WPC ~YB̻RɈ,,h Ž΁pw_K~JÕ&^ɸyjȭïo'n(ǮobLA׼9ƇH,OfuŌr=w,onp[d 2ATv(32'(#J8'Q,<ufB5 B$Ly2#Pd+˭\ ѻ"r.Z%0ZUW Vc%쀸ta _wFu!ah 3fJni$6} -5yAbHZn7E^x^?ݙ )zz@UF0EF~LJvMNcޟ.qU^>g 3gv~=c@}/(<3 0  0hR 0 0 0h+ 0! 0+ 0 n 0f 0Dr 0% 0VJ! 0! 0 (" 0k4# 0N# 0IN# 0;$ 0 >$ 0$ 0 |% 0P & 0]& 0 J' 0M' 0 N(U*=) 0Ng) 0)F*^* 0R/U>#0U8a020 "0e0 "R1:t1 "1D1 2 "22ZT2 $2J2 (3"D3 f3  3 0(3  3  3  3 4 4 &4*E4 (o4+4 "44 .4%(5 .M5%{5 $5I5 & 6-36 8`6#6 *6 267 657 k7 :7"7 <7##8 6F8 |8 88!8 08 8%9!]9 @~9%9 (9 : B):F: "#<E< 8`< 2<$< ><$,= 4P= 4=] = 4G &IG6oG .G8G  H 4+H &_HBH  H  H (IX/I "I]I "JS(J {J J J J J  K #K .=K "kKK  K  K K L %L CL aL }L &LL6L O >.O$lO 6O O O O P 4P PP jP P P P P P  Q $&Q4JQ ~Q Q  Q Q  Q R ,R HR dR "~RJR (R"S 4S &NS1tS S S S S TU.;T  iTDT T &T U )U 2GUyU *U *U U V  V :V TV (lVVV CX  ]X }X "X@X X Y -Y "GYciY Y &YL Z XZ rZ (Z=Z (Z;[  T[ "t[F[  [  [  \  <\ &\\9\ &\8\ ] 7] U] s] "]@] $]^ "3^U^ p^ ^ "^K^ "_G3_z_ -a "Ga9ia a a a "a>b Pb jb &b=b  b  c  'c 2Gc+yc c c *c c .d8Bd 0zdCd .d4e .Oe3}e 4e De+(f .Sf *ff  f 4f g :g Tg &ng4g g "gBh (JhFrh  h$h 4h .0i^i &}i (i;i (j;.j &ijFj &jFj  Ak  ak  k k  k  k  k l ,=l1il .l &l,l *mBDm m "m m mm 6n 2Dn vn  n  n  nn &nLo 6Zo 6o 6oo &uSu $va*vwv  v]v " wZ.w $wew "x`3x $xDx $xVy $uy3y "y@y ".z/Pz "z.z ,zzU.{ $E{ i{U.{ 0{5{ .|6F| "||2| |0|} 0N.} 0|}#2~U N %IMO(SN{^ }4 m\  `&Times New Roman' No E Kotler0Jonathan .   HB 54Heading 1Heading 1XXX         XXXH 4Heading 2Heading 2   HQ D4Heading 3Heading 3 X 5+4 44 <DL!5    5+ 4 <DL!5 H! 4Heading 4Heading 4       h:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontLUX 6Block TextBlock Text X X   2(4 44 <DL2     5+ 4 <DL!5`AA :Body Text I2Body Text Indent 3 X 5+4 44 <DL!5  5+ 4 <DL!5P'' 8Body Text 3Body Text 3XXX`:Footnote RefFootnote Reference(#$  0  ` :Body Text I1Body Text Indent 2 ,  , @  0Level 1Level 1    V :Footnote TexFootnote TextXXX(2$ E!..      XXXXXXXX  XXX  0  H4HyperlinkHyperlink    H4pmterms11pmterms11 H 4Body TextBody Text P 8Body Text 2Body Text 2    8,term1term1 ^:FollowedHypeFollowedHyperlink    <> .FooterFooter !>44 <DL!>P8Page NumberPage Number\%% :Body Text InBody Text Indent ,      , D2EmphasisEmphasisdPM:Table of AutTable of Authorities 8  8.4 <DL!8  5+ 4 <DL!5 8 PLS8TOA HeadingTOA Heading d ?%2A`Arial?S\  `&Times New RomanS%2A`ArialH4pmterms31pmterms31 <> .HeaderHeader !>44 <DL!> !  "V)..      XXXXXXXX  ! !X!          ii  XXX݌  Ќ! X!!  XXX#XXXX! !X!      #XX#XX#XC݌̌! X!!  XXX#XXXX! !X!  $  #XX#XX#X$`݌̌! X!!  XXX#XXXX! !X!    A  "  XXX#X(2V$ E!..      XXXXXXXX  \  `&Times New Roman\  ` Book Antiquamailto:eskot@pacbell.net'523 U.S. 2244 [Almendarez-Torresv.UnitedStates523U.S.224[140L.Ed.2d350,118S.Ct.1219](1998))530 U.S. 4664 0Apprendiv.NewJersey530U.S.466,479(2000)+542 U.S. 2964 :Blakelyv.Washington,542U.S.296,124S.Ct.2531(2004)124 S.Ct. 2531.543 U.S. 2204 PUnitedStatesv.Booker,543U.S.220[160L.Ed.2d621,125S.Ct.738](2005)0127 S.Ct. 8564 @Cunninghamv.California___U.S.___,  127S.Ct.8562166 L.Ed.2d 8564 166L.Ed.2d856(2007)41 Cal.4th 79954($_Hlt175473061_Hlt17547306257513 <41 Cal.4th 7994 Peoplev.Black,41Cal.4th799>35 Cal.4th 12384 !Peoplev.Black,35Cal.4th1238@113 P.3d 5344 113P.3d534B29 Cal.Rptr.3d 7404 29Cal.Rptr.3d740(2005)D29 Cal.Rptr.3d 7404 29Cal.Rptr.3d740(2005)F127 S.Ct. 8564 ?Cunninghamv.California,549U.S.___,127S.Ct.856(2007)H41 Cal.4th 8254 #Peoplev.Sandoval,41Cal.4th825J28 USCA section 1257(a)7 28U.S.C.section1257(a)PENAL CODE section 3MPENAL CODE section 37 PenalCodesection3OPENAL CODE section 2887 PenalCodesection288QPENAL CODE section 288.57 PenalCodesection288.5SPENAL CODE section 667.617 PenalCodesection667.61UPENAL CODE section 6697 PenalCodesection669WPENAL CODE section 11707 PenalCodesection1170PENAL CODE section 1170ZPENAL CODE section 11707 PenalCodesection1170\PENAL CODE section 1203.0667 PenalCodesection1203.066^PA ADC 288.513 Pen.Code288.5 d  $..      XXXXXXXXXXX  1     @     &%XAllreferencestothePenalCoderefertothecodeoftheStateofCaliforniaunlessotherwise #s specified.XX%&bPA ADC 28813 Pen.Code288PENAL CODE section 1203.066e14 PA ADC 1203.06613 14.Pen.Code1203.066gPENAL CODE sections 667.617 PenalCodesections667.61PENAL CODE section 667.61PENAL CODE section 667.61 S $..      XXXXXXXXXXX  2        ,  ,  &     &%XThejurydidfindthatthedefendantcommittedthecontinuoussexualabusebyforce,duressand #s violence,however,therewasnofindingof great violenceasrequiredbyCaliforniaRulesofCourt, F rule4.421(a).CT373.InBlackII,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtfoundthatthisdistinctionwas  irrelevant.Id.at817.Theonlyotherfactorfoundbythejuryuponwhichthecourtreliedwasthat  petitionersexuallyabusedmorethanonevictim.Foreachcount,itwasallegedthatdefendant o committedtheoffenseonmorethanonevictimwithinthemeaningofPenalCodesection1203.066B  C   c B  C  , B  subdivision(a)(7).CT104,105,106.'!N l݌  e Ќ     ,  , N   N݌̌   &   4 Petitionerwassentencedtoconsecutivetermsof15yearstolifepursuanttoPenalCode    section667.61B  C   k B  C  ,subdivision(b)(theOneStrikeLaw),becauseofthemultiplevictimallegation.    However,oncethatfactorwasusedtobringpetitionerwithintheOneStrikeLaw,itwasunavailable a   forusetosupportaconsecutiveterm.Peoplev.Mancebo27Cal.4th735,742(2002)B  C   l B  C  ;Peoplev 4  Fernandez226Cal.App.3d669(1990)B  C   n B  C  ;Pen.Code667.61B  C   p B  C  ,subd.(f).'' XX%&PENAL CODE section 667.61m27 Cal.4th 7354 ,Peoplev.Mancebo27Cal.4th735,742(2002)o226 Cal.App.3d 6694 .PeoplevFernandez226Cal.App.3d669(1990)PA ADC 667.61PENAL CODE section 667.61s124 S.Ct. 25314 8Blakelyv.Washington(2004)___U.S.__,124S.Ct.253135 Cal.4th 123835 Cal.4th 1238w160 L.Ed.2d 6214 NBookerv.UnitedStates,___U.S.___,160L.Ed.2d621,125S.Ct.738(2005)y530 U.S. 4664 SApprendiv.NewJersey,530U.S.466,490,147L.Ed.2d435,120S.Ct.2348(2000){542 U.S. 2964 IBlakelyv.Washington,542U.S.296,159L.Ed.2d,124S.Ct.2531(2004)530 U.S. 466542 U.S. 296127 S.Ct. 856127 S.Ct. 856127 S.Ct. 85635 Cal.4th 1238542 U.S. 296PENAL CODE section 669543 U.S. 2204 Booker,543U.S.220160 L.Ed.2d 621160 L.Ed.2d 621127 S.Ct. 85641 Cal.4th 82541 Cal.4th 82541 Cal.4th 825127 S.Ct. 856549 U.S. ___PA ADC 117013 Pen.Code1170 , $..      XXXXXXXXXXX  3     @     XXXCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLaw,aspreviouslycodifiedatsection1170, #s subdivision(b)wasamendedbyStats.1998,ch.926,1.Unlessotherwisenoted,all  Y referencesaretotheformerDSL.PA ADC 288.5PENAL CODE section 1170(b)7 PenalCodesection1170(b)PENAL CODE section 1170(b)127 S.Ct. 856127 S.Ct. 856549 U.S. ___127 S.Ct. 856127 S.Ct. 856543 U.S. 220127 S.Ct. 856543 U.S. 220543 U.S. 220543 U.S. 220543 U.S. 220PA ADC 1170PA ADC 11709 Cal.4th 3314 *Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331,3509 Cal.4th 3319 Cal.4th 33135 Cal.4th 1238542 U.S. 29635 Cal.4th 1238127 S.Ct. 8569 Cal.4th 3319 Cal.4th 331523 U.S. 224523 U.S. 2244 @Almendarez-Torresv.UnitedStates,523U.S.224118S.Ct.1219140 L.Ed.2d 3504 140L.Ed.2d350(1998)523 U.S. 22438 Cal.4th 6824 'Peoplev.McGee,38Cal.4th682(2006)38 Cal.4th 68238 Cal.4th 68238 Cal.4th 68238 Cal.4th 68238 Cal.4th 682 $Verdana544 U.S. 134 :Shepardv.U.S.544U.S.13,28,161L.Ed.2d205(2005)523 U.S. 22418 USCA 13267 18U.S.C132618 USCA 132618 USCA section 13267 18U.S.Csection132618 USCA section 132618 USCA section 1326530 U.S. 466530 U.S. 466530 U.S. 466530 U.S. 466544 U.S. 1318 USCA 924(e)7 18U.S.C.924(e)  $..      XXXXXXXXXXX  4     @ XXXJonesv.UnitedStates526U.S.227,(1999)B  C    B  C  526 U.S. 22718 USCA 924(e)523 U.S. 224523 U.S. 2244 6Almendarez-Torresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224523 U.S. 224530 U.S. 466530 U.S. 466536 U.S. 5454 YHarrisv.UnitedStates,536U.S.545,581-582,153L.Ed.2d524,122S.Ct.2406(2002)536 U.S. 545126 S.Ct. 28734 BRangel-Reyesv.UnitedStates574U.S.___,126S.Ct.2873(2006)523 U.S. 224530 U.S. 466159 Wash.2d 2314 3Statev.Jones,159Wn.2d231[149P.2d636](2006)159 Wash.2d 2314 1Statev.Jones(2006)159Wn.2d231,149P.2d636159 Wash.2d 231526 U.S. 2274 <ApprendiandJonesv.UnitedStates526U.S.227,299(1999)159 Wash.2d 231159 Wash.2d 231159 Wash.2d 231159 Wash.2d 231906 So.2d 12644 /Gurleyv.State,906So.2d1264(Florida2005)706 N.W.2d 7584 .Statev.Henderson,706N.W.2d758(Minn2005)706 N.W.2d 758706 N.W.2d 758706 N.W.2d 758706 N.W.2d 758268 F.3d 1514 6UnitedStatesv.Santiago,268F.3d151(2dCir.2001)18 USCA 9227 18U.S.C.92218 USCA 9227 18U.S.C.92218 USCA 922268 F.3d 151287 F.3d 6994 AUnitedStatesv.Kempis-Bonola,287F.3d699,703(8thCir.2002)427 F.3d 8154 =UnitedStatesv.Corchado,427F.3d815,820(10thCir.2005)  $..      XXXXXXXXXXX  5     @ XXXThisCourtdeniedcertiorariinCorchadov.UnitedStates,2006U.S.LEXIS3004(U.S.,  Apr.17,2006)  427 F.3d 815425 F.3d 6024 /UnitedStatesv.Kortgaard,425F.3d602(2005)425 F.3d 602425 F.3d 602425 F.3d 602474 F.3d 1144 4UnitedStatesv.Guyon,474F.3d114(4thCir.2006)474 F.3d 114474 F.3d 11426 Cal.4th 3164 3Peoplev.Sengpadychith,26Cal.4th316,326(2001)35 Cal.4th 123835 Cal.4th 123835 Cal.4th 1238 CA PENAL section 6697 !CaliforniaPenalCodesection669SearchTermSDU_3CA PENAL section 669PA ADC 117047 Cal.App.4th 7594 .Peoplev.Tran,47Cal.App.4th759,774(1996)202 Cal.App.3d 11544 9Peoplev.Quinones,202Cal.App.3d1154,1159-1160(1988)155 Cal.App.3d 5394 *Peoplev.Smith,155Cal.App.3d539(1984)155 Cal.App.3d 5394 )Peoplev.Smith(1984)155Cal.App.3d539PENAL CODE section 667.61436 PENAL CODE section 667.617 !CT436.PenalCodesection667.61PENAL CODE section 288PA ADC 667.6113 Pen.Code667.61PA ADC 667.61PENAL CODE section 667.61127 S.Ct. 856542 U.S. 296542 U.S. 296$823 N.E.2d 6794 *Smyliev.State823N.E.2d679(Ind.2005)823 N.E.2d 679'184 N.J. 4974 8Statev.Abdullah184N.J.497,878A.2d746,756(2005))155 Wash.2d 5494 <Statev.Cubias,155Wn.2d549,120P.3d929,931-932(2005)+2007 Me. 844 Statev.Keene,2007ME84PENAL CODE section 667.61.ME ST section 12567 M.R.S.A.section1256ME ST section 12561158 Wash.2d 7314 1InreVanDelft158Wn.2d731,147P.3d573(2006)3158 Wash.2d 7314 1InreVanDelft(2006)158Wn.2d731,147P.3d5735845 N.E.2d 4704 <Ohiov.Fosteretal109OhioCT.3d1,845N.E.2d470(2006)7845 N.E.2d 4704 <Ohiov.Fosteretal(2006)109OhioCT.3d1,845N.E.2d470158 Wash.2d 731158 Wash.2d 731158 Wash.2d 731845 N.E.2d 470158 Wash.2d 731_Hlt160955247_Hlt160955248845 N.E.2d 470A99 Ohio St.3d 4634 'Statev.Comer(2003)99OhioSt.3d463PENAL CODE section 669D161 O.O.3d 2744 "Statev.Lett,161Ohio3d274,274F109 Ohio St.3d 14 8Blakely.Ohiov.Foster,etal,109OhioSt.3d1,21-22161 O.O.3d 274109 Ohio St.3d 1127 S.Ct. 856KSB 407 SenateBill40PENAL CODE section 1170(b)NPA ADC sec. 1170(b)13 Pen.Codesec.1170(b)SB 40SB 40RPA ADC 313 Pen.Code3T28 Cal.4th 8284 BMyersv.PhilipMorrisCompanies,Inc.,28Cal.4th828,839(2002)PENAL CODE section 1170(b)PENAL CODE section 1170(b)PENAL CODE section 1170(b)  $..      XXXXXXXXXXX  6     @     XX,XAlthoughMr.BlackquestionstheconstitutionalityoftheLegislativefixtoCalifornias #s DSL,hehasnotraisedthatissueortheconstitutionalityoftheSupremeCourtsreformation  Y inthispetition.Henotes,however,thatrecentlyinRitav.UnitedStates,___U.S.___,127 ? S.CT.2456,168L.Ed.2d203(2007)B  C   Y B  C  ,theCourtheldthatonreview,anappellatecourtmay % applyapresumptionofreasonablenesstoadistrictcourtsentence.Inapendingcase,   Clairbornev.UnitedStates127S.Ct.551,166L.Ed.2d406(cert.grantedNov.3,2006)B  C   [ B  C  ,this   Courtwillconsider whetheritisconsistentwiththeadvisorycaseoftheguidelinessystem   postBookertorequirethatextraordinarycircumstancesattendasentencevarying m  substantiallyfromtheGuidelines.(Cunningham,atp.868,supra.)Z127 S.Ct. 24564 IRitav.UnitedStates,___U.S.___,127S.CT.2456,168L.Ed.2d203(2007)\127 S.Ct. 5514 WClairbornev.UnitedStates127S.Ct.551,166L.Ed.2d406(cert.grantedNov.3,2006)_497 U.S. 374 SCollinsv.Youngblood(1990)497U.S.37,42[111L.Ed.2d30,38-39,110S.Ct.2715a269 U.S. 1674 PBeazellv.Ohio(1925)269U.S.167,169-170[70L.Ed.216,217,218,46S.Ct.68c53 Cal.3d 2824 [Constitution(Tapiav.SuperiorCourt(1991)53Cal.3d282[279Cal.Rptr.592,807P.2d434e378 U.S. 3474 VBouiev.CityofColumbia(1964)378U.S.347,354[12L.Ed.2d894,900,84S.Ct.1697g3 Cal.4th 7404 :Peoplev.Escobar(1992)3Cal.4th740,752[837P.2d1100i53 Cal.3d 5224 LPeoplev.Wharton(1991)53Cal.3d522,586[280Cal.Rptr.631,809P.2d290k7 Cal.4th 7974 )Peoplev.Davis(1994)7Cal.4th797,811m520 U.S. 2594 6UnitedStatesv.Lanier(1997)520U.S.259,266-267o482 U.S. 4234 %Millerv.Florida(1987)482U.S.423q529 U.S. 5134 $Carmellv.Texas(2000)529U.S.513sUSCA CONST Art. I7 U.S.Const.Art.I $VerdanaUSCA CONST Art. I9 Cal.4th 331 $Verdanay230 Cal.App.3d 12664 +Peoplev.Tatlis230Cal.App.3d1266(1991){100 Cal.App.3d 6604 ,Peoplev.Corvino,100Cal.App.3d660(1980)}434 U.S. 3324 (Smithv.Digmon434U.S.332,333(1978)546 U.S. 14 &Dyev.Hofbauer,546U.S.1,3.