WPCd |9?M?a]cTf0XT Yr}AZO/AЩ;r (y?Sd tVP$zG[$$P1 _]I1?T6is:EvhikfG6nus+27G]LHLQ?-u߇1[g0e__!Vw̝@*XfϭP9Fc zD9~'oڵt9F+}d@SZAM.Kݵ(Y-sV|{ERg c_\1[8A½qRÝ3+4ZۏWW3X T1e$>١w1f-ZAed2D$?N 7Ŕ pc7'IxyWE"KrI"ը>mjUִ[ԇG%vW3Y6R[:# UNc % 0 ^ y w 4   m 1 N 1 1u 0cU > 0 f! 0U# 0 DxMMm 1MQ D5U 0w 0 0| 0` 0b ME! 01I! 1z!(" 72)" 72["|"U@ $ 0I$ 0% 0%ZW& 1' 08(8( 0=( 72( 01) 0>) 07* 0c!+ 0+ 0=, 0, 0- 0D. 0.Um/ 02 03 0e4U:65 0p5p5p5p5 0N#6q6`m89UH; 0; 0< 0a= 0h>>> 0a}> 0> 0? 0?@ 09@ 0,,A 02XB 0B 0:CaC 0C 0{D 0E 0E 0LF 0F 0_^G 0G BH 0H 0jI 0J 0J 0hK 0L 0 L 0kM 0O 0O B*lQ D3Q CQ 0Q D+mR 0R 0_T 06FU 0|U 0:V 0hV 0F&WU6lWU*WMW D/W D/W 1e.XGXMXXXXXXXXX XHP LaserJet 6L/LAPTOP-FDAP/Session 74,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(6$  )) , A)Ԛ 3 ~3rtyBarTS3|xUS4O37;CO_s11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.1.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0   WielschMofieldbaggiesbaggieGayla LozawarrantlessGarrett nonprobationerviolative"nonprobationersnonconsentingMatlockcopossessorOoleypretextualWhrenJeaneneApprendi Saf Wims S.Ct MoskcarjackingMongeMcMillanNichols t]he DUIxxxxxxxxxxxxx DSLTowneAlmendarezCal.Pen.CodeCal.R.CtCal.ConstArt.VIfactfindingAriz.Rev.StatSmylieDiltsGrissom Crimagree[dHaw.Rev.Stat KauaBlakelyMaugaotega i]tU.S.S.C.Breyerw]hetherKennardensur[es,www.courtinfo.ca.govCal.Rptr andncohabitant\  `&Times New Roman(26$ 6!  XX , A    0  T*+ (_2623  ..(#$  0   c 6$XX , A  6    _ ` Availableat:  (lastvisitedV  AugustWX  ԍJYX  ԍuYX  ԍlYX  ԍyYԀV  2W!X  ԍ6Y,2005).  6$XX , A  3    _ ` See,e.g.,2005Ariz.Sess.Laws,ch.20,12(amending  Ariz.Rev.Stat.13702and13-702.1);N.C.HouseBillno.822,1,  2005-145N.C.Sess.Laws(effectiveJune30,2005)(amending,interalia,  section15A-1340.16);2005Tenn.Pub.Actsch.353,esp.6(eff.June7,  2005)(amendingTenn.CodeAnn.4035210);MinnesotaSentencing  GuidelinesII.D.(eff.Aug.1,2005)(amendedtoprovidejurytrialright).cccc)!dxdx(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   p  8block quotedouble-indented block quote8  <):Footnote Ref    w 6$XX , A  2    _ ` The ClerksTranscriptisaportionoftherecordonappealfiledin  theCaliforniaCourtofAppeal.<SS:Footnote TexS\  `&Times New RomanSS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Normal8?OU[agmsyLettersLettersA.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.i)$A. r 6$XX , A  8    _ ` FormerTenn.CodeAnn.4035114;Statev.Grissom,956S.W.2d  514,518(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).(A Z(Times New Roman *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  N02headerLevel 2 header   *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) `  P 6$XX , A  1    _Ԁ0 ` Afourthcountwasdismissedattherequestoftheprosecution.CT  390.(CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#<:Definition T 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition(3$ 6!  XX , A   d (;3$2#  0  .3  0  *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   R"01headerLevel one header@7  > *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x    K 6$XX , A  7    _ ` Statev.Gomez,V  163S.W.3d632,648W X  ԍsYX  ԍlYX  ԍiYX  ԍpYX  ԍYX  ԍoYX  ԍpYX  ԍ.YX  ԍYX  ԍ2YX  ԍ5YX  ԍ-YX  ԍ2YX  ԍ6YԀ(Tenn.2005)(citingTenn.  CodeAnn.4035105114(2003),former4035210(c)and(d)).*AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  (3،$ 6!  XX , A  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   -+> Z"Book Antiqua *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  (O$  6$XX , A  9    _ ` TheTennesseeAttorneyGeneralalsojoinedthedefendantsin  petitioningforrehearinginGomez.Statev.Gomez,163S.W.3dat672  (OrderDenyingPetitionforRehearing,Tenn.S.Ct.,FiledMay18,2005). V 6$XX , A  5    _ ` See,e.g.,Ariz.Rev.Stat.13-702(A);Colo.Rev.Stat.181.3  401(6).  6$XX , A  10    _ ` Statev.Rivera,106Haw.146,158160,102P.3d1044,10561058  (Haw.2004)(citingHaw.Rev.Stat.707660,706669);Haw.Rev.Stat.  706662(1)(6).,@E Z0Book Antiqua Regular('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX203header   (&H4 XXX XXX*55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` (o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8zzg6BlockquoteXXrb , ,?+ ` hp x X?XXrb , ,?+ ` hp x X?,*CITE,dl*CODEKz<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42EmphasisTABLE A*22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5   d(GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h 4go2Keyboard Kz<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/Kz<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   <:zBottom of Iop4$ ** ddI  B    ?{%2A`Arial?9rp*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d dnnnn'dxddd&&& $_   x 23   x   'dxd<:zTop of ForIop4$** ddI  B    ?{%2A`Arial?9rp*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleKz<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKz<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arialn)1dxdn)2dxd>@BR[\]^ 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. =#Xd#   6$XX , A  4    _ԀAgain,severalofthestateshaveenactedBlakelyfixlegislation.The  statutescitedhereandinthestatecasesaddressingBlakelyaretheversions  ineffectpriortoanysuchamendments.Ariz.Rev.Stat.13  T 701,13-702(A),13702(C)(21);Smyliev.State,823N.E.2d679,863(Ind.  2005);_Ind.Code_ԀAnn.353817.1,355023to7;Lopezv.State,V  113WX  ԍ_YX  ԍ_YX  ԍ_Y  P.3dV  713,723725WtX  ԍ_YX  ԍ_YX  ԍ_YX  ԍ(no.  04SC150filedYX  ԍYX  ԍMay23,2005),slipop.at2530YԀ(Colo.2005);Statev.Natale,____N.J.____,____A.2d  ____,2005WL1802084,slipop.at2829(N.J.Aug.2,2005);Statev.  Dalziel,867A.2d1167,11721173,182N.J.494,503505(N.J.2005);N.  J.Stat.Ann.2C:436(a),2C:441(a)and(f)(1);Statev.Allen,___N.C.   ___,___S.E.2d___V  ,2005WL1539186W!ԀV  (N.C.)WOX  ԍ(YX  ԍnYX  ԍoYX  ԍ.YX  ԍ ( ЎYX  ԍ4YX  ԍ8YX  ԍ5YX  ԍPYX  ԍAYX  ԍ0YX  ԍ4YX  ԍ,YX  ԍYX  ԍfYX  ԍiYX  ԍlYX  ԍeYX  ԍdYX  ԍYX  ԍJYX  ԍuYX  ԍlYX  ԍyYX  ԍYX  ԍ1YX  ԍ,YX  ԍYX  ԍ2YX  ԍ0YX  ԍ0YX  ԍ5YX  ԍ)Y;N.C.Gen.Stat.   15A-1340.13(c)and(e),15A1340.16(b),(d)and(e),15A1340.17(c)(4);   Statev.Leja,684N.W.2d442,448(Minn.2004)(citingMinnesota   SentencingGuidelinesII.D.2(b));Or.Rev.Stat.137.671,138.222(2)(a);   _Or.Admin.R._Ԁ2130080001,213-008-0002(1). 6!  XX , A  _ ,  No.