroraslongasthesentencingcourtcitedone  validaggravatingfactor!thatis,(1)afactorsupportedbyajuryfinding;(2)afactorwhich  thedefendantadmitted;or(3)afactorwithinthe priorconvictionexceptiontotheright l tojurytrial.(Peoplev.Black(2007)41Cal.4th799( BlackII).)UnderBlackII,a X  sentencingcourtspartialrelianceonasinglevalidfactorisconstitutionallysufficientto D! authorizeanupperterm,evenifthecourtalsocitedmultipleotherfactorstowhichthejury 0"  trialrightwouldotherwiseapply.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtalsoadheredtoitsBlack #l! Iholdingthatacourtsdiscretionarydecisiontoimposeaconsecutivetermdoesnot $X" implicate_Blakely_.(FormorecompletesummariesofbothBlackIIandthecompanion $D # opinion,Peoplev.Sandoval(2007)41Cal.4th825(outliningtheprejudiceanalysisfor %0!$ Cunninghamerror),seethe BlakelyResourcessectionoftheFDAPwebsite, &"% 4eO  5  www.fdap.org6(O<fede  7th j.)'#&(#(# 0  Blackagainpetitionedforcertiorari.ThepetitionsoughtreviewofbothBlackIIs single )$( validfactoranalysisanditsconsecutivesentencingholding,aswellasotheraspectsofits |*%) analysis.(ThecompleteBlackIIcert.petitionisavailableonFDAPswebsite.)OnJan.  14,2007,theU.S.SupremeCourtdeniedcertiorariinBlackII.(Blackv.California,No.07  6140.)(#(# 0   CunninghamIssuesStillPendinginCaliforniaSupremeCourt `(#(# 0  IntheimmediatewakeofCunningham,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewin 8  multipleleadcasesposingvariousBlakelyCunninghamclaimsandalsorequested $ t supplementalbriefinginPeoplev.Towne(whichhasbeenpendingsinceshortlyafterthe  ` originaldecisioninBlakelyv.Washington). L (#(# 0  TheCourtheardargumentsinBlackIIandSandovalonanexpeditedbasisandissuedits $  decisionsinthosecasesinJuly2007,assummarizedabove.However,theotherreview   grantedcasesremainpending.TheCourtheardargumentsinPeoplev.FrenchinJan.2007,   buthasnotyetscheduledargumentintheothers. (#(# 0  ThesummariesbelowarebasedprimarilyontheJudicialCouncilsclassificationofthecases p initsFeb.9,2007,pressrelease,announcingthemultiplegrantsofreviewinCunningham \ relatedcases.H(#(# " 3%"   32D3  0    L  :XXXXPeoplev._French#XXX:X蘥#Lrsta  ,:XXXXԀS148845#XXX:X.#:XXXX.Review.gr.,Feb.7,2007;arguedJan.8,2008. 3A݌ p(#(# Ќ  0  Guiltypleaappeals.Frenchposesseveralproceduralandsubstantiveissuessurrounding H Cunninghamchallengestouppertermsimposedfollowingguiltyornocontestpleas.The 4 AttorneyGeneralhasarguedthatachallengetotheconstitutionalityofjudicialfactfinding   atsentencingimplicatesthelegalityofthepleabargainandrequiresacertificateofprobable   cause.Frenchalsoconcernswhetherthecolloquysurroundingtheadvisementofthe  maximumpenalconsequencesforthepleaandtheadmissionofafactualbasiscanberead  asanadmissionofaggravatingfactssufficienttojustifyanupperterm.(#(# #XXX:Xx#" 3&"   3S2D3  0    L  :XXXXPeoplev._Towne_,#XXX:X#Lrsta  :XXXXS125677#XXX:X}#:XXXX.Review.gr.,July14,2004.