(2005)#|x(O$(E$..      XXXXXXXX\\Sirius\HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL6,,,,0(@ Z6Times New Roman RegularX-7 ]m7Pages!U E!..      XXXXXXXX  _  ,      XX   ,  $X XXXNo.򀀀 | ̀ l XXX$X Inthe \  SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates ( x 򀀀  ^  __________________________  D  KEVINMICHAELBLACK,   @..@..@..@..@..@..Petitioner,   v. X theStateofCalifornia, $t @..@..@..@..@..@..Respondent. @ ___________________򀀀   OnPetitionForWritofCertiorari  ToTheCaliforniaSupremeCourt n ___________________ :  PetitionforWritofCertiorari  V    0DL!X0EILEENS.KOTLER  " CounselofRecord !  ЀBALIN&KOTLER,LLP "! Ѐ1750FranciscoBlvd. #" ЀPacifica,CA94044 j$# ̀6503591330 6&!% Ѐ6503592567(fax) 'l"& Ѐ4% O  5    eskot@pacbell.netd  6,  7 }Z (R#'    E+ 4 <DL!X!EJXX  (8$(    !    XXJ QuestionsPresented     1.WhetherabroadreadingofthisCourtsholdinginAlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates | 523U.S.224,140L.Ed.2d350,118S.Ct.1219(1998)B  C   & B  C  Ԁ( AlmendarezTorres)to b encompassnotonly thefactofapriorconvictionbutalsootherrelatedrecidivistfacts H violatestheSixthandFourteenthAmendmentguaranteesassetforthinApprendiv.New . ~ Jersey530U.S.466,479(2000)B  C   ( B  C  Ԁ( Apprendi),Blakelyv.Washington,542U.S.296,  d 124S.Ct.2531(2004)B  C   * B  C  ԀB  C   , B  C  ( Blakely),UnitedStatesv.Booker,543U.S.220[160L.Ed.2d  J 621,125S.Ct.738](2005)B  C   - B  C  ԁ( Booker),andCunninghamv.California___U.S.___,  0 127S.Ct.856B  C   / B  C  ;166L.Ed.2d856(2007)B  C   1 B  C  Ԁ( Cunningham)?    2.Whenoneaggravatingfactiseitherfoundbythejurybeyondareasonabledoubtor   admittedbythedefendant,istheprosecutionrelievedofitsobligation,pursuanttothe x  dictatesofApprendi,Blakely,BookerandCunningham,toprovetoajurybeyonda ^  reasonabledoubtotheraggravatingfactsusedtosupporttheimpositionoftheupperterm D  orconsecutivesentences? *z  3.WhethertheSixthandFourteenthAmendmentsguarantees,assetforthinApprendi, F Blakely,BookerandCunningham,thatotherthanthefactofapriorconviction,anyfact , thatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbe  submittedtoajury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubtappliestoconsecutive  sentences?  4.Doestheretroactiveapplicationofareformedstatute,whichdeprivesacriminal Z defendantofhisrighttotheimpositionofthemidtermabsentaggravatingfactsanda @ juryfindingofaggravatingfactsbyproofbeyondareasonabledoubtdepriveacriminal &v defendantofhisrighttodueprocessoflawundertheFourteenthAmendmenttothe  \ UnitedStatesConstitution? B       PartiestotheProceedings    ,  ThepartiestotheproceedingsintheCaliforniaSupremeCourtincludedtheStateof | CaliforniaandpetitionerKevinMichaelBlack.Therearenopartiestotheproceedings H otherthanthosenamedinthepetition.  d  ,   0  ,  d0|X XXX  ,  $ !!X!$*  XX XX TABLEOFCONTENTS*݌ 0 ЌXXXX    B+ 4 <DL!! BQUESTIONSPRESENTED <      D      L   i   PARTIESTOTHEPROCEEDINGS     D      L   ii ^  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES * z  OPINIONSBELOW  <      D      L   1 F  JURISDICTION  <      D      L   2   CONSTITUTIONAL,STATUTORYPROVISIONS   ANDRULESOFCOURTINVOLVED   D      L   2 t STATEMENTOFTHECASE     D      L   3 @ REASONSTOGRANTTHEPETITION   D      L   8  \        ReviewIsNecessarytoGiveImportToThisCourts݌ ( Ќ       HoldingsThatACriminalDefendantHasASixth݌  Ќ     7  AmendmentRightToATrialByJuryandProof7U݌  Ќ       BeyondAReasonableDoubtOnFactsUsedTo݌  Ќ       ImposeASentenceHigherThanTheStatutory݌ p Ќ     &  MaximumandtoSettleTheDifferingInterpretations&D݌ V Ќ       ThatStateCourtsofLastResortHaveGivenTo݌ < Ќ     {   ThisCourtsHoldingInApprendiAndItsProgeny D      L   8{ ݌ "r Ќ     4 A.Introduction <      D      L   8  >  4 B.CaliforniasSentencingSchemePriorto " !  4 Cunningham,supraB  C   3 B  C  , < IncludedAMandatory #"  4 PresumptionofMidtermSentencingAndRequired $#  4 TrialCourtstoFindAggravatingFactsAndBalance   L    l% $ AggravatingandMitigatingFactsBeforeImposing R&!%  4 TheUpperTerm <      D      L   10 8'"&    4 C.CaliforniaSupremeCourtsDecisioninBlackII,   L   11 )T$(  4 ViolatesTheLawandSpiritofApprendi,Blakely, ):%)  4 BookerandCunningham * &*  4 1.TheSingleFactorException   D      L   11 ,',     &  TABLEOFCONTENTS,CONT    'V&  4 2.TheAlmendarezTorresException D      L   15 b  X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?   X X3K m !444X3N'   K  a.ThePriorExceptionHoldingofAlmendarezTorresN'-(݌  d Ќ    - X!om !-   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X3K m !444X3/)   K  ShouldNotBeExpanded. m 16!!H!  J  K  /)*݌̌    - X!om !-  X   b.FederalAndStateCourtsDisagreeOnTheScope     OfThePriorConvictionException D      L   19     X     4 3.XXXCunninghamAppliesToCaliforniasConsecutive x   4 SentencingScheme <      D      L   23 ^  ",    4  a.CaliforniasConsecutiveSentencingScheme     L 24 ,   X   b.SisterStatesHaveSplitOverWhetherBlakely    AppliesToConsecutiveSentencing   D      L 25 Z  X     4 4.ReformationOfCaliforniasSentencingSchemeTo (  4 DenyACriminalDefendantHisOrHerRightToAJuryTrial   4 AndProofBeyondAReasonableDoubtOnAggravatingFacts V  4 MayNotApplyRetroactivelyWithoutViolatingTheDue e  4 ProcessClauseoftheFederalConstitution   D      L 29 $     &    D.TheQuestionisofGreatImportanceandWideApplication D andthisCaseisAnExcellentVehiclefor R thisCourttoResolve theQuestionPresented.   D      L   V!V!F!33 a  XB+4 44 <D!X!B 4 1.TheIssuesAreofGreatImportanceandWideApplication.    33  'R(1     , X  K+ 4 <DL!444X!K& ~  4 2.ThisCaseIsanIdealOneforThisCourttoResolvethe'~ 3  p & ~  4 QuestionsPresented <      D      L   34'~j4   ,   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE:5  XXXCONCLUSION  <      D      L   35!!H!:5)6݌ "# Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE}7  }7l8݌̌    $ X!X!$  XXX  2&!'  X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE69  XXX69%:݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE:  *INDEXTOAPPENDICES:;݌ | Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE<  A.OpinionoftheCaliforniaSupremeCourt,filedJuly19,2007   L   36<=݌ H Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE>  B.OpinionoftheCaliforniaSupremeCourt,Peoplev.Black>?݌  d Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE}@  󀀀35Cal.4th1238(2005) <      D      L   69!!H!  J  4  }@lA݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEB  C.OpinionoftheFifthDistrictCourtofAppeal D      L   90BC݌    Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XED  DE݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEQF  D.TranscriptofSentencingHearing     D      L 104QF@G݌   Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEbH  bHQI݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEI  E.OpinionoftheCaliforniaSupremeCourtinIJ݌ ^  Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEK  󀀀Peoplev.Sandoval,41Cal.4th825(2007)   D      L 125KL݌ D  Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEM  MN݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEGO  F.CaliforniaStateStatutesandRulesofCourt D      L 144GO6P݌ ` Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XELQ  LQ;R݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XER  RS݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEVT  VTEU݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEU  UV݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE`W  `WOX݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEX  XY݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEjZ  jZY[݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE[  [\݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEt]  t]c^݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE^  ^_݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE~`  ~`ma݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEb  bb݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEc  cwd݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE e   ee݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEf  fg݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEh  hi݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEi  ij݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE!k  !kl݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEl  lm݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE+n  +no݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEo  op݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE5q  5q$r݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEr  rs݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE?t  ?t.u݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEu  uv݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEIw  Iw8x݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XEx  xy݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XESz  *SubmittedseparatelyandnumberedconsecutivelytoPetitionSzB{݌ 8,', Ќ    $ X!X!$  XXX    X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE]|  XXX TABLEOFAUTHORITIES]|L}݌  Ќ    $ X!X!$  4  XXX dJ^|X  $ !!X!$p~  X X^|XX XX-  CASESp~~݌ J ЌXXXX  XXX  8 E.4 <DL!! E  dD0* !!4X!*  XXXAlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates݌ D Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*o    523U.S.224,140L.Ed.2d350,118S.Ct.1219(1998)B!passimo݌ *z Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Apprendiv.NewJersey530U.S.466(2000)B!passim݌  ` Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Beazellv.Ohio269U.S.167,70L.Ed.21646S.Ct.68(1925)+!+!F!31=݌  F Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*.  Blakelyv.Washington,542U.S.296,124S.Ct.2531(2004)B!passim.Ԇ݌  , Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*Ň  Bouiev.CityofColumbia(1964)378U.S.347,12L.Ed.2d894,900,84S.Ct.1697+!+!F!31Ňk݌   Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*o  Carmellv.Texas(2000)529U.S.513,-  120S.Ct.1620,146L.Ed.2d5-  +!+!F!32o݌   Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*&  Clairbornev.UnitedStates127S.Ct.551,166L.Ed.2d406+!+!F!31&̋݌    Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Collinsv.Youngblood(1990)497U.S.37,111L.Ed.2d30,3839,110S.Ct.2715+!+!F!31_݌ t  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*a  Cunninghamv.California___U.S.___,127S.Ct.856(2007)B!passima݌ Z  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Dyev.Hofbauer546U.S.1(2005)+!+!F!33݌ @  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*s  Gurleyv.State,906So.2d1264(Florida2005)+!+!F!20s݌ &v  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Harrisv.UnitedStates,536U.S.545,153L.Ed.2d524,122S.Ct.2406(2002)+!+!F!19݌  \  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  InreVanDelft,158Wn.2d731,147P.3d573(2006)B!26,27J݌ B Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*3  Jonesv.UnitedStates526U.S.227(1999)+!+!F!213ٖ݌ ( Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Millerv.Florida(1987)482U.S.423+!+!F!32\݌  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*4  Myersv.PhilipMorrisCompanies,Inc.,28Cal.4th828,839(2002)+!+!F!304ڙ݌  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*Ϛ  Ohiov.Fosteretal109OhioSt.3d1,845N.E.2d470(2006)>!26,27,28Ϛu݌  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*l  PeoplevFernandez226Cal.App.3d669(1990)!!G!5l݌ p Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Peoplev.Black,35Cal.4th1238(2005)B!passim݌ V Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*w  Peoplev.Black,41Cal.4th799(2007)B!passimw݌ < Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Peoplev.Corvino100Cal.App.3d660(1980)+!+!F!33݌ "r Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E    * !!4X!