򀀀  IntheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates  򀀀  OctoberTerm,򀀀   򀀀   DENNIS_ABEYTA_,   Petitioner   v.   theStateofCalifornia,  Respondent.  򀀀   OnPetitionForaWritofCertioraritotheCaliforniaCourtofAppeal,  FirstAppellateDistrict,DivisionFive   򀀀     Tara_Mulay_*  AttorneyatLaw   2261MarketStreet,_PMB_Ԁ#313 ! SanFrancisco,California94114 " (415)6212658 # CounselforPetitioner $  *CounselofRecord &!"  % ,   ,  '"# _QuestionPresented    ,Whether,afterthisCourtsdecisionBookerv.UnitedStates___U.S.  ___,160L.Ed.2d621,125S.Ct.738(2005),thebrightlinerule  enunciatedinApprendiv.NewJersey,530U.S.466,490,147L.Ed.2d   435,120S.Ct.2348(2000)andBlakelyv.Washington,542U.S.296,159   L.Ed.2d,124S.Ct.2531(2004),continuestoestablisharighttoajurytrial   andproofbeyondareasonabledoubtinastatesentencingschemeidentical   inallrelevantrespectstotheWashingtonschemeatissueinBlakely.              PartiestotheProceedings     ThepartiestotheproceedingsintheCaliforniaCourtofAppeal  includedtheStateofCaliforniaandpetitionerDennisAbeyta.Thereareno  partiestotheproceedingsotherthanthosenamedinthepetition.    8XXdd8O  No.򀀀    IntheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates  򀀀    OctoberTerm,򀀀   򀀀      DENNISABEYTA,      Petitioner      v.      theStateofCalifornia    Respondent.    򀀀    OnPetitionForaWritofCertioraritotheCaliforniaCourtofAppeal,  FirstAppellateDistrict,DivisionFive  򀀀      PetitionforWritofCertiorari    Thepetitioner,DennisAbeyta,respectfullypetitionsthisCourtfora  writofcertioraritoreviewthejudgmentandopinionoftheCaliforniaCourt ! ofAppeal,filedonFebruary10,2005.   p  #   ,OpinionsBelow  % !  ,V  TheunpublishedopinionoftheCaliforniaCourtofAppeal,whichisthe '"# subjectofthispetition,wasfiledonFebruary10,2005,andisattachedas )$% Appendix(App.)A.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsonepageorder +&' denyingreviewisattachedasAppendixB.Thetranscriptofthesentencing -() O 8XXdXXd8   hearingisattachedasAppendixC.FortheconvenienceoftheCourt,the  publishedopinioninJAPeoplev.Black,33Cal.4th1238,113P.3d534#AJ##JA,29  Cal.Rptr.3d740(Cal.2005)#AJǖ#ԀisattachedasAppendixE.    ,Jurisdiction     ,K  ThedecisionoftheCaliforniaCourtofAppealtobereviewedwasfiled   onFebruary10,2005.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtdenieddiscretionary   reviewonMay11,2005.Thispetitionisfiledwithin90daysofthatdate.   Rule13.1.PetitionerinvokesthisCourtsjurisdictionunder28U.S.C.   section1257(a).    , ConstitutionalandStatutoryProvisionsInvolved    ,F: $(93"3"  , 3B2  A  .3  0 `   FederalConstitutionalProvisions 3B݌` `  Ќ  ,oTheSixthAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionprovides,in  pertinentpart: Inallcriminalprosecutions,theaccusedshallenjoythe  righttoaspeedyandpublictrial,byanimpartialjuryoftheStateand  districtwhereinthecrimeshallhavebeencommitted....   TheFourteenthAmendmentprovides: NoStateshall...depriveany " personoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessoflaw.... $   , &  B. ` StateStatutoryProvisions  &!"  ,tSubdivision(a)ofsection288.5oftheCaliforniaPenalCode'&provides (#$ (emphasisadded): *%&  , X  ,(a)Anypersonwhoeitherresidesinthesamehomewiththe  minorchildorhasrecurringaccesstothechild,whoovera  periodoftime,notlessthanthreemonthsinduration,engagesin  threeormoreactsofsubstantialsexualconductwithachild  undertheageof14yearsatthetimeofthecommissionofthe  offense,asdefinedinsubdivision(b)ofSection1203.066,or   threeormoreactsoflewdorlasciviousconductunderSection   288,withachildundertheageof14yearsatthetimeofthe   commissionoftheoffenseisguiltyoftheoffenseofcontinuous   sexualabuseofachildand shallbepunishedbyimprisonment   inthestateprisonforatermof6,12,or16years .    ,  X ,xSubdivision(b)ofSection1170,oftheCaliforniaPenalCodeprovides,   inpertinentpart(emphasisadded):     , XWhenajudgmentofimprisonmentistobeimposedandthe   statutespecifiesthreepossibleterms, thecourtshallorder   impositionofthemiddleterm,unlesstherearecircumstances  inaggravationormitigationofthecrime ....Indetermining  whethertherearecircumstancesthatjustifyimpositionofthe  upperorlowerterm,thecourtmayconsidertherecordinthe  case,theprobationofficer'sreport,otherreportsincludingreports  receivedpursuanttoSection1203.03andstatementsin  aggravationormitigationsubmittedbytheprosecution,the  defendant,orthevictim,orthefamilyofthevictimifthevictim  isdeceased,andanyfurtherevidenceintroducedatthe  sentencinghearing.Thecourtshallsetforthontherecordthe  factsandreasonsforimposingtheupperorlowerterm.The   courtmaynotimposeanuppertermbyusingthefactofany ! enhancementuponwhichsentenceisimposedunderany " provisionoflaw. #  Xx  ,j  V  , C.0 ` CaliforniaRulesofCourt %!!` `   ,% % RelevantCaliforniaRulesofCourtareattachedasappendixD, '## including: )%%  XRule4.401.Authority +'' Rule4.405.Definitions  Rule4.406.Reasons  Rule4.408.Criterianotexclusive;sequencenotsignificant  Rule4.409.Considerationofcriteria  Rule4.420.Selectionofbasetermofimprisonment  Rule4.421.Circumstancesinaggravation   &Rule4.423.Circumstancesinmitigation    X&   ,StatementoftheCase    ( ,)OnJune20,2001,theprosecutorfiledinSanMateoCountySuperior   Courtathreecount- #  1      ׀felonyinformationchargingpetitioner,DennisAbeyta,   withtwocountsofcontinuoussexualabuseofaminor,aviolationof   CaliforniaPenalCodesection288.5,againstvictimsSabina(countone)and  Ernst(counttwo),andonecountofcommittingalewdorlasciviousact  withafourteenorfifteenyearold,aviolationofCaliforniaPenalCode  section288(c)(1).ClerksTranscript CT  #  2      ׀57.  OnSeptember5,2003,ajuryreturnedverdictsofguiltyonallcounts.  CT396397.  AttheOctober20,2003,sentencinghearing,thesuperiorcourtfound   truefouraggravatingfactorsrelatingtocountone:(JA1) thecrimeinvolveda " highdegreeofcruelty,callousnesstothevictim,constituting,many,many $  instancesofabuseoveranextendedperiodoftime;(2) thevictimwas  particularlyvulnerablewithinthemeaningof...rule[4.421].Thecrime  startedwhenshewasataparticularlyyoungage;and(3) thedefendant  inducedanotherminor,thatisthevictimincount2,tocommitorassistin   thecommissionofthecrimestothevictimincount1";and(4) themanner   inwhichthecrimewascarriedoutdidindicatesomeplanningand   sophistication,andIthinkthetrialevidenceshowedanextraordinarydegree   ofmanipulationofmanypeopleinvolvedinordertocommitthecrime.  