#XXX:X#:XXXX 3S݌X (#(# Ќ  #XXX:X&#" 3'"   32D3  0    L  :XXXXPeoplev.Hernandez#XXX:X<#Lrsta  ,:XXXXԀS148974#XXX:X蘷#:XXXX.Review.gr.,Feb.7,2007. 3݌D!(#(# Ќ  " 3("   32D3  0    #XXX:X#L  :XXXXPeoplev.Pardo#XXX:X4#Lrsta  ,:XXXXԀS148914#XXX:X蘬#:XXXX.Review.gr.,Feb.7,2007.#XXX:X#:XXXX 3݌0" (#(# Ќ  0  Recidivistfactors.$X"(#(# 0  InBlackII,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthattheaggravatingfactorof numerousor %0!$  increasinglyseriouspriorconvictions(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.421(b)(2))comeswithin &"% the priorconvictionexceptiontotheApprendiBlakelyCunninghamrighttojurytrial. '#& Consequently,underBlackIIsreasoning,thereisnoCunninghamerrorwherethe (#' sentencingcourtrelied,inpart,onthe numerous/increasinglyseriouspriorsfactor(even )$( ifthecourtalsocitedadditionalaggravatingcircumstances).Towne,Hernandez,andPardo |*%) poseissuesconcerningthestatusoftheother recidivistfactorslistedinrule4.421(b))!  includingserviceofapriorprisonterm,probationorparolestatusatthetimeofthecurrent  offense,andpoorpriorperformanceonprobationorparole.(#(# " 3)"   362D3  0    #XXX:XU#L  :XXXXPeoplev.Mvuemba#XXX:X#Lrsta  ,:XXXXԀS149247#XXX:Xd#:XXXX.Review.gr.,Feb.7,2007.#XXX:X蘮#:XXXX 36c݌`(#(# Ќ  0  TheJudicialCouncilsFeb.2007pressreleaseplacedbothMvuembaandSandovalinthe 8  categoryof casesinwhichthetrialcourtimposedanuppertermsentencebasedon $ t aggravatingfactorsthathadnorelationshiptopriorconvictions.Sincethen,theSupreme  ` Courthas,ofcourse,heardanddecided#XXX:X #Peoplev.:XXXXԀSandoval#XXX:X2#(2007)41Cal.4th825.  L  However,theCourthasretainedMvuembaonitsdocket,ratherthansimplyretransferitto  8  theCourtofAppealforreconsiderationinlightofSandoval.Itisunclearwhichquestions $  theSupremeCourtmaybeplanningtoaddressinMvuemba(assumingthatitultimately   hearsanddecidesthecase).Inadditiontotheuppertermissues,themeritsbriefsin   MvuembaalsoaddresstheeffectofCunninghamondiscretionaryfullforceconsecutive   sentencingunderPen.Code667.6(c)andonfactualdeterminationsincidenttoasentencing   courtsdecisionwhethertostayatermunderPen.Code654.p(#(# " 3*"   32D3  0    InreGomez,S155425L  M  .Appellateopn.,153Cal.App.4th1516;reviewgr.,Oct.24,2007. 3݌H(#(# Ќ  0  Retroactivity.ThishabeascaseconcernstheapplicabilityofCunninghamtocaseswhich  p became finalondirectappealafterthedateofBlakelyv.Washington(June24,2004)but  \ beforethedateofCunninghamv.California(Jan.22,2007).Thereisnoquestionthat H Cunninghamisfullyapplicabletoallcaseswhichwerenotyet finalondirectappealasof 4 thatdate!i.e.,caseswhichwerependingoncert.andlaterremandedtotheCalifornia   courts,casesinwhichthetimeforpetitioningforcert.hadnotexpiredasofthedateof   Cunningham,orcaseswhichwerestillpendingondirectappealintheCaliforniacourts.  GomezconcernsonlytheapplicabilityofCunninghamtocasesinwhichthedirectappeal  wasconcludedforallpurposespriortotheissuanceofCunningham,suchas_affirmances_Ԁin  whichtherewasnocert.petition.l(#(#