*  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES,CON'T2݌ X Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E    * !!4X!*  Peoplev.Davis7Cal.4th797(1994)+!+!F!31݌ > Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Peoplev.Escobar3Cal.4th740,837P.2d1100(1992)+!+!F!31'݌ $ Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Peoplev.Mancebo27Cal.4th735(2002)!!G!5݌   Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Peoplev.McGee,38Cal.4th682(2006)+!+!F!165݌  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Peoplev.Quinones,202Cal.App.3d1154(1988)+!+!F!24݌  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Peoplev.Sandoval,41Cal.4th825(2007)@!2,8,9<݌ l  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Peoplev.Scott,9Cal.4th331(1995)>!12,13,32ŭ݌ R! Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Peoplev.Sengpadychith,26Cal.4th316(2001)+!+!F!23L݌ 8"  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*-  Peoplev.Smith,155Cal.App.3d539(1984)+!+!F!24-Ӱ݌ #n! Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Peoplev.Tatlis,230Cal.App.3d1266(1991)+!+!F!33V݌ $T" Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*6  Peoplev.Tran,47Cal.App.4th759(1996)+!+!F!246ܳ݌ $: # Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Peoplev.Wharton(1991)53Cal.3d522,280Cal.Rptr.631,809P.2d290+!+!F!31^݌ % !$ Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*X  RangelReyesv.UnitedStates574U.S.___,126S.Ct.2873(2006)+!+!F!19X݌ &"% Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Ritav.UnitedStates,___U.S.___,127S.CT.2456,168L.Ed.2d203(2007)+!+!F!31݌ '"& Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Shepardv.U.S.,544U.S.13,161L.Ed.2d205(2005)B!16,17;݌ (#' Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*)  Smithv.Digmon434U.S.332(1978)+!+!F!33)ϻ݌ h)$( Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Smyliev.State823N.E.2d679(Ind.2005)+!+!F!26K݌ N*%) Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*(  Statev.Abdullah184N.J.497,878A.2d746(2005)+!+!F!26(ξ݌ 4+&* Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Statev.Comer,99OhioSt.3d463(2003)+!+!F!28\݌ ,j'+ Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*8  Statev.Cubias,155Wn.2d549,120P.3d929(2005)+!+!F!268݌ -P(, Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Statev.Henderson,706N.W.2d758(Minn2005)B!20,21j݌  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*O  Statev.Jones159Wn.2d231,149P.2d636(2006)B!19,20O݌  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E    * !!4X!*  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES,CON'T݌ | Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E    * !!4X!*U  U݌ b Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  Statev.Keene2007ME84(Maine2007)+!+!F!26K݌ H Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*%  Statev.Lett,161Ohio3d274-  , 2005Ohio2665,829N.E.2d128% 6 %6<% 7 1(2005)-  +!+!F!28%݌ . ~ Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*   Tapiav.SuperiorCourt53Cal.3d282,279Cal.Rptr.592,807P.2d434(1991)+!+!F!33 ݌  d Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  UnitedStatesv.Booker,543U.S.220,160L.Ed.2d621,125S.Ct.738(2005)B!passimY݌  J Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*_  UnitedStatesv.Corchado,427F.3d815(10thCir.2005)B!21,22_݌  0 Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  UnitedStatesv.Guyon,474F.3d114(4thCir.2006)B!22,23݌    Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  UnitedStatesv.KempisBonola,287F.3d699(8thCir.2002)+!+!F!21+݌    Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  UnitedStatesv.Kortgaard,425F.3d602(9thCir.2005)+!+!F!22݌   Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*  UnitedStatesv.Lanier520U.S.259(1997)+!+!F!31W݌ x  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!! E  * !!4X!*6  UnitedStatesv.Santiago,268F.3d151(2dCir.2001)+!+!F!216݌ ^  Ќ $ ! ! $ 8  <~8  XXXd D ^|X    _X X^|XX XX STATUTES_݌   ЌXXXX  B+ 4 <DL!! B&  -  UnitedStates   'w 8 E.4 <DL!X!E  * !!4X!*  -  18U.S.C.922+!+!F!21n݌ Z Ќ $ X!! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!X!E  * !!4X!*>  18U.S.C.924(e)+!+!F!18>݌ @ Ќ $ X!! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!X!E  * !!4X!*  18U.S.C1326+!+!F!17Q݌ &v Ќ $ X!! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!X!E  * !!4X!*  28U.S.C.1257(a)!!G!2݌  \ Ќ $ X!! $ 8   & ~ -  California ( 9  XXXX          -  Pen.Code3   <      D      L   3,30 IԌ  Ќ  XXXX   8 E.4 <DL!X!E  * !!4X!*  Pen.Code288@!3,4,25'~p݌  Ќ $ X!! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!X!E  * !!4X!*I  Pen.Code288.5c c C!4,10I݌ V Ќ $ X!! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!X!E  * !!4X!*  Pen.Code667.61B!passimY݌ "r Ќ $ X!! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!X!E  * !!4X!*  Pen.Code669A!passim݌  > Ќ $ X!! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!X!E  * !!4X!*  Pen.Code1170B!passim0݌ " ! Ќ $ X!! $ 8   8 E.4 <DL!X!E  * !!4X!*  Pen.Code1203.066A!3,4,5݌ $# Ќ $ X!! $ 8  -    &  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES,CON'T (n#'    '({&  Ohio * &* '* R.C.2929.14   <      D      L   27,28 ,',  R.C.2929.19   <      D      L   28   R.C.2929.41   <      D      L   28   &   CONSTITUTIONS b -  UnitedStatesConstitution . ~ -  'b+ 4 Amend.VI  <      D      L passim  J  4 Amend.XIV.  <      D      L 3,18  0 -  &  -  OTHERAUTHORITY   '$& ~ CaliforniaRulesofCourt  ^  XXXX            4 Rule4.405  <      D      L   10L 25Ԍ *z  Ќ  XXXX  XB+4 44 <DL!X!BӀRule4.406  <      D      L   23,24'~^w ` & d ԀRule4.420  <      D      L   10,12 ,  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E 4 Rule4.421  <      D      L   10,13   4 Rule4.425  <      D      L   24'd} t &  CaliforniaLegislation  \  '  8 E.4 <DL!X!E  * !!4X!*  -  SenateBill40B!31,32݌   Ќ $ X!! $ 8  : B+ 4 <DL!X!B-     , |  ,  $X XXXNo.򀀀 H ̀ 8  XXX$X Inthe ( x SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates  D  򀀀 *  __________________________   KEVINMICHAELBLACK,   @..@..@..@..@..@..Petitioner, r  v. > theStateofCalifornia,  Z @..@..@..@..@..@..Respondent. @ ___________________򀀀   OnPetitionForWritofCertiorari  ToTheCaliforniaSupremeCourt n _______________________________ T  PetitionforWritofCertiorari   p _______________________________  V    4 Thepetitioner,KevinMichaelBlack,respectfullypetitionsthisCourtforawritof  " certioraritoreviewthejudgmentandopinionoftheCaliforniaSupremeCourtfiledon "!  July19,2007. j$# :  : :    & (  OPINIONSBELOW     4 TheopinionoftheCaliforniaSupremeCourttowhichthispetitionrelateswas | filedonJuly19,2007,andisattachedasAppendixA.ItisreportedatPeoplev.Black, H 41Cal.4th799B  C   ; B  C  ,2007Cal.Lexis7604(2007)(BlackII.)Thisisthesecondtimethatthis  d  casecomesbeforethisCourt.OnJune20,2005,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtissuedits  0 opinioninPeoplev.Black,35Cal.4th1238B  C   = B  C  ;113P.3d534B  C   ? B  C  ;29Cal.Rptr.3d740(2005)B  C   A B  C      (BlackI),attachedheretoasAppendixB  C   C B  C  ԀB.ThisCourtgrantedMr.Blackspetitionfor x  certiorariandpetitiontoproceedinformapauperisinCaseNo.056793onFebruary20, D  2007,vacatedthejudgmentandremandedtotheCaliforniaSupremeCourtforfurther ` considerationinlightofCunninghamv.California,549U.S.___,127S.Ct.856XX  , X XXX XX (2007)B  C   E B  C  .TheopinionoftheFifthDistrictCourtofAppealoftheStateofCaliforniais  attachedheretoasAppendixCandisunpublished.Thetranscriptofthesentencing t hearingisattachedheretoasAppendixD.Acompanioncase,Peoplev.Sandoval,41 @ Cal.4th825B  C   G B  C  ,2007Cal.LEXIS7606(2007)isattachedheretoasAppendixE.'(J  \   & 0 JURISDICTION (    4 ThedecisionoftheCaliforniaSupremeCourttobereviewedwasfiledonJuly  19,2007.Thispetitionisfiledwithin90daysofthatdate.Rule13.1.Petitionerinvokes p!  thisCourtsjurisdictionunder28U.S.C.section1257(a)B  C   I B  C  .'0A <#"   &   CONSTITUTIONAL,STATUTORYPROVISIONSAND &$"& XXXX      d  RULESOFCOURTINVOLVEDd 25Ԍ ' #' Ќ   XXXX    '& 4 Theconstitutionalprovisionsinvolvedare: )$)   4 U.S.C.A.Const:Amend.VI 8,',  X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  _   Inallcriminalprosecutions,theaccusedshallenjoytherighttoaspeedy  andpublictrial,byanimpartialjuryoftheStateanddistrictwhereinthe  crimeshallhavebeencommitted,whichdistrictshallhavebeen | previouslyascertainedbylaw,andtobeinformedofthenatureandcause b oftheaccusation;tobeconfrontedwiththewitnessesagainsthim;tohave H compulsoryprocessforobtainingwitnessesinhisfavor,andtohavethe_  ݌ . ~ Ќ X X  ' X!444X'  X X?(4 44 <DLX!? AssistanceofCounselforhisdefense.  d    0  U.S.C.A.Const.Amend.XIV:   XE+4 44 <DL!444XE  XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E  X     AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothe | jurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheState b whereintheyreside.NoStateshallmakeorenforceanylawwhichshall H abridgetheprivilegesorimmunitiesofcitizensoftheUnitedStates;nor . ~ shallanyStatedepriveanypersonoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdue  d processoflaw;nordenytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequal  J protectionofthelaws. {݌  0 Ќ XX*444X!444X!*    XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E   ]   ]݌̌ XX*444X!444X!*    XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E  X XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E M   4 TheCaliforniaStatutesandRulesofCourtinvolvedaresetforthinAppendixF.    infraB  C   K B  C  Ԁasfollows: M.݌ x  Ќ X'444X!X!'    XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E x  A.Statutes x9݌ D  Ќ X'444X!X!'    XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E    4 PenalCodesection3B  C   L B  C   ݌ ` Ќ X'444X!X!'    XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E    4 PenalCodesection288B  C   N B  C   M݌ F Ќ X'444X!X!'    XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E 7   4 PenalCodesection288.5B  C   P B  C   7݌ , Ќ X'444X!X!'    XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E    4 PenalCodesection667.61B  C   R B  C   ݌  Ќ X'444X!X!'    XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E    4 PenalCodesection669B  C   T B  C   S݌  Ќ X'444X!X!'    XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E =   4 PenalCodesection1170B  C   V B  C  ԀpriortoMarch30,2007 =݌  Ќ X'444X!X!'    XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E !   4 PenalCodesection1170B  C   X B  C  ,asamendedMarch30,2007B  C   Y B  C   !!݌ t Ќ X'444X!X!'    XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E "   4 PenalCodesection1203.066B  C   [ B  C   "#݌ Z Ќ X'444X!X!'    XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E $   $n%݌̌ X'444X!X!'    XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E %  B.FormerRulesofCourt %&݌ &v Ќ X'444X!X!'    Rule4.401Authority B &  ԀRule4.403Applicability ( E+4 44 <DL!444X!EӀRule4.405Definitions''  ЀRule4.406Reasons  ЀRule4.408Criterianotexclusive;sequencenotsignificant   &  ԀRule4.409Considerationofcriteria p!   XXE+4 44 <DL!444X!E    )  Rule4.420Selectionofbasetermofimprisonment)) ti|)Ԍ V"! Ќ XX*444X!444X!*  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E 4 Rule4.421Circumstancesinaggravation <#"  4 Rule4.423Circumstancesinmitigation'p!( "$r#  XB+4 44 <DL!X!B&  ԀRule4.425Criteriaaffectingconcurrentorconsecutivesentences %X $  XE+ 4 <DL!444X!E'%+ JXX     ,  XXJ STATEMENTOFTHECASE ,,݌ &$"& ЌXXXX  _ l<`   JXX    9" 4*DL!X!9 -  XXJ 4 OnFebruary7,2002,thedistrictattorneyofTulareCountyfiledanamended (#(  informationinSuperiorCourtchargingpetitionerKevinMichaelBlackincountonewith l*%* thecontinuoussexualabuseofachild.Pen.Code288.5B  C   ] B     C  B  C   /   `  #  1      B      0   C  Ԁandincountstwoandthree   withlewdandlasciviousconduct.Pen.Code288B  C   a B  C  ,subd.(a). -P.݌ | ЌXXXX   JXX  K+ 4 <DL!4*X!K 2  XXJ 4 Itwasallegedastocountonethatpetitionercommittedtheoffensebyuseof H force,duressormenacewithinthemeaningofPenalCodesection1203.066B  C   c B  C  ,subdivision  d (a)(1)andthatpetitionerhadsubstantialsexualconductwithavictimundertheageof  0 14.Pen.Code1203.066B  C   d B  C  ,subd.