App.C13731374#AJǍ-#.Thecourtalsofoundtrueonemitigatingfactor:  petitionerhadnopriorcriminalrecord.App.C1374.Relyingonthese  findings,thecourtsentencedpetitionertotheuppertermofsixteenyears  forcountone.App.C1373.(PursuanttoCaliforniaPenalCodesection  1170.1,whichgovernsconsecutivesentencing,thecourtsentenced  petitionertoonethirdofthepresumptive(middle)term(fouryears)for  counttwo.App.C1374.)OnOctober16,2003,petitionerfiledatimely   noticeofappeal.CT421. " Inthestatecourtofappeal,appellant,citingtheSixthandFourteenth $  AmendmentsandthisCourtsdecisioninBlakelyv.Washington,542U.S. &""  296,159L.Ed.2d,124S.Ct.2531(2004)arguedthatthejudicialfact ($$ findinginsentencingforcountoneviolatedhisfederalconstitutionalrights  toajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.   Inamajorityopinion,twojusticesoftheCaliforniaCourtofAppeal  rejectedpetitionersargumentandaffirmedhissentence.App.A45.The   majorityagreedwiththeStatethattheCaliforniaDeterminateSentencing   Law( DSL)isdistinguishablefromthesentencingschemeinWashington   andtheFederalSentencingGuidelinesandthatthereisnoconstitutional   righttoajurytrialonfactsusedtoimposetheupperterm.App.A3245.  Thedissentingjusticewouldhaveremandedforresentencinginlightof  Blakely.App.A,Jones,P.J.,dissenting,12.  AppellantpetitionedfordiscretionaryreviewbytheCaliforniaSupreme  Court.OnMay11,2005,thatcourtdeniedreviewinanorderstatingthat  reviewis deniedwithoutprejudicetoanyrelieftowhichdefendantmight  beentitledafterthiscourtdeterminesinPeoplev.Black,S126182,and  Peoplev.Towne,S125677,theeffectof[Blakely]onCalifornialaw.App.   B. " OnJune20,2005,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtissueditsopinionin $  Peoplev.Black,35Cal.4th1238,113P.3d534,29Cal.Rptr.3d740(Cal. &"" 2005),holdingthatthereisnofederalconstitutionalrighttoajurytrialon ($$ aggravatingfactorsusedtoimposetheuppertermunderCalifornia'sDSL. *&& TheCourtalsoheldthatthereisnorighttoajurytrialonfact-findingused  inthedecisiontoimposesentencesconsecutively"amatternotatissuein  thispetition.(TheTownecasehasnotbeencalendaredfororalargument;  theCourtwilllikelyeitherdismissreviewinthatcaseorreturnittothe   stateCourtofAppealforreconsiderationinlightofBlack.)     ****    2>   ReasonsforGrantingtheWrit   s> 0 ` ReviewIsNecessarytoResolveWhetherthereisRighttoaJury   TrialandProofBeyondaReasonableDoubtonAggravating  FactsNecessarytoImposeanAggravatedSentenceina  SentencingSchemeIdenticalinRelevantRespectstothe  WashingtonSchemeatIssueinBlakely.` `  > > $(89$"3"  ,3'A2  A  .3  0 `   Introduction3'AbA݌` `  Ќ  ,TAReviewisnecessarysothatthisCourtcanreaffirmwhatitheldin  Blakely.InBlakely,thisCourtexplicitlyapplieda brightlineruleto  answerthequestionwhetherthereisarighttoajurytrialonfactsnecessary  toimposeasentencehigherthanthestatutorymaximum.Blakely,124S.Ct.   at2540.TheCourtfirstreiteratedthat,"[o]therthanthefactofaprior " conviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondthe $  prescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury,andproved &!" beyondareasonabledoubt,"andthendeclaredthat thestatutory (#$ maximum...isthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimposesolelyonthe *%& basisofthefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant.  Blakely,124S.Ct.at2536(emphasisinorig.),quotingApprendiv.New  Jersey,530U.S.466,490,147L.Ed.2d435,120S.Ct.2348(2000).  UnitedStatesv.Booker,___U.S.___,160L.Ed.2d621,125S.Ct.738   (2005),implementedtheBlakelyholding,yetsomecourts"theCalifornia   andTennesseehighcourtsinparticular"perceivedablurringofthebright   lineinBooker.Thisperceptionemboldenedthemtoconcludethatany   judicialdiscretionmaytakeasentencingschemeoutsideoftheambitof  Blakely.Othercourtshaveappliedthebrightlinerule,includingtheNew  JerseySupremeCourt,whichhasrecentlyexpresslyrejectedtheCalifornia  SupremeCourtsinterpretationofBlakelyandBookerasdirectlycontraryto  thisCourtsprecedents.Statev.Natale,____N.J.____,____A.2d____,  2005WL1802084,slipop.at2627(N.J.Aug.2,2005)  Reviewis,therefore,alsoappropriatebecauseCaliforniasdecisionin  Blackiswrong.Infact,theapproachtakenbytheCaliforniaSupremeCourt   wasoneadvocatedbytheStateofWashingtoninBlakelyandrejectedby " thisCourt.Blakely,124S.Ct.at25382539;Black,29Cal.Rptr.3dat751 $  753.Californiassentencingschemeunconstitutionallypermitsjudicial &"" factfinding"uponproofbyapreponderanceoftheevidence"offacts ($$ necessarytoimposetheaggravated(upper)termsentence.Californias *&& schemeissoidenticaltotheschemeatissueinBlakely,andthusfallsso  clearlywithinthebrightlineruleofApprendi,thatfullbriefingonthe  meritsmaynotberequiredforthisCourttoreviewtheBlackdecision.  Finally,theissueisofgreatsignificanceforanenormousnumberof   cases.TheconstitutionalityofthecoreofCaliforniasdeterminate   sentencingschemeisatissue.WhilesomeCaliforniadefendantsconvicted   ofthirdstrikes,murder,orsomeserioussexoffensesreceivepresumptive   indeterminateterms,thevastmajorityoffelonydefendantsaresentenced  underthedeterminatesentencinglawatissueinBlackandinthiscase.  Thiscaseprovidesanexcellentopportunityforresolvingthequestion  presented.Thiscase,unlikeBlackitself,involvesonlyjudiciallyfound  aggravatingfactorsrelatedtothecommissionofthecurrentoffense,i.e.,  particularcrueltyorcallousness,particularvulnerabilityonthepartofthe  victim(aparticularlyyoungageattheonsetoftheoffense),sophistication  andextraordinarymanipulationbypetitioner,andinducementofanotherto   assistintheoffense.App.C13731374.Thiscaseisthusunencumberedby " thecomplexityofrecidivistrelatedaggravatingfactorspossiblycoveredby $  theexceptiontotherighttoajurytrialidentifiedinAlmendarez-Torresv. &"" UnitedStates,523U.S.224,140L.Ed.2d350,118S.Ct.1219(1998).This ($$ case,alsounlikeBlack,doesnotinvolveanaggravatingfactorthatajury *&& foundtrueinreturningaprobationineligibilityfinding.SeeBlack,29  Cal.Rptr.3dat765(Kennard,J.,concurring&dissenting).  &  "3"  ,3U2  B  .3  0 `   CaliforniasSentencingSchemeandtheBlackDecision 3UU݌` `  Ќ  ,UBeforedescribingtheevolvingsplitamongthestatecourts,petitioner   'UwillfirstdescribeCaliforniassentencingschemeandtheBlackdecision.    (#38$"3"  3X2#  1  .3  0 `   CaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLaw(DSL).3XLX݌ ` `  Ќ  UndertheDSL,judgesmaysentencefelonydefendantsinCaliforniato   oneofthreepossibledeterminateterms"mitigated(lower),presumptive   (middle),oraggravated(upper).Themaximumsentenceajudgemay  imposewithoutadditionalfactfindingisthemiddleterm: Whena  judgmentofimprisonmentistobeimposedandthestatutespecifiesthree  possibleterms, thecourtshallorderimpositionofthemiddleterm,  unlesstherearecircumstancesinaggravationormitigation ofthe  crime.Cal.Pen.Code1170(b)(emphasisadded).    ` EachCaliforniastatutedefininganoffenseeitherstatesthe   applicabletriadoftermsexpressly,orprovidesforacommitment tostate "  prison,inwhichcasethetriadis16months,twoyears,orthreeyearsin $  stateprison.Cal.Pen.Code18.Thestatutedefiningcontinuoussexual & "" abuseofaminor"theoffenseinvolvedinboththiscaseandin ( $$ Black"providesthatadefendantguiltyoftheoffense shallbepunished * && byimprisonmentinthestateprisonforatermof6,12,or16years.Cal.  Pen.Code288.5(a).  TheCaliforniaRulesofCourtprovideanonexclusivelistof  enumeratedaggravatingcircumstances.Cal.R.Ct.4.421.Acourtmayrely   uponanon-enumeratedaggravatingcircumstance reasonablyrelatedto   thesentencingdecision.Cal.R.Ct.4.408(a);seee.g.,Peoplev.Garcia,209   Cal.App.3d790,794-95,257Cal.Rptr.495,49798(1989).Thecourtmust   makeexplicitfactualfindings.Cal.Pen.Code1170(c);Cal.R.Ct.  4.420(e).Factsinaggravationareestablishedbyapreponderanceofthe  evidence.Cal.R.Ct.4.420(b).Afactthatiseitheranelementofthe  underlyingoffenseoranelementofastatutoryenhancementmaynotbe  usedasafactorinaggravation.Cal.Pen.Code1170(b)(enhancements);  Cal.R.Ct.4.420(d)(elements);Peoplev.Scott,9Cal.4th331,350,885P.2d  1040,1051,36Cal.Rptr.2d627,638(1994)(elements).Forexample,  where,asinthiscase,theyoungageofthevictimisanelementofthe   offense,ageandvulnerabilitymaynotbeconsideredaggravatingfactors, " unlessthejudgefindsthevictimwasparticularlyyoungorvulnerable. $  Peoplev.Fernandez,226Cal.App.3d669,680,276Cal.Rptr.631,637 &"" (1990).Consequently,anuppertermnecessarilyrequiresfindingsbeyond ($$ theminimumelementsoftheconvictionoffense. *&&  Thejudicialfactfindinginvolvedinselectingbetweenthelower,  middleoruppertermcontrastswiththeprocedureusedinCaliforniato  applysentencing enhancements.TheCaliforniaPenalCodeprovidesfor  separatesentencingenhancementsforbothpriorcriminalconductand   certaincurrentoffenserelatedconduct,suchasbeingarmedwithadeadly   weaponorfirearm,personaluseofafirearm,orinflictionofgreatbodily   injury.Seee.g.Cal.Pen.Code667(a)(i),667.5,12022.1,12022,   12022.5,12022.7.Thepenaltiesforsuchenhancementsaresometimes  fixedtermsimposedconsecutivetothebaseterm(lower,middleorupper)  selectedfortheunderlyingoffense(e.g.12022.7),ahighertriadtoselect  from(12022.5),oranindeterminatetermfortheunderlyingoffense(three  strikeslaw).Unliketheaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances,which  arefoundbythejudgeunderCalifornialaw,thereisastatestatutoryright  toajurytrialonthejustdescribedcurrentoffenseandstatusenhancements.  See,e.g.,Cal.Pen.Code1170.1(e).   "3"   3j2#  2  .3  0 `   InBlack,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtFoundJudicialFactFinding " onAggravatingCircumstancesConstitutional.3jk݌#` `  Ќ   jjInits61decisioninPeoplev.Black,35Cal.4th1238,113P.3d534,29 %!! Cal.Rptr.3d740(2005),theCaliforniaSupremeCourtconcluded,after '## reviewingApprendi,Blakely,andBooker,thatthisCourts precedentsdo )%% notdrawabrightlineuponwhichtorelyindeterminingwhethertheDSL +'' wasconstitutional.Id.at755.Thisconclusionisapparentlywhatmotivated  thecourttofindtheCaliforniaschemeconstitutional,despitethestatutory  requirementthatajudgefindanaggravatingfactorbyapreponderanceof  theevidencebeforeanuppertermsentencecanbeimposed.   x     ` TheBlackcourtrepeatedlyidentifiedcharacteristicsoftheDSLthat   areidenticaltotheschemeatissueinBlakely.Itrecognizedthat,under   CaliforniaPenalCodesection1170(b),anaggravatedsentencecannotbe   imposedintheabsenceofaggravatingfactors.Black,29Cal.Rptr.3dat750,  755.Itfurtherrecognizedthat,undertheapplicablestatutesandrules,an  aggravatingfactorcannotconstituteanelementofanoffenseoran  enhancementfoundtruebythejuryandseparatelyimposedbythejudge.  Id.at744.Andthecourtconcededthat [t]hemandatorylanguageof  section1170,subdivision(b),doesprovidesomesupportfordefendants  position.Id.at750.   ` Suchconcessionswouldseemnecessarilytoleadtotheconclusion   thatthemiddletermisthestatutorymaximumbecauseitis themaximum " sentenceajudgemayimposesolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthe $  juryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant.Blakely,124S.Ct.at2537 &"" (emphasisinorig.).ButtheCaliforniaSupremeCourtfoundthescheme ($$ constitutionalbylookingtofactorsotherthanwhetherthejurysverdictor *&& defendantsadmissionsthemselvesauthorizedthesentence.Underthe  CaliforniaSupremeCourtsanalysis,thecorequestioniswhetherajudge  has traditionallyexerciseddiscretioninmakingthesentencingchoiceat  issue,andthedeterminationofwhetherjudicialdiscretionis traditionalis   resolvedbyconsideringsuchmattersasthe contextofthediscretionand   whetherthelegislatureintendedtoshortensentenceswhenitenactedthe   DSL.Id.at749,751,752,&fn.12.   InupholdingtheDSL,thecourtputparticularlygreatweightonthefact  thatthelistofpossibleaggravatingfactorsisnotexhaustive.Id.at752,755,  756.Thecourtthenacknowledged: Someofthelanguageusedbythe  courtinBlakelydoessuggestthatthecircumstancethatthetrialcourthas  discretiontodecidewhichfactorsareaggravatingisnotsignificant.Id.at  752,n.12.TheBlackcourtthenturnedtothisCourts mostrecent  clarificationinBookeroftherationaleunderlyingtheApprendiandBlakely  decisions,andconcludedthatBookersignaledthatisnot inappropriateto   considerthisaspectoftheCaliforniaschemeindeterminingwhetherthe " schemeisconstitutional.Ibid. $   &""  ,+    C.0 ` TheStateCourtsareSplitontheQuestionWhetherJudicial ($$ DiscretionDistinguishesaStateSentencingSchemefromBlakely )$% andwhetherBookerErasedtheBrightLineDrawninBlakely.+|gbr  ?