(a)(8).Itwasallegedastoallcountsthatpetitioner    committedspecifiedsexualactswithmorethanonevictimwithinthemeaningofPenal x  Codesections667.61B  C   f B  C  ,subdivision(b)and1203.066,subdivision(a)(7).CT102!107. 22݌ D  ЌXXXX   4 OnNovember22,2002,thejuryfoundappellantguiltyofallcountsandspecial ` allegations.CT372374. <  F  4 OnJanuary9,2003,theSuperiorCourtgrantedthedistrictattorneysmotionto , dismissthePenalCodesection667.61B  C   h B  C  ԀB  C   i B  C  allegationastocountone.Petitionerwas  sentencedtotheaggravatedtermof16yearsoncountone(continuoussexualconduct).   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X X$ !444X$8  TheCourtfoundthattheseriousnessandcircumstancesoftheoffensemeritedthe  aggravatedterm.Thesecircumstancesincludedtheinflictionofemotionalandphysical t injurytothevictim,thevulnerabilityofthevictim,thefactthatpetitionertookadvantage Z ofapositionoftrustandtheadditionalfactorscitedbythedistrictattorney.Inaddition, @ thesentencingcourtreliedonfactorscitedbytheprosecutor.Inhersentencingbrief,the &v districtattorneylisted4aggravatingfactorsrelatingtothecrime:1)Thecrimesinvolved  \ greatviolence    b<   j  #  2          <   ;2)Thevictimswereparticularlyvulnerable;3)Themannerinwhichthe B crimewascarriedoutindicatedplanningand;4)Thedefendanttookadvantageofa ( positionoftrustandconfidencetocommittheoffense.CT385!386.89݌  Ќ    ! X! !    ,X  & d  >  Inaddition,thedistrictattorneysetforth3factorsinaggravationthatrelatedto  petitioner:1)Thedefendantisadangertosociety;2)Thedefendantspriorconvictions | wereofincreasingseriousness;and3)Thedefendantwasunremorseful.'d? >?݌ H Ќ X,  &    ,X   @  Sentencingpetitionerconsecutivelyoncounts2and3,thetrialcourtgavethe  d followingreasons:JXX' @ @A݌  0 Ќ X,  &    ,X     ;B  XXJRegardingCount2,thecourtstated:' /B ;BB݌    Ќ X,  & J   ,X  , X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!? \C  Thisinvolvedaseparatevictim.Itoccurredatseparatelyfrommanyof x  theoffensescommittedagainstT.inCount1.Itinvolvedabreachof ^  confidence.Thesechildrenwereallowedtoattendaslumberpartyathis D  home,anditwasexpectedthattheywouldbesafeandcaredforbythe *z  motherofthesechildren,andobviouslyitwasusedasanopportunityto ` initiatethemintoallsortsofinappropriatesexualandperhapsbetter F sexualizedconduct.RT951.'JxPC \CD݌ , Ќ X    ,X  ,   F   FVG݌̌ X  &    ,X  , G  RegardingCount3,thecourtstated:'G G!H݌  Ќ X    ,X  , H   H+I݌̌ X  & d   ,X  ,   I  Andthisinvolvedadifferentvictimandadifferentoffenseagainsta t differentvictim.Again,inlightoftheDefendantstotalconductinthis Z case,withrespecttonotonlyT.,butherfriends,theCourtbelievesthat @ theseriousnessandnatureoftheoffenseofapredatorynature,ofnotonly &v selectingthestepdaughter,butherfriendstoengageinhisconduct,makes  \ thesesentencesappropriate.RT951!952.'dtI IJ݌ B Ќ X  &    ,X  X X L  ݀'L LL݌̌ X,  &    ,X   M  Thecourtimposedconsecutive15yeartolifetermsoncountstwoandthree(lewd  andlasciviousconduct.)Thetotaltermwas46yearstolife.CT436!437.'tM MM݌ p!  Ќ X,  X&  E+ 4 <DL!444XE 4 NoticeofappealwastimelyfiledonMarch6,2003.CT820.Petitionerdidnot <#" raiseasentencingissuebeforetheCaliforniaCourtofAppeal.'<#O "$r#  4 OnJune1,2004,theCourtofAppealaffirmedappellantsconviction. %X $  4 APetitionforRehearingwasfiledonJune17,2004anddeniedonJune28,2004. %>!% TheCourtofAppealissuedamodificationthatdidnotaffectthejudgment. &$"&  4 OnJuly8,2004,petitionerfiledforreviewintheCaliforniaSupremeCourtfirst ' #' questioningtheproprietyofpetitionerssentencegiventhisCourtsdecisioninBlakely, (#( supra.B  C   q B  C  ԀPetitionerarguedthatjudicialfactfindingatsentencingviolatedhisfederal )$) constitutionalrightstoajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.OnJuly28, l*%* 2004,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewandaskedthepartiestobriefthe R+&+ followingissues:1)WhateffectdoesBlakelyv.Washington(2004)___U.S.__,124 8,', S.Ct.2531B  C   r B  C  Ԁhaveonthevalidityofdefendant'suppertermsentence?(2)Whateffectdoes  Blakelyhaveonthetrialcourt'simpositionofconsecutivesentences?Nootherissuewas  raisedinMr.BlackspetitionbeforetheCaliforniaSupremeCourt. |  4 OnJune20,2005,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtissueditsdecisioninBlackI,35 b Cal.4th1238B  C   t B  C  ,supra,andheldthattherewasnofederalconstitutionalrighttoajurytrial H onfactfindingrelatingtotheaggravatingfactorsusedtoimposetheuppertermunder . ~ CaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLaw.TheCourtalsoheldthattherewasnorightto  d ajurytrialonfactfindingusedinthedecisiontoimposeconsecutivesentences.Id.at  J 1262B  C   u B  C  .  0  4 OnJuly5,2005,petitionerfiledatimelyPetitionforRehearingintheCalifornia    SupremeCourt.     4 OnAugust31,2005,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtdeniedrehearing.    4 OnSeptember28,2005,Mr.BlackfiledapetitionforcertiorariinthisCourt,No. x  056793,andmotionforleavetoproceedinformapauperis.Thequestionsraisedinthe ^  petitionwere: D   X X?(4 44 <DLX!?1.WhethertheCourt,inUnitedStatesv.Booker,___U.S.___,160L. *z  Ed.2d621,125S.Ct.738(2005)B  C   v B  C  ,retreatedfromthebrightlinerule ` establishedinApprendiv.NewJersey,530U.S.466,490,147L.Ed.2d F 435,120S.Ct.2348(2000)B  C   x B  C  ԀandBlakelyv.Washington,542U.S.296,159 , L.Ed.2d,124S.Ct.2531(2004)B  C   z B  C  ,suchthatthereisnoconstitutionalright  toajurytrialforfactfindingnecessarytoimposeanaggravatedsentence  inastatesentencingschemeidenticalinrelevantrespectstothe  WashingtonschemeatissueinBlakely? t  XB(4 44 <DL444XB Z  XB(4 44 <DL444XB2.WhethertheSixthAmendmentsguarantee,assetforthinApprendiv. @ NewJersey,supraB  C   | B  C  ,andBlakelyv.Washington,supraB  C   } B  C  ,thatotherthanthe &v factofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrime  \ beyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury, B andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubtappliestoconsecutivesentences ( wherestatelawhasspecificallyheldthatconsecutivesentencescannotbe  appliedintheabsenceofadditionalfactsoraggravatingcircumstances?    X XE+ 4 <DL!444XEӀ 4 OnFebruary20,2007,thisCourtgrantedMr.Blacksmotiontoproceedinforma V"! pauperisandpetitionforawritofcertiorari.TheCourtvacatedthejudgmentand "$r# remandedthecaseforfurtherconsiderationinlightofCunninghamv.California,549U. %>!% S.___,127S.Ct.856B  C   ~ B  C  ,supraB  C    B  C  . ' #'   4 MandateissuedonMarch26,2007. )$)  4 OnFebruary21,2007,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtrequestedsupplemental   briefingasfollows: |  X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  me  Thepartiesaredirectedtoserveandfilesimultaneoussupplementalbriefs H addressingtheeffectofCunninghamv.California(2007)549U.S.___, . ~ 127S.Ct.856B  C    B  C  Ԁonanyoftheissuespresentedinthiscase.Thecourt  d specificallyrequeststhatthesupplementalbriefsaddressthefollowing  J issues:mef݌  0 Ќ X X  ' X!444X'  X X?(4 44 <DLX!?(1)Isthereanyviolationofthedefendant'sSixthAmendmentrightsunder    Cunninghamifthedefendantiseligiblefortheuppertermbasedupona   singleaggravatingfactorthathasbeenestablishedbymeansthatsatisfy x  thegoverningSixthAmendmentauthoritiesinthepresentcase,for ^  example,bythedefendant'spriorconvictionsorbythejury'sfindingthat D  theoffenseinvolvedforceorfearevenifthetrialjudgereliesonother *z  aggravatingfactors(notestablishedbysuchmeans)inexercisinghisor ` herdiscretiontoselectamongthethreesentencesforwhichthedefendant F iseligible? , (2)DoesCunninghamaffectthiscourt'sconclusioninPeoplev.Black  (2005)35Cal.4th1238,12611264B  C    B  C  ,thatBlakelyv.Washington(2004)  542U.S.296B  C    B  C  Ԁdoesnotapplytotheimpositionofconsecutivesentences t underPenalCodesection669B  C    B  C  ? Z  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XE 4 OnJuly19,2007,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtissueditsopinioninBlackII. &v AppendixA. B   & J REASONSTOGRANTTHEPETITION      o  ReviewIsNecessarytoGiveImportToThisCourtsHoldingsThatACriminal   DefendantHasASixthAmendmentRightToATrialByJuryandProofBeyondA p!  ReasonableDoubtOnFactsUsedToImposeASentenceHigherThanThe V"! StatutoryMaximumandtoSettleTheDifferingInterpretationsThatStateCourts <#" ofLastResortHaveGivenToThisCourtsHoldingInApprendiAndItsProgeny.'JnoNo݌ "$r# Ќ     4 A.Introduction %>!%     4 Withastrokeofthepen,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthasinterpretedthis ' #' CourtsholdingsinApprendiv.NewJersey,Blakelyv.Washington;UnitedStatesv. )$) Booker,543U.S.220B  C    B  C  ;125S.Ct.738B  C    B  C  ;160L.Ed.2d621(2005)B  C    B  C  Ԁ( Booker)and R+&+ Cunningham,549U.S.___,127S.Ct.856B  C    B  C  XX ,X XXX XXԀ supra,todenyrelieftomostofCalifornia  criminaldefendants.Readtogether,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtsholdingsinBlackII, | 41Cal.4th799B  C   3 B  C  ,supra,andacompanioncase,Peoplev.Sandoval,41Cal.4th825B  C    B  C  ,2007 H Cal.LEXIS7606(2007)( Sandoval),excludemostcriminaldefendantsfromtheambit  d ofApprendi,Blakely,BookerandCunninghambyholdingthat1)AlmendarezTorres  0 mustbereadbroadlytoincludenotonlythe factofapriorconviction,butalsorelated    recidivistfindings.BlackII,41Cal.4th799,819820B  C   3 B  C  ,supraB  C    B  C  ;2)asinglefactor,including x  apriorconvictionorrecidivistfindings,issufficienttoexposeadefendanttothe D  aggravatedtermandtherefore,thesentencingcourtmayfindadditionalaggravating ` factorsbyapreponderancestandardBlackII,41Cal.4th799,815816B  C   3 B  C  ,supraB  C    B  C  ;3)a , criminaldefendanthasnorighttoajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubton  factsusedtoimposeconsecutivesentencesId.at819820B  C   3 B  C  ;and4)Californiassentencing t statutescouldbereformedtogivesentencingjudgesbroaddiscretiontoimposethe @ mitigated,midoraggravatedtermwithoutstatingfactstosupportitsdecisiontoimpose  \ theuppertolowertermsaspreviouslyrequired.Sandoval,41Cal.4th825,847,849, ( supra.B  C   3 B  C  ԀInaddition,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthatsentencingunderthis  discretionaryscheme,whichexcludesadefendantsSixthandFourteenthAmendment p!  guaranteesofajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtcouldapplyretroactively <#" tocriminaldefendantswithoutviolatingtheirdueprocessorexpostfactorights.Id.at %X $ 855.B  C   3 B  C   &$"&  ,        4 Theissuespresentedhavegreatsignificanceforanenormousnumberofcases. (#( TheconstitutionalityofCaliforniasformerdeterminatesentencingschemeandthe l*%* remedytobeappliedfollowingCunninghamremainsatissue.Whilesomedefendants 8,', convictedofthirdstrikes,murder,orsomeserioussexoffensesreceivedindeterminate  terms,thevastmajorityofCaliforniafelonydefendantsweresentencedunder | CaliforniasformerthedeterminatesentencinglawatissueinBlackII. S݌ H Ќ   ,    d  ,    P  P݌  Ќ   ,   4  B.CaliforniasSentencingSchemePriortoCunningham,supraB  C   3 B  C  ,!!H! |  4  IncludedAMandatoryPresumptionofMidtermSentencingAnd!!H! b  4  RequiredTrialCourtstoFindAggravatingFactsAndBalance!!H! H  4  AggravatingandMitigatingFactsBeforeImposingTheUpperTerm . ~   4 Between1977andthisCourtsdecisioninCunningham,549U.S.___,127S.  0 Ct.856B  C    B  C  XX X XXX XX supraB  C    B  C  ,CaliforniasDeterminateSentencingScheme(DSL;Pen.Code1170B  C    B  C  )    [     #  3                 wasimplementedasfollows:Criminalstatutesprescribedthreetermsofimprisonment,a x  mitigatedterm,amidtermandanaggravatedterm.InMr.Blackscase,thesentencefor D  continuousabuseofachild(Pen.Code288.5B  C    B  C  Ԁ(a))carriedpotentialtermsof6,12or16 ` years.PenalCodesection1170(b)B  C    B  C  ԀandtheimplementingRuleofCourt,rule4.420(a) , mandatedthatthemidtermbeimposedunlesstherewerecircumstancesinaggravationor  mitigation.TheJudicialCounseldefinedcircumstancesinaggravationasfactsthat t justifiedimpositionoftheupperterm.Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.405(d).Thelistof @ aggravatingfactswasnonexclusiveandincludedfactsrelatingtothedefendantandthe  \ offense(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.421),statutorilyenumeratedfactorsinaggravation ( (Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.421(c))andotherreasonablyrelatedcriteria.Cal.Rulesof  Court,rule4.408(a).Thetrialcourtwasdirectedtofindtheseaggravatingandmitigating p!  byapreponderanceoftheevidence.Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(b);Cunninghamat <#" 862863,supraB  C    B  C  ,. %X $  4 InCunningham,549U.S.___,127S.Ct.856B  C    B  C  ,supra,XX X XXX XX thisCourtheldthat &$"& CaliforniasDSLwasunconstitutional.RelyingonBlakelysdefinitionofstatutory (#( maximumi.e.themaximumsentencethatthecourtmayimposesolelyonthebasisofthe  factsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant,thisCourtfoundthatthe | midtermwastherelevantstatutorymaximum.Cunningham,549U.S.___,127S.Ct. H 856XX ,X XXX XX 871B  C    B  C  ,supraB  C    B  C  .CaliforniasDSLimplicatedtheSixthAmendmentbecauseitpermitted  d thetrialjudgeratherthanajurytofindaggravatingfactsbyapreponderancestandardto  0 permittheimpositionoftheupperterm.Ibid.B  C    B  C  ԀThus,thisCourtorderedCaliforniatobring    itssentencingschemeincompliancewithconstitutionalstandards.Id.at871B  C    B  C  .Thiscourt x  alsonotedthatundertheformersentencingscheme,Californialawdidnotmirrorthe D  discretionaryschemeimposedinBooker: `  X X?(4 44 <DLX!?California'sDSLdoesnotresembletheadvisorysystemtheBookerCourt , hadinview.UnderCalifornia'ssystem,judgesarenotfreetoexercise  their"discretiontoselectaspecificsentencewithinadefinedrange."  Booker,543U.S.,at233,125S.Ct.738,160L.Ed.2d621B  C    B  C  .California's  Legislaturehasadoptedsentencingtriads,threefixedsentenceswithno t rangesbetweenthem.Cunningham'ssentencingjudgehadnodiscretionto Z selectasentencewithinarangeof6to16years.Hisinstructionwasto @ select12years,nothinglessandnothingmore,unlesshefoundfacts &v allowingtheimpositionofasentenceof6or16years.Factfindingto  \ elevateasentencefrom12to16years,ourdecisionsmakeplain,falls B withintheprovinceofthejuryemployingabeyondareasonabledoubt ( standard,notthebailiwickofajudgedeterminingwherethe  preponderanceoftheevidencelies.   X XE+ 4 <DL!444XECunningham,549U.S.___,127S.Ct.856XX ,X XXX XX 870B  C    B  C  ,supra.B  C    B  C  Ԁ p!   4 C.CaliforniaSupremeCourtsDecisioninBlackII,ViolatesTheLawand!SpiritofApprendi,Blakely,BookerandCunningham "$r#  4 1.TheSingleFactorException %>!%   4 InBlackII,41Cal.4th799B  C   3 B  C  ,supra,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtfailedtoabide ' #' bythisCourtsrulinginCunningham.Cunninghamreiterated,  undertheSixth )$) Amendment, any factthatexposesadefendanttoagreaterpotentialsentencemustbe R+&+ foundbyajury,notajudge,andestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubtnotmerelybya  preponderanceoftheevidence.Id.at863864B  C   3 B  C  .Yet,inBlackII,theCaliforniaSupreme | Courtheldthatmerelyonefactthatexposesadefendanttoanaggravatedtermis H sufficienttoauthorizetheuppertermandtherefore,thejudgemayfindtheremaining  d factsbyapreponderanceoftheevidencetosupportanuppertermsentence.Id.at812  0 814B  C   3 B  C  .TheBlackCourtreasonedthatjudicialfactfindingisunconstitutionalonlywhenit    raisesthesentenceabovethatwhichmayhavebeenlawfullyimposed.Id.at814815B  C   3 B  C  , x  citingBooker,543U.S.at278B  C    B  C  ,supraB  C    B  C  ,(dis.opn.ofStevens,J.)Becauseonefactormay D  belegallysufficienttoimposeanuppertermunderstatelaw,theCaliforniaSupreme ` CourtconcludesthatanyBlakelycompliantfactisadequatetopermittheremainingfacts , tobefoundbythetrialcourt.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsholdingiscuriousbecause  understatelaw, [s]electionoftheuppertermisjustifiedonlyif,afterconsiderationof t alltherelevantfacts,thecircumstancesinaggravationoutweighthecircumstancesin @ mitigation.BlackII,41Cal.4th799,814B  C   3 B  C  ,supraB  C    B  C  ,citingCal.RulesofCourt,formerrule  \ 4.420(b);seealsoformerPen.Code1170B  C    B  C  .Therefore,althoughasinglefactormay ( potentiallysubjectadefendanttoanaggravatedtermifthefactorisseriousenoughandif  therearenocountervailingmitigatingfactors,atrialcourtwouldnotbeauthorizedto p!  imposeanaggravatedtermuntilithadconsideredallrelevantfactsanddeterminedthat <#" thecircumstancesinaggravationoutweighedthoseinmitigation.IbidB  C    B  C  ;seealsoPeoplev. %X $ Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331,350B  C    B  C  . &$"&  XInBlackII,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtattemptstoavoidthisproblem.The (#( Courtcharacterizestheweighingprocessasanexerciseofdiscretiontochooseamong l*%* anyofthethreetermsandanyjudicialfactfindingdoneduringthis exerciseof 8,', discretionasmerelymakingtheimpositionofthealreadyavailableuppertermmore  likely.Id,at815B  C    B  C  ,supra.B  C    B  C  ԀInreachingthisconclusion,theCaliforniaSupremeCourt | employsthesamefaultyreasoningthatitusedinBlackIwhenitheld: H  X X X?(4 44 <DLX!?[I]noperationandeffect,theprovisionsoftheCaliforniadeterminate  d sentencelawsimplyauthorizeasentencingcourttoengageinthetypeof  J factfindingthattraditionallyhasbeenincidenttothejudge'sselectionof  0 anappropriatesentencewithinastatutorilyprescribedsentencingrange.    Therefore,theuppertermisthe statutorymaximumandatrialcourt's    impositionofanuppertermsentencedoesnotviolateadefendant'sright   toajurytrialundertheprinciplessetforthinApprendi,Blakely,and x  Booker. ^   X XE+ 4 <DL!444XEBlackI,35Cal.4th1238,1254B  C    B  C  supra. *z   4 InCunningham,thisCourtrejectedthatreasoning: F  X X?(4 44 <DLX!?Askingwhetheradefendantsbasicjurytrialrightispreserved,though  somefactsessentialtopunishmentarereservedfordeterminationbythe  judge,wehavesaid,istheveryinquiryApprendi's"brightlinerule"was  designedtoexclude.SeeBlakely,542U.S.,at307308,124S.Ct.2531, t 159L.Ed.2d403B  C    B  C  .ButseeBlack,35Cal.4th,at1260,113P.3d,at547B  C    B  C   Z (stating,remarkably,that"thehighcourtprecedentsdonotdrawabright @ line") &v  X X XE+ 4 <DL!444XE  \ Cunningham,549U.S.___,127S.Ct.856,869B  C    B  C  ,supra. B  X 4 UnderCalifornialaw,atrialcourthasnodiscretiontoimposetheupperterm  untilitbalancestheaggravatingandmitigatingfactorsPeoplev.Scott,9Cal.4th331, p!  350B  C    B  C  ,Peoplev.Scott,9Cal.4th331,350B  C    B  C  ,supra;Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(a)(b).) <#" TocharacterizetheuppertermasthemaximumafterafindingofjustoneBlakely %X $ compliantfactsuffersfromthesameinfirmitiesthatthisCourtfoundobjectionablein &$"& Cunningham.Permittingatrialcourttofindrelevantfactstosupportitssentencing (#( choicebyapreponderanceoftheevidencewhenoneBlakelycompliantfactorexistsis l*%* nothingmorethanarunaroundtheSixthAmendment. 8,',  4 AnexaminationofCaliforniasformerstatutoryschemeillustratesthisproblem.  CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule4.421setsforthanonexclusivelistofthecircumstancesin | aggravation.Oneofthecircumstancesis Thedefendantwasconvictedofothercrimes H forwhichconsecutivesentencescouldhavebeenimposedbutforwhichconcurrent  d sentencesarebeingimposed.Rule4.421(a)(7).Assumingthatthecourtcouldproperly  0 usethisfactorinanymultiplecountcase,itcouldignorethejuryfactfinding    requirementbysentencingthedefendantconcurrentlytoanyterm. x      ڻ   4 Otheraggravatingcircumstancesrelatetorecidivism.CaliforniaRulesofCourt, D  rule4.421(b)statesinpertinentpartthataggravatingfactsinclude:ڻ݌ ` Ќ    X X?(4 44 <DLX!?(2)Thedefendant'spriorconvictionsasanadultorsustainedpetitionsin , juveniledelinquencyproceedingsarenumerousorofincreasingseriousness.   XX XX  B(4 44 <DL444XB  p  (3)Thedefendanthasservedapriorprisonterm.p݌  Ќ XX XX  *444X444X*   XX XX  B(4 44 <DL444XB  п   (4)Thedefendantwasonprobationorparolewhenthecrimewascommitted. Z пU݌̌ XX XX  *444X444X*   XX XX  B(4 44 <DL444XB  b  (5)Thedefendant'spriorperformanceonprobationorparolewas &v unsatisfactoryb݌  \ Ќ XX XX  *444X444X*  B(4 44 <DL444XB    X X7  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.421(b)7݌ ( Ќ     4 Asexplainedinsubsection2,infraB  C    B  C  ,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldinBlackII  thatthepriorconvictionexceptionfirstenunciatedinAlmendarezTorresv.United p!  States,523U.S.224118S.Ct.1219B  C    B  C  ;140L.Ed.2d350(1998)B  C    B  C  Ԁ( AlmendarezTorres) <#" mustbereadbroadlytoincludewhetheradefendantsconvictionsarenumerousorof %X $ increasingseriousness.BlackII,41Cal.4th799,819820B  C   3 B  C  ,supra.B  C    B  C  ԀIfatrialcourtmay &$"& properly exposeadefendanttotheuppertermbasedonthefactofanypriorconviction (#( !evenamisdemeanororaremoteoffenseorrelatedrecidivistfactors,thenadefendant l*%* whohassufferedanyconvictionatanytimeinhislifehaslosthisSixthAmendment 8,', guaranteeofajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtforfactsonwhichthetrial  courtreliesinimposingtheupperterm. |  4 Here,theexceptionssetforthinBlackII,41Cal.4th799B  C   3 B  C  ,supra,subsumethis H CourtsholdingsinApprendianditsprogeny.  d  XInsum,reviewisnecessarybecausethesinglefactorexceptionundercutsthis  0 CourtsholdingsinAppendi,Blakely,Booker,andCunninghamanddeniesacriminal    defendanthisconstitutionalSixthandFourteenthAmendmentguarantees. x    2.TheAlmendarezTorresException D   X  4 ByholdingthatoneBlakelycomplaintfactorissufficienttodefinethestatutory ` maximumastheaggravatedtermandbycontinuingtointerprettheAlmendarezTorres , priorconvictionexceptionbroadly,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtensuresthat  Cunninghamsholdingwillnotapplytorecidivists.InBlackII,theCaliforniaSupreme t Courtheldthatthenumberandincreasingseriousnessofadefendantspriorconvictions @ fellwithinthepriorconvictionexceptionfirstsetforthinAlmendarezTorres.BlackII,at  \ 818821,supra.B  C   3 B  C  TheCourtreasonedthatthesedeterminationsrequiredonly ( considerationofthenumber,dates,andpriorconvictionsalleged. Therelative  seriousnessoftheseallegedconvictionsmaybedeterminedsimplybyreferencetothe p!  rangeofpunishmentprovidedbystatuteforeachoffense8andis[adetermination]more <#" typicallyandappropriatelyundertakenbythecourt.Id.at820B  C   3 B  C  .TheCaliforniaSupreme %X $ CourtalsorejectedMr.Blackspositionthatthefactofapriorconvictionhadtofound &$"& beyondareasonabledoubtandfoundthepreponderancestandardusedinthepresentcase (#(  tobesufficient.Ibid,fn.9B  C   3 B  C  . l*%*  X X  B(4 44 <DL444XB   X X0Km !444X0   K ThisholdingfollowsthestateSupremeCourtsholdinginPeoplev.McGee,38   Cal.4th682(2006)B  C    B  C  .InMcGee,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtconsideredwhether | Apprendirequiredajurytodetermineifthedefendantstwopriorconvictionsfor H robberyinNevadaqualifiedasastrikeunderCalifornia's"ThreeStrikes"law.Id.at711B  C    B  C  .  d TheCourtnotedthatunderCalifornialaw,thetrialcourthadonlytodeterminethe  0 natureofthepriorconvictionitselfi.e.whetheritwasaseriousfelonyandsuchafinding    waslimitedtotherecordofconviction.݌ x  Ќ    0444XKm !0   X X  B(4 44 <DL444XB  -44Km444X-  Theneedforsuchaninquirydoesnotcontemplatethatthecourtwill D  makeanindependentdeterminationregardingadisputedissueoffact *z  relatingtothedefendant'spriorconduct(seeid.atp.460),butinsteadthat ` thecourtsimplywillexaminetherecordofthepriorproceedingto F determinewhetherthatrecordissufficienttodemonstratethatthe , convictionisofthetypethatsubjectsthedefendanttoincreased  punishmentunderCalifornialaw.Thisisaninquirythatisquitedifferent  fromtheresolutionoftheissuessubmittedtoajury,andisonemore  typicallyandappropriatelyundertakenbyacourt.I݌ t Ќ X X  -444X44Km7-   X X  B(4 44 <DL444XB  -44Km444X-    ݌ Z Ќ X X  -444X44Km7-   X X  B(4 44 <DL444XB  X X0Km !444X0l  Id.at706B  C    B  C  .l=݌ @ Ќ    0444XKm !0   X X  B(4 44 <DL444XB  X X0Km !444X04  4݌ &v Ќ    0444XKm !0   X X  B(4 44 <DL444XB  X X0Km !444X0   K Thus,theCaliforniaCourtheldthatthepriorconvictionexceptionof  \ AlmendarezTorresencompassedtheboththefactandnatureofapriorconviction.Id.at B 708B  C    B  C  Ԁ!709;butsee   Peoplev.McGee,XXX38Cal.4thatpp.709716     Ԁ(XXXdis.opn.ofKennard,J.), ( supraB  C    B  C  XXXkX;XXkXXXXShepardv.U.S.544U.S.13,28,161L.Ed.2d205(2005)B  C    B  C  Ԁ(conc.opn.of  Thomas,J.)݌  Ќ    0444XKm !0   X X  B(4 44 <DL444XB  X X0Km !444X0   K Thisbroadreadingisunwarrantedgiventhehistoryandcriticismofthe   AlmendarezTorresexception.Furthermore,thisbroadinterpretationconflictsbothwith p!  otherstateSupremeCourtsandfederalCourtsofAppeal.݌ V"! Ќ    0444XKm !0   X X  B(4 44 <DL444XB  X X0Km !444X0H   K a.ThePriorExceptionHoldingofAlmendarezTorresShouldNotBe m  <#" Expanded.H݌ "$r# Ќ    0444XKm !0   X X  B(4 44 <DL444XB  X X0Km !444X0K  K݌ %X $ Ќ    0444XKm !0   JXX 4 XXJInAlmendarezTorres,523U.S.224,140L.Ed.2d350,118S.Ct.1219B  C    B  C  .supra, %>!% thedefendantpleadedguiltytoaviolationofreenteringtheUnitedStatesafterhaving &$"& beenpreviouslydeported.18U.S.C1326B  C    B  C  ,subd.(a).Healsoadmittedthathehad ' #' sufferedthreepriorconvictionsforaggravatedfelonies.Id.atp.227B  C    B  C  .Subdivision(a) (#( providesforasentenceofnomorethantwoyearsimprisonment.However,18U.S.C )$) section1326B  C    B  C  Ԁsubdivision(b)(2)specifiedthatadefendantcouldbesubjectto l*%*  imprisonmentforatermofupto20yearsifhewaspreviouslydeported subsequenttoa R+&+ convictionforcommissionofanaggravatedfelony.(AlmendarezTorres,at226,  supra.B  C    B  C  )    4 Atsentencing,AlmendarezTorresassertedhecouldnotbesentencedtothe | aggravatedtermbecausetheindictmentmentionedneitherthecodesectionprovidingfor b theaggravatedtermnorhisearlieraggravatedfelonyconvictions. H  4 ThisCourtrecognizedthatthedeportationstatutechangedthemaximumpenalty . ~ forthecrime.Nonetheless,thisCourtconcludedthatCongresshaspowertotreataprior  d convictionasasentencingfactor.Id.,atp.247B  C    B  C  .  J  4 Apprendiv.NewJersey530U.S.466B  C    B  C  ,supra,B  C    B  C  Ԁandsubsequentcasesappearedto  0 limittheholdingsinAlmendarezTorresbyholdingthattherewereconstitutionallimits    toaStatesauthoritytodefineawayfactsthatwerenecessarytoconstitutecriminal    offense.Apprendi,atpp.486B  C    B  C  Ԁ!487,supra.B  C    B  C  ԀInfact,thisCourtsholdinginAlmendarez   Torreshasbeensoundlycriticized. x     J   4 InShepardv.UnitedStates544U.S.13,125S.Ct.1254(2005)B  C    B  C  ,thisCourt ^  consideredwhetherthedefendantsguiltypleatoagenericburglaryinstatecourt D  qualifiedasa violentfelonyforthepurposesoftheArmedCareerCriminalAct *z  [ ACCA].18U.S.C.924(e)B  C    B  C  .AlthoughShepardsguiltypleadidnotconclusively ` establishthathehadenteredadwelling,theFirstCircuitCourtofAppealsheldthatthe F sentenceenhancingfactcouldbeestablishedbyotherdocumentsinthestatecourtfile , includingthepolicereports.ThisCourtreversedthejudgmentandheld,asamatterof  statutoryconstruction,thattheonlydocumentsthatthedistrictcourtcouldconsiderto  provethesentencingenhancingfactwerethepleaagreementandtheadmissionsmade  duringthepleacolloquy.Jh݌ t Ќ        4 ApluralityoftheCourtexpresslylimitedthebreadthoftherecidivismexception Z withoutajuryfindingexplainingthat:<݌ @ Ќ     1  1O݌̌     X XB(4 44 <DL444XB  [T]heSixthandFourteenthAmendmentsguaranteeajurystanding  \ betweenadefendantandthepowerofthestate,andtheyguaranteeajury's B findingofanydisputedfactessentialtoincreasetheceilingofapotential ( sentence.Whilethedisputedfactherecanbedescribedasafactabouta  priorconviction,itistoofarremovedfromtheconclusivesignificanceof  apriorjudicialrecord,andtoomuchlikethefindingssubjecttoJones    S    #  4               andApprendi,tosaythatAlmendarezTorresclearlyauthorizesajudgeto p!  resolvethedispute.݌ V"! Ќ       .݌̌     X Xu  Shepardatp.25,supra.B  C    B  C  u݌ "$r# Ќ     X XB(4 44 <DL444XBd  d݌̌     X X'   4 Inaconcurringopinion,JusticeThomasquestionedthecontinuingvalidityof %>!% AlmendarezTorres,523U.S.224,140L.Ed.2d350,118S.Ct.1219B  C    B  C  ,supra,B  C    B  C  :'s݌ ' #' Ќ     X XB(4 44 <DL444XB  AlmendarezTorres,likeTaylor,hasbeenerodedbythisCourt's )$) subsequentSixthAmendmentjurisprudence,andamajorityoftheCourt l*%* nowrecognizesthatAlmendarezTorreswaswronglydecided.See523 R+&+ U.S.,at248249,140L.Ed.2d350,118S.Ct.1219B  C    B  C  Ԁ(SCALIA,J.,joined  bySTEVENS,SOUTER,andGINSBURG,JJ.,dissenting);Apprendi,  supra,at520521B  C    B  C  ,147L.Ed.2d435,120S.Ct.2348B  C    B  C  Ԁ(THOMAS,J., | concurring).Thepartiesdonotrequestithere,butinanappropriatecase, b thisCourtshouldconsiderAlmendarezTorres'continuingviability. H Innumerablecriminaldefendantshavebeenunconstitutionallysentenced . ~ undertheflawedruleofAlmendarezTorres,despitethefundamental  d "imperativethattheCourtmaintainabsolutefidelitytotheprotectionsof  J theindividualaffordedbythenotice,trialbyjury,andbeyonda  0 reasonabledoubtrequirements."Harrisv.UnitedStates,536U.S.545,    581582,153L.Ed.2d524,122S.Ct.2406(2002)B  C    B  C  Ԁ(THOMAS,J.,    dissenting).݌   Ќ          ݌̌     XB( 4 <DL444XB@   (Shepardatp.2728,supraB  C    B  C  ,THOMAS,J.concurring.)@  ݌ ^  Ќ          ݌̌  X XMorerecently,inRangelReyesv.UnitedStates574U.S.___,X XXXԀXX XX126S.Ct.2873 *z  (2006)B  C    B  C  ,thisCourtcontinuedtoquestiontheAlmendarezTorresholding.Although a certiorariwasdeniedinRangelReyes,JusticeStevenswrote, WhileIcontinueto G believethat  AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates   ,523U.S.224(1998)B  C    B  C  ,waswrongly - decided,thatisnotasufficientreasonforrevisitingtheissue."(Rangel.Reyesat2374B  C    B  C  ;  butseeopinionofJusticeThomas(dissentingfromdenialofcertiorari).  GiventhisCourtsdoubtsaboutthecontinuingvalidityofthepriorconviction  exceptionofAlmendarezTorresanditsimpactonthisCourtssubsequentdecisionsin u Appendi,Blakely,BookerandCunningham,Californiashouldnotbepermittedtoexpand [ AlmendarezTorresholdinginordertolimitCunninghamsreach. A  'w  b.FederalAndStateCourtsDisagreeOnTheScopeOfThePriorConviction  ]  4 Exception C  )  CertiorarishouldalsobegrantedbecausebothstateandfederalCourtsdisagree  onthescopeoftheAlmendarezTorresexception.    X X  ?(4 44 <DLX?  X X X0Km !444X0   K InStatev.Jones,159Wn.2d231[149P.2d636](2006)B  C    B  C  ,theWashington W"! SupremeCourtdeterminedthatwhetherthedefendantwasoncommunityplacementfell #$s# withintherecidivistexception.B  C    B  C  Joneswasconvictedofonecountofunlawfulpossession %?!% ofcocaine.Atsentencing,thetrialcourtcalculatedhisJonesoffenderscorebasedupon ' #' hisprioradultandjuvenilepriorconvictionsandbeforeJoneswasoncommunity )$) placementwhenhecommittedthecurrentoffense.Id.B  C    B  C  Ԁat234.Jonescontendedthathis S+&+ SixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrialwasviolatedwhenthejudgefoundthathewason  communityplacement.Inasplitdecision,theWashingtonSupremeCourtdisagreed.The | courtreasonedthatinApprendiandJonesv.UnitedStates526U.S.227,299(1999)B  C    B  C  ,one H ofthereasonsthatthisCourtexcludedapriorconvictionfromjurydeterminationwas  d thattheconvictionhadalreadybeenestablishedbyproceduresthatsatisfiedDueProcess  0 andSixthAmendmentguarantees.Statev.Jones,159Wn.2d231,243B  C    B  C  ,supra,B  C    B  C  .Sincea    sentencingcourtcouldnowdeterminethedefendantsprobationstatus merelyby x  reviewingcourtrecordsrelatedtothatconviction(id.at244B  C    B  C  ),therewasnonecessityfor D  theindependentjudgmentofafactfinder,andthedefendantsDueProcessandjuryright ` concernshadbeensatisfied.(Id.at247B  C    B  C  ;seealsoGurleyv.State,906So.2d1264(Florida , 2005)B  C    B  C  Ԁ[Acourtsdeterminationofwhetherthedefendantscurrentconvictionfellwithin  threeyearsofhisreleasefromprisondidnotimplicateApprendi.].) m    t MinnesotasSupremeCourtreachedacontraryresultinStatev.Henderson,706N.W.2d @ 758(Minn2005)B  C    B  C  ԀandheldthatadeterminationthatHendersonspriorconvictions  \ formedapatternofcriminalconductasrequiredforenhancedsentencingpursuanttothe ( statescareeroffenderstatuteinvolvedmorethanthefactofapriorconvictionand  implicatedthedefendantsSixthAmendmentrighttotrialbyjury.Id.at762B  C    B  C  .The p!  MinnesotaCourtdifferentiateditscareeroffenderstatutefromthatatissuein <#" AlmendarezTorres.Itrecognizedthattheenhancedsentencingstatuteatissuein %X $ Almendarez!Torres, basedpurelyontheexistenceofapreviousfelonyconviction, &$"& withoutconsiderationofanyrelationshipoftherelationshipofthepreviousfelonytothe (#(  deportationviolation(idat762B  C    B  C  ),contrastedwithitscareeroffenderstatute,which l*%* requiredthetrialcourtto lookatavarietyofpriorconduct,8anddecidetheir  relationshiptoeachotherandtothepresentconviction.Ibid.B  C    B  C  ݌ |     - XKm !-   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX?  X X0Km !444X0&   K TheMinnesotaCourtheldthatthecomparisonandweighingofpriorconduct go H beyondtheacceptableparametersoftherecidivismexceptionbecausetheyinvolved  d morethanthefactofapriorconvictionandthereforesuchfactorshadtobetriedtoa  0 jury.Ibid.B  C    B  C  &&݌    Ќ    - XKm !-   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX?  X X0Km !444X0#)   K ThefederalDistrictCourtsinterpretationsthepriorconvictionexceptionvaryas x  well.InUnitedStatesv.Santiago,268F.3d151(2dCir.2001)B  C    B  C  Ԁthedefendantwas D  convictedofonecountofpossessionofafirearmbyafelon,inviolationof18U.S.C. ` 922B  C    B  C  Ԁ(g)(1).Thedistrictcourtfoundthatthedefendanthadsufferedthreeseriousprior , convictions,eacharisingfromoffensescommittedondifferentoccasionsandenhanced  hissentencepursuantto18U.S.C.922B  C    B  C  Ԁ(e).Onappealthedefendantclaimedthat t Apprendiprecludedthedistrictcourtfrommakingthisfinding.TheSecondDistrict @ CourtofAppealheldthatApprendileft tothejudge,consistentwithdueprocess,the  \ taskoffindingnotonlythemerefactofpreviousconvictionsbutotherrelatedissuesas ( well.Id.at156B  C    B  C  .#))݌  Ќ    - XKm !-   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX?  X X0Km !444X0o/   K RelyingonSantiago,supraB  C    B  C  ,theEighthCircuitCourtofAppealsheldthatthe p!  districtcourtcouldproperlyfindthatafelonywasaggravatedwithoutviolatingtheSixth <#" Amendmentbecausethefactofapriorconvictionincludedotherrelatedissues.United %X $ Statesv.KempisBonola,287F.3d699,703(8thCir.2002)B  C    B  C  .Likewise,inUnitedStatesv. &$"& Corchado,427F.3d815,820(10thCir.2005)B  C    B  C      2     #  5      B      3   C  ,theTenthCircuitCourtofAppealsheld (#( thatthepriorconvictionexceptionencompassed"subsidiaryfindings"suchasafinding  bythetrialcourtthatthedefendantwasonprobationwhenhecommittedthecurrent | offenses.Id.at820B  C    B  C  .o/=0݌ H Ќ    - XKm !-   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX?  X X0Km !444X05   K TheFourthandNinthCircuitCourtsofAppealshavereachedcontrary  d conclusions.InUnitedStatesv.Kortgaard,425F.3d602(9thCir.2005)B  C    B  C  ,thedistrictcourt  0 departedupwardafteritfoundthat theapplicableguidelinerangeinadequately    representedtheseriousnessofKortgaard'scriminalhistoryandhislikelihoodof x  recidivism.Id.at604B  C    B  C  .Thecourt consideredKortgaard'stwodrugconvictionsandeight D  convictionsforvariousotheroffenses,whichoccurredintheUnitedStatesmanyyears ` ago,andKortgaard'ssixforeigndrugconvictionsandsevenforeignconvictionsfor , propertyoffenses,whichoccurredinCanada.Ibid.B  C    B  C  56݌  Ќ    - XKm !-   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX?  X X0Km !444X00;   K TheNinthCircuitheldthatthemerefactthatthesentencingcourtconsidered t KortgaardspriorconvictionsdidnotbringthematterwithinAlmendarezTorresprior @ convictionexception.Rather,theseriousnessofadefendant'spastmisconductanda  \ defendant'slikelihoodofrecidivismwerefactual,ratherthanlegalmattersthathadtobe ( foundbyajury.Id.at608B  C    B  C  Ԁ!609,611.0;;݌  Ќ    - XKm !-   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX?  X X0Km !444X0>   K RelyingonKortgaard,in  UnitedStatesv.Guyon,XXX474F.3d114(4thCir.2006)?Uni    ,the p!  FourthCircuitCourtofAppealsheldthatanupwarddeparturebasedonajudicialfindingthatthe <#" SentencingGuidelineswereinadequatetoaddresstheextentofthedefendantspriorcriminalhistory, $ $ currentoffensesandlikelihoodofrecidivismviolatedtheSixthAmendment.Id.at116  Ԁ!118.>?݌ 8&!& Ќ    - XKm !-   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX?  X X0Km !444X0B   K Thus,agrantofcertiorariisnecessarytoresolvetheseconflictingholdings.BdC݌ '#( Ќ    - XKm !-   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX?   