|   *%&` `   , |ThereisasplitamongthestatecourtsinterpretingthisCourtsdecisions  inBlakelyandBooker.TheNewJerseySupremeCourt,ininvalidating  portionsofitssentencingschemepursuanttoBlakely,identifiedthissplit  andexpresslyrejectedtheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsreasoningthat   whetherajurytrialrightexiststurnsonwhetherthejudgesfindingscanbe   describedasdiscretionary,becausetheCaliforniaSupremeCourts   interpretation appearstobeindirectconflictwithBlakely.Natale,____   A.2dat____,slipop.at2627(citationsomitted).   ` SeveralstateshaveappliedtheApprendi/Blakelybrightlineruleto  invalidatesentencingschemesthatauthorizejudicialsentencinglongerthan  themaximumauthorizedbythejurysverdictsordefendantsadmissions.  (Arizona,Colorado,NewJersey,NorthCarolina,Indiana,Oregon.)Other  states,however,findnosuchbrightlineandhaveconcludedthatsuchfact  findingisconstitutionalwhenconductedwithinschemesallowingforforms  ofjudicialsentencingdiscretion.(California,Hawaii,Tennessee.)Thelatter   grouphasfoundsupportinBooker"particularlytheviewoftheCourtthat " asentencingschemeinwhichtheFederalSentencingGuidelineswouldbe $   whollyadvisorywouldbeconstitutional.Booker,125S.Ct.at750.(Several &"" ofthestatesdiscussedhaveenactedBlakelyfixlegislation. #  3      ׀Thestatutes   andrulescitedbelowandinthestatecasesaretheversionsineffectpriorto  anysuchamendments.)  TheSupremeCourtsofArizona,Colorado,NewJersey,NorthCarolina,   Indiana,MinnesotaandOregonhaveallinvalidated(orlimitedthe   applicationof)sentencingschemeswhichwere,inrelevantrespects,   indistinguishablefromCaliforniasandWashingtons.Thosestatesallhad   schemesinwhichthereisapresumptivesentenceorpresumptiverangefor  eachoffense.Thejudgewasallowedtoexceedthepresumptivesentence  onlyuponfindingaggravatingfactorspresent.Thestatutory(orstate  sentencingguidelines)listofaggravatingfactorswasnotexclusive(with  theexceptionofNewJersey).Ineachofthesestates,whetherajudge  imposedanaggravatedtermwasdiscretionary,withthecaveatthatin  Coloradosomeaggravatingfactsmandatedasentenceintheaggravated  rangeandsomepermittedasentenceintheaggravatedrange. #  4      ׀Someof   thoseschemeshadevengreaterdiscretionthanthereisinCalifornia,asthe  extentofthedeparturefromthepresumptivesentencewasalso  discretionary.H  #  5      ׀(InCalifornia,ifthesentenceistobeaggravatedthereis  onlyonechoice:theupperterm(e.g.16yearsinthiscase).)   Thehighcourtsofthosestatesdidnotfindthatthediscretionaryaspects   oftheirsentencingschemesrenderedtheschemesconstitutional.Rather,   theyfoundsentencingstatutesandrulesunconstitutionalinsofarasthey   allowedjudgestoincreasesentencesbasedonjudiciallyfoundfacts,or,as  inColorado,specifiedthatonly Blakelycompliantfactors(admittedby  defendant,foundtruebyjury,orjurywaivedbydefendant)andBlakely  exemptfactors(i.e.recidivistbased)maybeusedtoincreaseasentence  beyondthestatutorymaximum.Statev.Brown,209Ariz.200,99P.3d15,  18(Ariz.2004);Lopezv.State,113P.3dat729(Colo.);Smylie,823N.E.2d  at68485(Ind.);Natale,____A.2dat___,slipop.at30(N.J.);Allen,2005  WL1539186at*6*9(N.C.);Statev.Dilts,337Or.645,103P.3d95,99  (Or.2004);Statev.Shattuck,689N.W.2d785(Minn.2004)(percuriam).  InArizona,NorthCarolinaandOregon,thestateattorneysgeneraleven   agreedthattheirrespectivesentencingschemeswereconstitutionally   defective.Brown,209Ariz.at203,99P.3dat18;Statev.Allen,2005WL   1539186,NewBrieffortheState,filedNov.24,2004,at7 #  6      ;Dilts,103P.3d   at97.AstheColoradoSupremeCourtsuccinctlyexplained, theBlakely  Courteffectivelyrejectedanydistinction,forthepurposeofSixth  Amendmentanalysis,betweenmandatoryordiscretionaryaggravated  sentencingsystemsbasedonjudicialfactfinding.Undereithersystem,  factssupportingincreasedsentencesaresubjecttotherule.Lopez,113  P.3dat723(citingBlakely,124S.Ct.at2538n.8).  Incontrast,theCalifornia,HawaiiandTennesseeSupremeCourtshave  reliedheavilyonBookertoconcludethatdiscretionaryaspectsoftheir   sentencingschemestakethemoutsidetheboundsofBlakely,despitethe " schemesrequirementsthatthejudgefindanaggravatingfactorpresent $  beforeimposinganaggravatedsentence. &"" PriortotheenactmentofBlakelyfixlegislation,Tennessee,likethe  otherstatesdiscussed,hadaschemeinwhichtherewasapresumptive  sentence,judicialfactfindingwasrequiredtoimposeanaggravated  sentence,andjudgeswerenotrequiredtoimposetheaggravatedsentence.= #  7         Tennessee,however,allowedforabitlessdiscretionthansomeotherstates   becauseitsstatutorylistofaggravatingfactorswasexclusive.( #  8      ׀Despitethe   TennesseeAttorneyGeneralsconcessionthattheTennesseeschemewas   unconstitutional(Gomez,163S.W.3dat654 )GX #  9      anddespiteitsown  recognitionthat Blakelyitselfincludeslanguagewhichcanbebroadly  construedtorequiretheresultthedefendantsseek(Id.at658 ),the  TennesseeSupremeCourtfoundtheTennesseeschemeconstitutionalina  32decision.Thecourtemphasizedthat Blakelymustbereadinlightof  Booker,notedBookersapprovalofadiscretionary/advisorysentencing   scheme,andconcludedthattheschemewasconstitutionalbecause the  findingofanenhancementfactordoesnotmandateanincreasedsentence.  Id.at658,661.   TheHawaiiSupremeCourthassimilarlyreliedonBookertopermit  judicialfactfindinginadiscretionaryscheme,evenwhenthebrightline   ruleofBlakelywouldseemtoapply.InHawaii,thejudgemayimposean   extendedterm(uptodoublethemaximumforthenonextendedterm)upon   findinganyofsixaggravatingcriteriapresent(someofwhichrelatetoprior   convictions)andthattheextendedterm isnecessaryforprotectionofthe  public.I #  10      ׀Ina32postBookerdecision,theHawaiiSupremeCourtrecently  reaffirmedanearlierdecision(Statev.Rivera,106Haw.146,102P.3d  1044(Haw.2004))holdingthatthereisnorighttoajurytrialonthe   necessaryforprotectionofthepublicelementofanextendedterm  sentence.Statev.Maugaotega,107Haw.399,114P.3d905(Haw.2005).  TheHawaiiSupremeCourtconcludedthatthereasoninginBooker   essentiallyerasesdiscretionaryextendedtermsentencingschemessuchas   Hawaiisfromthedecisionspurview.Id.at914(emphasisinorig.);see " alsoid.at915( [t]hefactorthatrenderedthefederalsentencingguidelines $  unconstitutionalwasitsmandatorynature). &"" ThedecisionsinCalifornia,Tennessee,andHawaii,standinstark  contrasttotheotherstates.InCaliforniaandTennesseethestatehighcourts  perceived,inBooker,anerasureofthebrightlinedrawninBlakely.The  HawaiiSupremeCourthadneverseenthatline,butwasalsoemboldened   byBooker.TheCaliforniaandTennesseecourts,whilerecognizingthat   factfindingbeyondthejurysverdictordefendantsadmissionsis   mandatorybeforeanaggravatedsentencecanbeimposed,viewtheir   schemesasbeyondthereachofApprendianditsmanyprogenybecause  withinthoseschemesthereliesjudicialdiscretioninidentifyingaggravating  factorsand/orindecidingwhethertoimposetheaggravatedterm.  ReviewbythisCourtisnecessarytoresolvetheconflictamongthestate  highcourtsdecisionsandtoreaffirmthat(1)thereisabright-linetestfor  determiningwhetherthereisarighttoajurytrialand(2)asentencing  schemeisunconstitutionalifitpermitsjudicialfact-findingtoincreasea  sentencebeyondthatauthorizedbytheyjurysverdictorthedefendant's   admissions.    "  $   ,  &"" D.0 ` ReviewisNecessaryBecausetheRulingBelowisWrongand  ReturnsSixthAmendmentJurisprudencetoRelianceona  Manipulable,IndistinctStandardForAssessingthe  ApplicabilityoftheJuryTrialRight. ` `   ,MThestatecourtofappealsdecisioninthiscaseandtheCalifornia   SupremeCourtsdecisioninBlackarepatentlycontrarytoApprendi,   BlakelyandBooker.BecauseBlackpostdatesthecourtofappealdecision    inthiscaseandisnowthecontrollingauthorityinCalifornia,petitioner   belowaddressestheanalysisinBlack,ratherthanthecourtofappeals   decision.  ThemajorityopinioninBlackframedthecriticalquestionofwhether  theDSLviolatedtheSixthAmendmentasaquestionof whetheratrial  judge'sdecisiontoimposeanuppertermsentenceundertheCalifornia  determinatesentencinglawinvolvesthetypeofjudicialfactfindingthat  traditionallyhasbeenperformedbyajudgeinthecontextofexercising  sentencingdiscretionorwhetheritinsteadinvolvesthetypeoffactfinding  thattraditionallyhasbeenexercisedbyjuriesinthecontextofdetermining ! whethertheelementsofanoffensehavebeenproved.Black,29 # Cal.Rptr.3dat749750&n.8.TheBlackopinion,thus,revertsSixth % ! Amendmentjurytrialrightjurisprudenceintoastateofconfusion,inwhich '"# thereisnoobjectivelydiscerniblelinebetweenwhenthejurytrialright )$% appliesandwhenitdoesnot.AsthisCourtstatedinBlakely,therule +&' demarcatingwhenthejurytrialrightistriggeredmustnotbe manipulable  orvulnerableto subjectivity.Blakely,124S.Ct.at2539,2540.  Specifically,thestandardalsomustnotbeonethatleaves definitionofthe  scopeofjurypoweruptojudges'intuitivesenseofhowfaristoofarin   allowingjudicialfactfinding,orthatdeclares legislaturesmayestablish   legallyessentialsentencingfactorswithinlimits.Ibid.(emphasisinorig.).   ItappearsthattheBlackmajorityjustices(aswellastheHawaiiand   Tennesseesupremecourts),wereledastraybythediscussioninthetwo  Bookermajorityopinionsabouthowtheformerfederalschemewas  unconstitutionalbecauseitwasmandatoryandhowthereformedfederal  scheme,withadvisoryguidelines,wasconstitutionalbecauseitinvolved  judicialdiscretion.Black,29Cal.Rptr.3dat756;Gomez,163S.W.3dat  65758;Lopez,113P.3dat734(Coats,J.,concurring).ButthisCourthas  notdevisedatestbasedonthedegreeofjudicialdiscretioninasentencing  scheme.Theformerfederalschemewasunconstitutional,notjustbecause   federaljudgeswererequiredtoapplytheGuidelines,butbecausethose " Guidelinespermittedjudicialfactfindingresultinginsentenceslongerthan $  thatauthorizedbyajuryverdictoradefendantsadmission.Gomez,163 &"" S.W.3dat665(Anderson,J.,concurring&dissenting).Andthereformed ($$ federalschemedevisedinJusticeBreyersopinionfortheCourtwasnot *&& constitutionalbecauseitinvolvedjudicialdiscretion.Rather,itwas  constitutionalbecauseajuryverdictoranadmissionauthorizedasentence  higherthananythatcouldresultfromafactfoundonlybyajudge.Ibid.  AsJusticeKennardobservedinrejectingthemajorityapproachin   Black,Bookerdoesnotprovideasourceforthejudicialdiscretionfocused   testdevisedbytheBlackmajority,andtheCaliforniaDSLis   unconstitutionalbecauseitismateriallyindistinguishablefromthe   sentencingregimeinvalidatedinBlakely.Black,29Cal.Rptr.3dat762764  (Kennard,J.,concurring&dissenting).JusticeKennardnotedthatthe  judicialdiscretionfoundintheCaliforniaschemeisnodifferentfromthat  whichexistedundertheunconstitutionalWashingtonscheme.Black,29  Cal.Rptr.3dat764(Kennard,J.,concurring&dissenting).Underboth  schemes,judicialdiscretionisguidedbytherequirementthataggravating  factorsbereasonablyrelatedtothedecisionbeingmade.Ibid.And,upon  enactment,bothschemesappeartohavereducedthelengthofpotential   sentencesformostcrimes.Ibid.(citingBlakely,124S.Ct.at2544 " (OConnor,J.,dissenting)andnotingnodisagreementfromtheBlakely $  majority). &"" TheBlackmajority,infact,concededthattheCaliforniaDSLcontains ($$ alloftheessentialelementsofaschemethatrunsafoulofBlakely.The *&& majorityacknowledgedthatCaliforniaPenalCodesection1170(b) is  wordedinmandatorylanguage,that inacaseinwhichno...aggravating  factorcanbefound,thejudgecannotimposetheupperterm,andthat,   [i]nimposingtheuppertermsentence,thecourtmaynotconsideranyfact   thatisanessentialelementofthecrimeitselfandmaynotconsiderafact   chargedandfoundtrueasanenhancement.Black,29Cal.Rptr.3dat744,   751,755.Toavoidtheobviousresultemanatingfromthoseaspectsofthe   DSL,themajorityinBlacktookthesurprisingpositionthat the  requirementthatanaggravatingfactorexistismerelyarequirementthatthe  decisiontoimposetheuppertermbereasonable.Id.at751.(emphasisin  orig.).Infact,therequirementthatanaggravatingfactorexistandbefound  byajudgebyapreponderanceoftheevidenceviolatestheSixthand  FourteenthAmendmentsinthesamemannerastheWashingtonstatutes  reviewedinBlakely.  Thiswas theemergingmajorityviewamongtheCaliforniaCourtsof   AppealpriortotheBlackdecision.Peoplev.Harless,22Cal.Rptr.3d625, " 645(6thDist.2004),rev.grantedby109P.3d68,26Cal.Rptr.3d568 $  (Cal.2005).LegalscholarsandcommentatorsagreethatCalifornias &"" schemeisamongthoseaffectedbyBlakely.D.Berman,TheRootsand ($$ RealitiesofBlakely,19CriminalJustice5,6(ABA2005);A.Skove, *&& NationalCenterforStateCourts,Blakelyv.Washington:Implicationsfor  StateCourts(2004);J.WoolandD.Stemen,VeraInstituteofJusticeState  SentencingandCorrections,AggravatedSentencing:Blakelyv.  