X X0Km !444X0pD   K 3.CunninghamAppliesToCaliforniasConsecutiveSentencingScheme  m InBlack 4)$* II,XXX41Cal.4th799B  C   3 B  C  ,supra,  theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthattheholdingin *&, XXXCunninghamdidnotapplytoconsecutivesentencinginCalifornia.Id.at823bFUni   3 .  ԀTheCourtreasonedthatboth ~,'. ApprendiandBlakelytreatedthecrimeanditssentenceenhancementoraggravatingfact asthe  functionalequivalentofasinglegreatercrime.Ibid 3 ,citingPeoplev.Sengpadychith,XXX26Cal.4th316, .~ 326  ݀HUni  (2001)B  C    B  C  Ԁandconcludedthatjudiciallydeterminedfactsthatsubjectadefendantto J consecutivetermsdonotserveasthefunctionalequivalentofagreatercrime,and   thereforeApprendi,BlakelyandBookerdidnotapply.BlackII,at821,citingBlackI,35   Cal.4that12621263B  C    B  C  ,supra.B  C    B  C  ԀpDLE݌ ^   Ќ    - XKm !-   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX?  X X0Km !444X0K   K ThestateSupremeCourtreasonedthatalthoughatrialcourtmustconsider *z  aggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesbeforeitimposesconsecutiveterms,thecourt F  neednotrelyonfactsoraggravatingcircumstances.BlackII,at822823,supra.B  C     B  C  The  BlackCourtcomparesthewordingofPenalCodesection1170B  C   X B  C  Ԁ(b)whichrequiresthe  trialcourttostate factsandreasonsforimposingtheaggravatedtermwithPenalCode Z section1170B  C   X B  C  Ԁ(c)whichrequiresthetrialcourttostateonlyitsreasonsformakingits &v sentencingchoice.BlackII,at822,supra.B  C   X B  C  ԀCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule4.406(b)(5) B mandatesthatthecourtstateitsreasonsforimposingconsecutivesentences.Subdivision  (a)statesinpertinentpart: Ifthesentencingjudgeisrequiredtogivereasonsfora  sentencechoice,thejudgeshallstateinsimplelanguagetheprimaryfactororfactorsthat V supporttheexerciseofdiscretion8Ibid.B  C   X B  C  Whethercouchedintheterminologyoffacts "!r  orfactors,theendresultisthesame.UnderCaliforniasconsecutivesentencingscheme, ">" acourtmaynotimposeconsecutivesentenceswithoutmakingafactualfindinganditis $ $ thisjudiciallydeterminedfindingthatviolatestheSixthAmendment.KL݌ &!& Ќ    - XKm !-   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX?  X X0Km !444X0QT   K a.CaliforniasConsecutiveSentencingScheme  m    R(#( CaliforniaPenalCodesection669B  C     B  C  Ԁgovernstheimpositionofmostconsecutivesentences. *n%* Itprovidesinpertinentpart:QTU݌ +:', Ќ    - XKm !-       B+ 4 <DL!XBV  VxW݌̌  X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?(a)Whenanypersonisconvictedof%7Z%   % [Xtwoormorecrimes,whetherinthe  sameproceedingorcourtorindifferentproceedingsorcourts,and | whetherbyjudgmentrenderedbythesamejudgeorbydifferentjudges, b thesecondorothersubsequentjudgmentuponwhichsentenceisordered H tobeexecutedshalldirectwhetherthetermsofimprisonmentoranyof . ~ themtowhichheorsheissentencedshallrunconcurrentlyor  d consecutively..8Uponthefailureofthecourttodeterminehowtheterms  J ofimprisonmentonthesecondorsubsequentjudgmentshallrun,theterm  0 ofimprisonmentonthesecondorsubsequentjudgmentshall%   % e[run    concurrently.     X XE+ 4 <DL!444XEIbid.B  C    B  C   x   4 Concurrentsentencingisthepresumptivetermunderthedefinitionsetforthin ^  Blakely.InBlakely,thisCourtdefinedthemaximumtermasthatwhichthejudgemay *z  imposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.Blakely,124S.Ct.2531,2537B  C   , B  C  ,supra.B  C   , B  C  .In F California,theimpositionofconsecutivetermsisasentencingchoicethatrequiresthe  courttofindextrinsicfactsinordertoimposeaconsecutiveterm.Pen.Code1170B  C    B  C  ,  subd.(c);Cal.RulesofCourt,rule406(a);Peoplev.Tran,47Cal.App.4th759,774 Z (1996)B  C    B  C  .CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule4.425setsforthanonexclusivelistoffactsfor &v thesentencingcourttoconsiderwhendecidingwhethertoimposeconsecutiveor B concurrentterms.   XLiketheimpositionoftheupperterm,acourtmaynotuseafactthatisan   elementoftheoffenseorinherentintheoffensetoimposeconsecutivesentences.People V"! v.Quinones,202Cal.App.3d1154,11591160(1988)B  C    B  C  ;seealsoPeoplev.Smith,155 "$r# Cal.App.3d539(1984)B  C    B  C  ԀB  C    B  C  . %>!%  X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X XE+ 4 <DL!444XE*c   4 ThefactthatMr.BlackwassentencedtoconsecutivetermspursuanttoPenal ' #' Codesection667.61B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(b),doesnotchangetheanalysis.CT436.PenalCode )$) section667.61B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(b)subjectsadefendanttoatermof15yearstolifewhenhe R+&+ commitsaspecifiedsexualoffense,includingPenalCodesection288B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(a)  (Pen.Code667.61B  C    B  C  ,subd.(c)),underoneofthecircumstancesspecifiedinsubdivision | (e).Here,Mr.Blackwasconvictedofcommittingtheoffenseagainstmorethanone H victim.Pen.Code667.61B  C    B  C  ,subd.(e)(5).Thatstatutespecifiesneitherconcurrentnor  d consecutivesentencing.Becausethecourtretainsthediscretiontoimposeconsecutiveor  0 concurrenttermspursuanttoPenalCodesection667.61B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(b),section669    appliesandstatesinpart:*cd݌ x  Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  i  Lifesentences,whetherwithorwithoutthepossibilityofparole, may be D  imposedtorunconsecutivelywithoneanother,withanytermimposedfor *z  applicableenhancements,orwithanyothertermofimprisonmentfora ` felonyconviction.(Emphasisadded.)i{j݌ F Ќ X X  ' X!444X'  X , Therefore,inordertosentenceadefendanttoconsecutiveterms,acourtmust  necessarilydeterminefactsthatwereneitherpresentedto,norfoundtruebeyonda  reasonabledoubtbyaunanimousjury.   b.SisterStatesHaveSplitOverWhetherBlakelyAppliesTo  !!H! t  4  ConsecutiveSentencing Z  X  4  4 SisterstateshavereachedvaryingresultsinapplyingBlakelytotheirconsecutive  \ sentencingschemes.ThosewhichholdthatBlakelysmandatedonotimplicate ( consecutivesentencingdiscountthisCourtsdefinitionofstatutorymaximumas the  maximumsentenceajudgemayimposesolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthe p!  juryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant."Cunningham,supra,at868B  C     B  C  ԀquotingBlakely, <#" 542U.S.,at303,124S.Ct.253B  C   ! B  C  ,supraB  C   " B  C  ;emphasisintheoriginal. %X $  4 Thus,inSmyliev.State823N.E.2d679(Ind.2005)B  C   # B  C  ,theIndianaSupremeCourt &$"& heldthattherewasnoSixthAmendmentviolationifthetrialcourtdidnotexceedthe (#( combinedstatutorymaximums.Id.at686B  C   % B  C  ;seealsoStatev.Abdullah184N.J.497,878 l*%* A.2d746,756(2005)B  C   & B  C  Ԁ(same.)TheWisconsinSupremeCourtheldthatconsecutive 8,', sentencingdoesnotoffendBlakely solongasthesentenceforanysingleoffensedoes  notexceedthestatutorymaximumforthatoffense8Statev.Cubias,155Wn.2d549, | 120P.3d929,931932(2005)B  C   ( B  C  . H  4 Morerecently,inStatev.Keene,2007ME84B  C   * B  C  ,2007Me.LEXIS86(filedJuly10,  d 2007),inasplitdecisiontheMaineSupremeCourtheldthattheprincipalsofApprendi  0 didnotapplytoitssentencingschemebecauseconsecutivesentencesareseparate    punishmentsfordifferentoffenses,andtwosentencesdonotbecomeasinglesentenceby x  virtueoftheirrunningconsecutively.Idat**23B  C   , B  C  .RelyingonthisCourtsdefinitionof D   statutorymaximum,thedissentingjusticeopinedthatconcurrentsentencingwas ` requiredunlessthejuryfoundbytherequisiteproofoneofthefactualelementssetforth , inM.R.S.A.section1256B  C   - B  C  Ԁ(2).Id.at*P30B  C   / B  C  ,Calkins,J.,dissenting.   4 TwostateshaveconcludedthatApprendianditsprogenyapplytoconsecutive t sentencing.InreVanDelft158Wn.2d731,147P.3d573(2006)B  C   0 B  C  ԀB  C   2 B  C  Ԁ( VanDelft);Ohiov. @ Fosteretal109OhioCT.3d1,845N.E.2d470(2006)B  C   4 B  C  ԀB  C   6 B  C  ;certden.Fosterv.Ohio2006  \ U.S.LEXIS7863(U.S.Oct.16,2006)( Foster). D  (  4 ThesentencingschemeoftheStateofWashingtonmandatedconcurrent  sentencingfornonseriousviolentfeloniesabsentafindingofaggravatingfactors.Inre p!  VanDelft,158Wn.2d731,742B  C   8 B  C  ,supra.BecauseBlakelyheldthatacriminaldefendant <#" wasentitledtoexpectasentencinglimitsbaseduponthejuryverdictaloneandthe %X $ WashingtonLegislaturedefinedconsecutivesentencingasanexceptionalsentence,the &$"& WashingtonSupremeCourtheldthataconsecutivesentencebasedonfactsfoundbythe (#( trialjudge,andnotreflectedinthejuryverdictviolatedBlakelysmandates.Inre l*%* VanDelft158Wn.2dat742743B  C   9 B  C  ,supra.B  C   : B  C  Ԁ 8,',  4 OhiosSupremeCourtreachedasimilarconclusioninOhiov.Fosteretal,109  OhioCT.3d1,845N.E.2d470B  C   ; B  C  ,supraB  C   < B  C  ;certden.Fosterv.Ohio2006U.S.LEXIS7863 | (U.S.Oct.16,2006).Ohioscriminalsentencingstatutesweresimilarinmanyrespects H tothewayCaliforniassentencinglawsoperatedpriortothisCourtsdecisionin  d Cunningham.OhiohadahybridsentencingschemepriortoBlakely;someoffenses  0 carriedindeterminateterms,however,mostoffenseshaddeterminatesentences.See    RevisedCode[ R.C.]2929.14,whichsetsoutpenaltiesforcrimesinOhio.Although x  consecutivesentencingwasmandatoryforseveralcrimes,usuallythetrialcourthadthe D  discretiontosentenceadefendanttoconsecutivesentencespursuanttoR.C.2929.14, ` subdivision(E)(4)onlyifitmadeseveraldistinctfindingsbyclearandconvincing , evidence% = %=% > .R.C.2929.14,subdivision(E)(4)states:   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  R  (4)Ifmultipleprisontermsareimposedonanoffenderforconvictionsof t multipleoffenses,thecourtmayrequiretheoffendertoservetheprison Z termsconsecutivelyifthecourtfindsthattheconsecutiveserviceis @ necessarytoprotectthepublicfromfuturecrimeortopunishtheoffender &v andthatconsecutivesentencesarenotdisproportionatetotheseriousness  \ oftheoffendersconductandtothedangertheoffenderposestothe B public,andifthecourtalsofindsanyofthefollowing:R݌ ( Ќ X X  ' X!444X'  X X?(4 44 <DLX!?(a)Theoffendercommittedoneormoreofthemultipleoffenseswhilethe  offenderwasawaitingtrialorsentencing,wasunderasanctionimposed   pursuanttosection2929.16,2929.17,or2929.18oftheRevisedCode,or p!  wasunderpostreleasecontrolforaprioroffense. V"! (b)Atleasttwoofthemultipleoffenseswerecommittedaspartofoneor "$r# morecoursesofconduct,andtheharmcausedbytwoormoreofthe %X $ multipleoffensessocommittedwassogreatorunusualthatnosingle %>!% prisontermforanyoftheoffensescommittedaspartofanyofthecourses &$"& ofconductadequatelyreflectstheseriousnessoftheoffendersconduct. ' #' (c)Theoffendershistoryofcriminalconductdemonstratesthat )$) consecutivesentencesarenecessarytoprotectthepublicfromfuture l*%* crimebytheoffender. R+&+  8,',  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XE(Ibid.B  C   ? B  C  )   4 AsinCalifornia,theOhiosentencingcourtmuststateitsreasonsforimposinga | consecutiveterm.R.C.2929.19(B)(2)(c);Statev.Comer,99OhioSt.3d463(2003)B  C   @ B  C  . H R.C.2929.41(A)mandatedconcurrenttermsabsentthejudicialfindingssetforthin  d 2929.14:  0  X X?(4 44 <DLX!?Exceptasprovidedindivision(B)ofthissection,division(E)ofsection    2929.14,ordivision(D)or(E)ofsection2971.03oftheRevisedCode,a   prisonterm,jailterm,orsentenceofimprisonmentshallbeserved x  concurrentlywithanyotherprisonterm,jailterm,orsentenceof ^  imprisonmentimposedbyacourtofthisstate,anotherstate,ortheUnited D  States.Exceptasprovidedindivision(B)(3)ofthissection,ajailtermor *z  sentenceofimprisonmentformisdemeanorshallbeservedconcurrently ` withaprisontermorsentenceofimprisonmentforfelonyservedinastate F orfederalcorrectionalinstitution. ,  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XER.C.2929.41(A).   4 TheOhioSupremeCourtalsorejectedthedecisionofalowercourtthatfound Z thatBlakelydidnotapplytoconsecutivesentencingbecause thefactsfoundbythecourt &v donotincreasethemaximumpenaltyforanindividualoffense.Id.at21B  C   B B  C  ԀquotingStatev. B Lett,161Ohio3d274,274B  C   C B  C  ,829N.E.3d1281(2005).TheFosterCourtrecognizedthat  thiswastrue,butheldthatthenecessaryjudicialfindingsbeyondthosefoundbythejury   toincreasethedefendantstotalpunishmentviolatedtheprinciplesannouncedinBlakely. V"! Ohiov.Foster,etal,109OhioSt.3d1,2122B  C   E B  C  ,supraB  C   G B  C  ,B  C   H B  C  . "$r#  4 Insum,ifBlakelysdefinitionofstatutorymaximumisappliedtoconsecutive %>!