WashtingtonPracticalImplicationsforStateSentencingSystems,Policy   andPracticeReview (Aug.2004)2;K.Stith,CrimeandPunishmentUnder   theConstitution,2004SupremeCourtReview221,269n.17(2005).   TheBlackmajoritysdecisiontodeterminetheconstitutionalityofthe   DSLbyinquiringintowhetherjudicialdiscretioninCaliforniacanbe  characterizedas traditionalrepresentedanabandonmentofthe  Apprendi/Blakelybrightlinerule.ThisCourtsprecedentsmakeclearthat  enforcingtherighttoajurytrialrequiresaninquiryintotheroleofthejury  asguaranteedbytheconstitution.TheApprendi/Blakelybrightlinerule  arisesfrom afundamentalreservationofpowerinourconstitutional  structure,andthatrule ensur[es]thatthejudgesauthoritytosentence  deriveswhollyfromthejurysverdict.Withoutthatrestriction,thejury   wouldnotexercisethecontrolthattheFramersintended.Blakely,124S. " Ct.at253839(citationsomitted).ReviewbythisCourtisnecessary $  becausetheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasfailedtorecognizeandapplythe &"" standardsnecessarytoimplementtheSixthAmendmentjurytrialguarantee. ($$  *&&   , &  E.0 ` TheQuestionisofGreatImportanceandWideApplication,and  thisCaseisAnExcellentVehicleforthisCourttoResolvethe  QuestionPresented. ` `  W ,F 21.0 ` TheIssueisofGreatImportanceandWideApplication.'i` `  TheconstitutionalityofCaliforniassentencingschemeaffectscountless   cases.ALexissearchconductedonAugust4,2005,turnedup936casesfor   publishedandunpublishedCaliforniaappellatedecisionsinwhichtheword    Blakelyappearedinthesameparagraphasthephrase aggravatedterm   or upperterm.Thesenumbersdonotreflectthenumerouscasesstill   pendingintheCaliforniacourtsofappealandtrialcourts.Nordothey  reflectthecasespendinginstatesinwhichthestatehighcourtandstate  legislaturearestillgrapplingwiththeirresponsestoBlakely.  &   2.0 ` ThiscaseisanidealoneforthisCourttoresolvethequestion  presented.` `   A/Thestatecourtsquarelyrejectedpetitionersclaimonthemerits,  'withoutfindingawaiverandwithoutfindinganyerrorharmless.App.A  3245.Thiscaseinvolvesonlyaggravatingfactorsbaseduponcurrent ! offenseconduct.App.C13731374.UnlikeotherCaliforniaBlakelycases, # thesentencingcourtdidnotrelyonrecidivistfactors,posingquestionsof % ! theviabilityandthescopeoftheAlmendarezTorresexceptionforthefact '"#  ofapriorconviction. )$% Incontrast,Blackitselfpresentsthecomplexitiesofrecidivistfactors   andharmlesserror.EvenJusticeKennard,whodissentedfromthemain  holding,concurredintheresultbecause thetrialcourt,inBlack, reliedin  partonhispriorcriminalhistoryandonfactsfoundbythejury,ina   probationineligibilityfinding.Black,29Cal.Rptr.3dat765(Kennard,J.,   concurring&dissenting).   ThiscaseisalsoabettercandidatethantheGomezcasefromTennessee,   whichwasdecidedonplainerrorreviewandincludedrecidivismamong  theaggravatingfactors.Gomez,163S.W.3dat651(plainerror)and671  (Anderson,J.dissenting)(priorcriminalconduct).Thedefendantinthe  SmyliecasefromIndianahaspetitionedforcertiorari,butthatpetition  presentsadifferentissue:whetherBlakelyappliestofactfindingconducted  indeterminingwhethersentencesshouldrunconsecutively.Smylie,823  N.E.2d679,cert.pet.pending,S.Ct.no.04-10472.  Finally,theCourtneednotworrythatbyacceptingreviewofthiscaseit   isembarkingonacourseofstatebystatereviewofsentencingschemes. " Foronething,thequestionspresentedinthiscase"aboutthetypesof $  judicialfactfindingsthatareconstitutional"wouldapplybeyond &"" Californiaandwouldbecontrollinginthoseotherstates.Foranotherthing, ($$ thelegislaturesofmanystates"includingseveraldiscussedabove *&& (e.g.Arizona,NorthCarolina,Oregon,Tennessee,Minnesota)haveenacted  Blakelyfixlegislation.ButthereisnofixinsightforCaliforniaandevery  day,defendantsaresentencedtoaggravatedtermsbasedonfactsneither  foundtruebythejurynoradmittedbythedefendant.          CONCLUSION    Fortheforegoingreasons,petitionerrequeststhattheCourtgrantthe  petitionforawritofcertioraritoreviewthejudgmentandopinionofthe  CaliforniaCourtofAppeal,FirstAppellateDistrict,DivisionFiveaffirming   hissentence.    ` *Zddd Xdd Xdd X  , d , d +  $   $Dated:_______________ '`  '  Respectfullysubmitted, `   `   `  ` _______________________ ` TARAMULAY ` AttorneyforPetitioner"`0 " @     @  CaliforniaRulesofCourt     Rule4.401.Authority    TherulesinthisdivisionareadoptedpursuanttoPenalCodesection  1170.3andpursuanttotheauthoritygrantedtotheJudicialCouncilbythe   Constitution,articleVI,section6,toadoptrulesforcourtadministration,   practiceandprocedure.      Rule4.405.Definitions      Asusedinthisdivision,unlessthecontextotherwiserequires:      ***     (b)"Baseterm"isthedeterminateprisontermselectedfromamongthe  threepossibletermsprescribedbystatuteorthedeterminateprisonterm  prescribedbylawifarangeofthreepossibletermsisnotprescribed.    (c)"Enhancement"meansanadditionaltermofimprisonmentaddedto  thebaseterm.    (d)"Aggravation"or"circumstancesinaggravation"meansfactswhich  justifytheimpositionoftheupperprisontermreferredtoinsection  1170(b).    (e)"Mitigation"or"circumstancesinmitigation"meansfactswhich  justifytheimpositionofthelowerofthreeauthorizedprisontermsorfacts  whichjustifythecourtinstrikingtheadditionalpunishmentforan   enhancementwhenthecourthasdiscretiontodoso. !  " (f)"Sentencechoice"meanstheselectionofanydispositionofthecase # whichdoesnotamounttoadismissal,acquittal,orgrantofanewtrial. $   %!! *** &""  '## (h)"Imprisonment"meansconfinementinastateprison. ($$  )%% *** *&&  +'' Rule4.406.Reasons    (a)[Howgiven]Ifthesentencingjudgeisrequiredtogivereasonsfora  sentencechoice,thejudgeshallstateinsimplelanguagetheprimaryfactor  orfactorsthatsupporttheexerciseofdiscretionor,ifapplicable,statethat  thejudgehasnodiscretion.Thestatementneednotbeinthelanguageof   theserules.Itshallbedeliveredorallyontherecord.      (b)[Whenreasonsrequired]Sentencechoicesthatgenerallyrequirea   statementofareasoninclude:      ***      (2)Imposingaprisonsentenceandtherebydenyingprobation.     ***    (4)Selectingatermotherthanthemiddlestatutorytermforeitheran  offenseoranenhancement.    ***    (7)Strikingthepunishmentforanenhancement.    ***    (10)Strikinganenhancementorpriorconvictionallegationunder  section1385(a).     Rule4.408.Criterianotexclusive;sequencenotsignificant !  " (a)Theenumerationintheserulesofsomecriteriaforthemakingof # discretionarysentencingdecisionsdoesnotprohibittheapplicationof $  additionalcriteriareasonablyrelatedtothedecisionbeingmade.Anysuch %!! additionalcriteriashallbestatedontherecordbythesentencingjudge. &""  '## (b)Theorderinwhichcriteriaarelisteddoesnotindicatetheirrelative ($$ weightorimportance. )%%  *&& Rule4.409.Considerationofcriteria +'' ЇRelevantcriteriaenumeratedintheserulesshallbeconsideredbythe  sentencingjudge,andshallbedeemedtohavebeenconsideredunlessthe  recordaffirmativelyreflectsotherwise.    Rule4.420.Selectionofbasetermofimprisonment     (a)Whenasentenceofimprisonmentisimposed,ortheexecutionofa   sentenceofimprisonmentisorderedsuspended,thesentencingjudgeshall   selecttheupper,middle,orlowertermoneachcountforwhichthe   defendanthasbeenconvicted,asprovidedinsection1170(b)andthese   rules.Themiddletermshallbeselectedunlessimpositionoftheupperor   lowertermisjustifiedbycircumstancesinaggravationormitigation.      (b)Circumstancesinaggravationandmitigationshallbeestablishedby   apreponderanceoftheevidence.Selectionoftheuppertermisjustified  onlyif,afteraconsiderationofalltherelevantfacts,thecircumstancesin  aggravationoutweighthecircumstancesinmitigation.Therelevantfacts  areincludedinthecaserecord,theprobationofficer'sreport,otherreports  andstatementsproperlyreceived,statementsinaggravationormitigation,  andanyfurtherevidenceintroducedatthesentencinghearing.Selectionof  thelowertermisjustifiedonlyif,consideringthesamefacts,the  circumstancesinmitigationoutweighthecircumstancesinaggravation.    (c)Tocomplywithsection1170(b),afactchargedandfoundasan  enhancementmaybeusedasareasonforimposingtheuppertermonlyif  thecourthasdiscretiontostrikethepunishmentfortheenhancementand  doesso.Theuseofafactofanenhancementtoimposetheuppertermof  imprisonmentisanadequatereasonforstrikingtheadditionaltermof  imprisonment,regardlessoftheeffectonthetotalterm.    ! (d)Afactthatisanelementofthecrimeshallnotbeusedtoimposethe " upperterm. #  $  (e)Thereasonsforselectingtheupperorlowertermshallbestated %!! orallyontherecord,andshallincludeaconcisestatementoftheultimate &"" factswhichthecourtdeemedtoconstitutecircumstancesinaggravationor '## mitigationjustifyingthetermselected. ($$  )%% Rule4.421.Circumstancesinaggravation *&&  +'' Circumstancesinaggravationinclude:    (a)Factsrelatingtothecrime,whetherornotchargedorchargeableas  enhancements,includingthefactthat:    (1)Thecrimeinvolvedgreatviolence,greatbodilyharm,threatofgreat   bodilyharm,orotheractsdisclosingahighdegreeofcruelty,viciousness,   orcallousness.      (2)Thedefendantwasarmedwithorusedaweaponatthetimeofthe   commissionofthecrime.      (3)Thevictimwasparticularlyvulnerable.      (4)Thedefendantinducedotherstoparticipateinthecommissionofthe  crimeoroccupiedapositionofleadershipordominanceofother  participantsinitscommission.    (5)Thedefendantinducedaminortocommitorassistinthe  commissionofthecrime.    (6)Thedefendantthreatenedwitnesses,unlawfullypreventedor  dissuadedwitnessesfromtestifying,subornedperjury,orinanyotherway  illegallyinterferedwiththejudicialprocess.    (7)Thedefendantwasconvictedofothercrimesforwhichconsecutive  sentencescouldhavebeenimposedbutforwhichconcurrentsentencesare  beingimposed.     (8)Themannerinwhichthecrimewascarriedoutindicatesplanning, ! sophistication,orprofessionalism. "  # (9)Thecrimeinvolvedanattemptedoractualtakingordamageofgreat $  monetaryvalue. %!!  &"" (10)Thecrimeinvolvedalargequantityofcontraband. '##  ($$ (11)Thedefendanttookadvantageofapositionoftrustorconfidenceto )%% committheoffense. *&&  +'' (b)Factsrelatingtothedefendant,includingthefactthat:    (1)Thedefendanthasengagedinviolentconductwhichindicatesa  seriousdangertosociety.    (2)Thedefendant'spriorconvictionsasanadultorsustainedpetitionsin   juveniledelinquencyproceedingsarenumerousorofincreasing   seriousness.      (3)Thedefendanthasservedapriorprisonterm.      (4)Thedefendantwasonprobationorparolewhenthecrimewas   committed.      (5)Thedefendant'spriorperformanceonprobationorparolewas  unsatisfactory.    (c)Anyotherfactsstatutorilydeclaredtobecircumstancesin  aggravation.    Rule4.423.Circumstancesinmitigation    Circumstancesinmitigationinclude:    (a)Factsrelatingtothecrime,includingthefactthat:    (1)Thedefendantwasapassiveparticipantorplayedaminorroleinthe  crime.     (2)Thevictimwasaninitiatorof,willingparticipantin,oraggressoror ! provokeroftheincident. "  # (3)Thecrimewascommittedbecauseofanunusualcircumstance,such $  asgreatprovocation,whichisunlikelytorecur. %!!  &"" (4)Thedefendantparticipatedinthecrimeundercircumstancesof '## coercionorduress,orthecriminalconductwaspartiallyexcusableforsome ($$ otherreasonnotamountingtoadefense. )%%   *&& (5)Thedefendant,withnoapparentpredispositiontodoso,was   inducedbyotherstoparticipateinthecrime.    (6)Thedefendantexercisedcautiontoavoidharmtopersonsordamage  toproperty,ortheamountsofmoneyorpropertytakenweredeliberately  small,ornoharmwasdoneorthreatenedagainstthevictim.      (7)Thedefendantbelievedthatheorshehadaclaimorrighttothe   propertytaken,orforotherreasonsmistakenlybelievedthattheconduct   waslegal.      (8)Thedefendantwasmotivatedbyadesiretoprovidenecessitiesfor   hisorherfamilyorself.      (9)Thedefendantsufferedfromrepeatedorcontinuousphysical,sexual,  orpsychologicalabuseinflictedbythevictimofthecrime;andthevictim  ofthecrime,whoinflictedtheabuse,wasthedefendant'sspouse,intimate  cohabitant,orparentofthedefendant'schild;andthefactsconcerningthe  abusedonotamounttoadefense.    (b)Factsrelatingtothedefendant,includingthefactthat:    (1)Thedefendanthasnopriorrecord,oraninsignificantrecordof  criminalconduct,consideringtherecencyandfrequencyofpriorcrimes.    (2)Thedefendantwassufferingfromamentalorphysicalconditionthat  significantlyreducedculpabilityforthecrime.    (3)Thedefendantvoluntarilyacknowledgedwrongdoingpriortoarrest   oratanearlystageofthecriminalprocess. !  " (4)Thedefendantisineligibleforprobationandbutforthatineligibility # wouldhavebeengrantedprobation. $   %!! (5)Thedefendantmaderestitutiontothevictim. &""  '## (6)Thedefendant'spriorperformanceonprobationorparolewas ($$ satisfactory.