% sentencing,Californiasconsecutivesentencingschemefailsconstitutionalmuster ' #' becauseitpermitsthecourttoimposeconsecutivesentencingbasedonfacts(orfactors) )$) neitherfoundbythejurynorprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt.Reviewshouldbe R+&+ grantedonthisissuebecauseCaliforniassentencingschemeviolatestheSixthand  FourthAmendmentsandbecausedifferentStateshadreachedvaryingconclusionswhen | applyingthisCourtsSixthAmendmentguaranteetoconsecutivesentencing. H  4 4.ReformationOfCaliforniasSentencingSchemeToDenyACriminal  d DefendantHisOrHerRightToAJuryTrialAndProofBeyondAReasonable  J DoubtOnAggravatingFactsMayNotApplyRetroactivelyWithoutViolatingThe  0 DueProcessClauseoftheFederalConstitution     X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XE   4 FollowingthisCourtsopinioninCunningham,549U.S.___,127S.Ct.856B  C   I B  C  ,   supra,onMarch30,2007theCaliforniaLegislatureenactedSenateBill40B  C   J B  C  Ԁasurgency ^  legislation,effectiveimmediately,toamendPenalCodesection1170B  C   X B  C  Ԁtomakethetrial *z  courtssentencingchoicediscretionaryandsimplyrequirethecourttostateitsreasonfor F selectingtheaggravatedterm.ThistemporarymeasureissettoexpireonJanuary1,  2009.Asamended,PenalCodesection1170(b)B  C   L B  C  Ԁstates:݌  Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  f  Whenajudgmentofimprisonmentistobeimposedandthestatute Z specifiesthreepossibleterms,thechoiceoftheappropriatetermshallrest @ withinthesounddiscretionofthecourt.Atleastfourdayspriortothe &v timesetforimpositionofjudgment,eitherpartyorthevictim,orthe  \ familyofthevictimifthevictimisdeceased,maysubmitastatementin B aggravationormitigation.Indeterminingtheappropriateterm,thecourt ( mayconsidertherecordinthecase,theprobationofficer'sreport,other  reportsincludingreportsreceivedpursuanttoSection1203.03and  statementsinaggravationormitigationsubmittedbytheprosecution,the   defendant,orthevictim,orthefamilyofthevictimifthevictimis p!  deceased,andanyfurtherevidenceintroducedatthesentencinghearing. V"!  Thecourtshallselectthetermwhich,inthecourt'sdiscretion,best <#" servestheinterestsofjustice.Thecourtshallsetforthontherecord "$r# thereasonsforimposingthetermselectedandthecourtmaynot %X $ imposeanuppertermbyusingthefactofanyenhancementupon %>!% whichsentenceisimposedunderanyprovisionoflaw. Atermof &$"& imprisonmentshallnotbespecifiedifimpositionofsentenceis ' #' suspended.f݌ (#( Ќ X X  ' X!444X'   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?    ;݌̌ X X  ' X!444X'   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XEԩ  Pen.Codesec.1170(b)B  C   M B  C  ;Stats2007ch32(SB40B  C   O B  C  ),effectiveMarch30,2007,repealed l*%* January1,2009;emphasisadded.ԩ݌ R+&+ Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XEZ  Z=݌ 8,', Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XE   4 TheLegislatureincludednolanguageregardingretroactivity.Sandoval,41Cal.  4th825,845,supra.B  C   P B  C  ԀUnderCalifornialaw,nopartofastatuteisretroactiveunless  expresslysodeclared.Pen.Code3B  C   Q B  C  ;seeMyersv.PhilipMorrisCompanies,Inc.,28 | Cal.4th828,839(2002)B  C   S B  C  .PenalCodesection1170(b)B  C   U B  C  Ԁcontinuestorequirethecourtto b choosethemitigatedterm,midtermoraggravatedtermassetforthinthestatutes H definingtheoffenses,however,thestatutehaseliminatedthepresumptionofmidterm . ~ sentencingabsentafindingofaggravatorsandmitigationsandinsteadleavesittothe  d courtsdiscretiontochosethetermthatbestservestheinterestsofjustice.Ibid.B  C   V B  C  ʮ݌  J Ќ    $ X!X!$     4 InMr.Blackscase,thetrialcourtimposedtheuppertermandconsecutiveterms  0 basednotonlyonajuryfindingofdangerousnessandappellantsrecidivisticbehavior,    butalsoonmanyfactsthatwereneitherfoundbythejurynordeterminedbeyonda    reasonabledoubt.CT385!386;RT951!952.    X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XE  ݀ 4 InSandoval,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtreformedthestatutetomirrorthe x  amendedlegislativestatute.RelyingonBookerandCunningham,theCaliforniaSupreme ^  Courtdeterminedthat whenatrialjudgeexerciseshisdiscretiontoselectaspecific D  sentencewithinadefinedrange,thedefendanthasnorighttoajurydeterminationofthe *z  factsthatthejudgedeemsrelevant.Sandoval,41Cal.4th825,844845,supra.B  C   W B  C        X  #  6      B        C  ԀThe ` CaliforniaSupremeCourtapplicationofthereformedschemetocasesonremand, F however,allowstheimpositionoftheaggravatedtermundercircumstancesnotcurrently , permitted.Therefore,retroactiveapplicationofthereformedschemeisanunforeseen  judicialenlargementofacriminalstatesandviolatesthedueprocessguarantees.  Ѐi݌  Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XEr   4  rU݌̌    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?    Astatute"'whichmakesmoreburdensomethepunishmentforacrime, Z afteritscommission'"violatesarticleI,section9,clause3,oftheUnited @ StatesConstitutionasanexpostfactodeterminationofcriminalliability &v (Collinsv.Youngblood(1990)497U.S.37,42[111L.Ed.2d30,3839,  \ 110S.Ct.2715B  C   ^ B  C  ],quotingBeazellv.Ohio(1925)269U.S.167,169170 B [70L.Ed.216,217,218,46S.Ct.68B  C   ` B  C  ]),aswellasitsCaliforniacounterpart, ( articleI,section9ofthestateConstitution(Tapiav.SuperiorCourt  (1991)53Cal.3d282[279Cal.Rptr.592,807P.2d434B  C   b B  C  ]).  Correspondingly,anunforeseeablejudicialenlargementofacriminal   statute,appliedretroactively,operatesinthesamemannerasanexpost p!  factolaw.(Bouiev.CityofColumbia(1964)378U.S.347,354[12 V"! L.Ed.2d894,900,84S.Ct.1697B  C   d B  C  ];seealsoPeoplev.Escobar(1992)3 <#" Cal.4th740,752[837P.2d1100B  C   f B  C  ];Peoplev.Wharton(1991)53Cal.3d  522,586[280Cal.Rptr.631,809P.2d290B  C   h B  C  ].)݌  Ќ X X  ' X!444X'   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  n  n݌̌ X X  ' X!444X'   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  XB( 4 <DL444XB  (Peoplev.Davis(1994)7Cal.4th797,811B  C   j B  C  .)U݌ b Ќ  X  $ X!X$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  XB( 4 <DL444XBf  f8݌̌  X  $ X!X$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XE   4 ItisaviolationofdueprocessguaranteesundertheFifthandFourteenth . ~ AmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitutionforcourtstointerpretexistinglawsand  d imposeunexpectedcriminalpenaltiesinamannerthatthedefendantcouldnothave  J foreseenatthetimeofhisorhercriminalconduct.UnitedStatesv.Lanier(1997)520  0 U.S.259,266!267B  C   l B  C  .݌    Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XEJ  ` 4 Inanalogoussituations,thisCourthasrecognizedthatstatutoryrevisionsthat    giveacourtgreaterflexibilitytoimposeahighertermthanthepresumptivesentenceat   thetimeoftheoffenseorreducesthe quantumofevidencenecessarytoconvict x  violatestheexpostfactoclause.Millerv.Florida(1987)482U.S.423B  C   n B  C  ;Carmellv.Texas ^  (2000)529U.S.513B  C   p B  C  ;seeU.S.Const.Art.IB  C   r B  C  ,9,cl.3;Art.I,10,cl.1XXXtkX.tXXtkXXXtXJ-݌ D  Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XE   4 SincethisCourtsholdinginApprendi,whichmandatedajuryfindingonfacts *z  provenbeyondareasonabledoubttobeusedtoimposeanenhancedsentence,defendant ` couldnothaveforeseeneithertheLegislaturesreformationofthesentencingstatuteor F thattheCaliforniaSupremeCourtwouldenlargethestatutetoeliminatesucha , requirement.Accordingly,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtsholdinginSandovalmustbe  appliedprospectively.݌  Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XE   4 TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtanswersthisconcernbycontendingthata  defendantreceivesadequatenoticethatheorshemaybesentencedtotheupperterm t becausethestatutedefiningpunishmentspecifiesthatthepunishmentfortheoffense Z carriesaminimum,midtermoraggravatedterm.Sandoval,41Cal.4th825,857,supra.B  C   u B  C  Ԁ @ FollowingApprendi,however,acriminaldefendantwasputonnoticethatheorshe &v couldbesentencedtoanenhancedsentenceonlywhenthejuryfoundbeyonda  \ reasonabledoubttheaggravatingfactsthatsubjectedhimorhertothatterm. B Furthermore,underCaliforniasformerlaw,thetrialcourthadtoweighaggravatingand ( mitigatingfactsanddeterminethattheaggravatingfactsoutweighedthoseinmitigation  beforeitcouldimposetheupperterm.Peoplev.Scott,9Cal.4th331,350fn11  (1995)B  C   v B  C  ;[ [T]hecourtmayimposethe   upper   ݀orlower   term   ݀ofimprisonmentonlywhere   thebalanceofaggravatingormitigatingfactorscitedinsupportofthatchoice"weighs" p!  againstimpositionofthemiddle   termXXX.   XXXԀ(Rule420(a)&(b)).];wXXXXԀXXXwXPeoplev.Tatlis230 V"! Cal.App.3d1266(1991)B  C   x B  C  ;Peoplev.Corvino,100Cal.App.3d660(1980)B  C   z B  C  .Allofthose J#" protectionsarenowgone.݌ 0$# Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XEv   4 Thus,aCaliforniacriminaldefendantdidnotgetfairwarningofthejudicial %f $ enlargementofthePenalCodesection1170B  C   X B  C  . vY݌ %L!% Ќ    $ X!X!$   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X XE+ 4 <DL!444XE   4 InBlackII,41Cal.4th799B  C   3 B  C  ,supra,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtdidnotreach &2"& theissueofaremedybecausetheCourtupheldMr.Blackssentencebaseduponthe '#' findingsthatoneBlakelycompliantfactwassufficienttoimposetheuppertermand (#( foundthatCunninghamdidnotapplytoconsecutivesentences.Id.at815816B  C   3 B  C  ,819. )$) Nonetheless,Mr.BlackraisedtheissueintheSupplementalBriefontheMeritsthathe z*%*  filedfollowingthisCourtsopinioninBookerontheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsrequest. `+&+ BecauseheraisedtheissuebeforeCaliforniashighestcourt,hemayproperlyraiseit  here.Smithv.Digmon434U.S.332,333(1978)B  C   | B  C  ;Dyev.Hofbauer,546U.S.1,3.(2005)B  C   ~ B  C  .݌      $ X!X!$  &  D. 4 TheQuestionisofGreatImportanceandWideApplicationandthisCaseis !AnExcellentVehicleforthisCourttoResolvetheQuestionPresented.  |    XB+4 44 <D!X!B 1. 4 TheIssuesAreofGreatImportanceandWideApplication.  '| K  , X  K+ 4 <DL!444X!K&   4 Atissueinthiscaseisthescopeofdueprocessandjurytrialprotectionsunder  g thefederalconstitution.Buttheissuespresentedareimportantforreasonsthatgobeyond  3 theirconnectiontothefairnessandreliabilityofsentencingproceedings.The    interpretationofthisCourtsholdinginCunninghamaffectsthousandsofcasesin {  California.' & G   c &  2. 4 ThisCaseIsanIdealOneforThisCourttoResolvetheQuestionsPresented'5 / Ѐ 4 Takentogether,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtsdecisionsinBlackIIand  SandovalensuredthatthisCourtsholdinginCunninghamappliedtofewofCalifornias w criminaldefendants.ItsholdinginBlackII,41Cal.4th799B  C   3 B  C  ,supra,impermissibly C expandedthepriorconvictionexceptionofAlmendarezTorreseventhoughthatdecision _ hasbeencriticizedandthisCourthasquestionedthevalidityoftheholding.Byaccepting + reviewofthiscase,thisCourtwillhavetheopportunitybothtoclarifyitspriorholdings  andtospeakto s! Apprendi,Blakely,BookerandCunninghamsrelationshiptoconsecutivesentences ?#! whenimpositionofsuchtermsrequireajudicialdeterminationof aggravatingfacts.  %[ #  4 AlthoughMr.Blackssentencingwasfactuallycomplex,eachquestionthathe &'"% posesrelatesonlytoadiscreteportionofCaliforniassentencinglaws.Accordingly,Mr. (#' Blackscaseisidealforresolutionoftheissuespresented. o*%)  ,  ;,'+  X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?  X X  E+ 4 <DL!444XE  CONCLUSION݌  Ќ    $ X!X!$     4 Fortheforegoingreasons,petitionerrequeststhattheCourtgrantthepetitionfor | awritofcertioraritoreviewthejudgmentandopinionoftheCaliforniaSupremeCourt, H affirminghissentence.  d Dated:August24,2007 <      D Respectfullysubmitted,  0  4    <      D BALIN&KOTLER,LLP     4    <      D __________________________ D   4    <      D EILEENS.KOTLER *z   4    <      D AttorneyforPetitioner, `  4    <      D KEVINMICHAELBLACK F  X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?   X X0Km !444X0  ݌ , Ќ    - X!Km !-      X  r  r݌̌     X  =݌̌   X X  ?(4 44 <DLX!?   X X0Km !444X0  d݌ Z Ќ    - X!Km !-    4  4