WPCn  W3,!_BwXmiz/Wcf6xWC7R74r9{h:Wu(%Kcn-\PCOdވՉw&.%Hz^Y5ӳBBB=ڈaP5I1W-TXX.YoUb3Ups\HJZOQoҭo`9Vyӎm1D0{9eXVȞLvuEyxsd%m6Ki k>92=q-͔r a.B _*RX w)cufIH8@ ] 8( *gO^Lg[~{ $ =6)c u(%5AXB:Ls\WK2,h/ Hc?MuU>f 0$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0| 0^ 0= 0 0 0 0 0 0\ 02 0 0 0 0 0 0] 05! 0 " 0" 0Y# 0R$ 0<#% 0_% 0:% 0*n& 05B& 0& 0+LT' 0' 0J( 0( 0lR) 0) 0b* 0 +U, , 07,U*H- 0r- 0YE. 0. 0m/ 0A0 0<B0 0:~0 01 1%1 02f3a3 B3 B3 B3 D+3 B4T<4  5 0(5  5?5 08 Aw8Y9 06:f;a ; B; B:; BW; Bt; B; 0C;*;k@BODU@G-+HzXKNQVgYj\_bzeU@ hLh 0:i B-Pj}j 0j#CkUN n %ZnM`n(dnNn^ nwn4nn mn\  `&Times New Roman' IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OCPD0MIS .   2M+J 0_level1  , 5+4 44` hp x 523  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2J+J 0_level2  X 2(` ` ` hp x 223  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2J+J 0_level3   2( hp x 223  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2G+J 0_level4   /% hp x /23  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2G+J 0_level5   /% hp x /23  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2D+J 0_level6   ," hp x ,23  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2D+J 0_level7  4 ,"< <<hp x ,23  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2A+J 0_level8  ` )h hhp x )23  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2A+J 0_level9   ) p x )23  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2MJ 0_levsl1  , 5+4 44` hp x 523  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2JJ 0_levsl2  X 2(` ` ` hp x 223  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2JJ 0_levsl3   2( hp x 223  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2GJ 0_levsl4   /% hp x /23  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2GJ 0_levsl5   /% hp x /23  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2DJ 0_levsl6   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2DJ 0_levsl7  4 ,"< <<hp x ,23  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2AJ 0_levsl8  ` )h hhp x )23  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2AJ 0_levsl9   ) p x )23  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2MJ 0_levnl1  , 5+4 44` hp x 523   2( ` hp x 2  2JJ 0_levnl2  X 2(` ` ` hp x 223   2( ` hp x 2  2JJ 0_levnl3   2( hp x 223   2( ` hp x 2  2GJ 0_levnl4   /% hp x /23   2( ` hp x 2  2GJ 0_levnl5   /% hp x /23   2( ` hp x 2  2DJ 0_levnl6   ," hp x ,23   2( ` hp x 2  2DJ 0_levnl7  4 ,"< <<hp x ,23   2( ` hp x 2  2AJ 0_levnl8  ` )h hhp x )23   2( ` hp x 2  2AJ 0_levnl9   ) p x )23   2( ` hp x 2  6r e4Heading 1 X   2(` ` ` hp x 2      2( ` hp x 2 6 4Heading 2   6@ N4Heading 3    2      2( ` hp x 2 <:Default Para0> .Footer f!>4X` hp x >:8Page Number< :Footnote Tex<:Footnote Ref<%% :Body Text I1 X      X 6  4Body Text    <RU :Body Text In     /% hp x /    2( ` hp x 2  . ,Title     0> .Header f!>4X` hp x >:8Style 13 ptXXX0Xa .Indent     ) hp )      2( ` hp x 2  <  :Double Spaci {  <Zl :Balloon TextA/ $TahomaAS\  `&Times New RomanS $Tahoma:ho8TOA Heading d XXX?1%2A`Arial? S\  `&Times New RomanS %2A`Arial<MJ:Table of Aut (  5+ ` hp x 5  2( ` hp x 2 ( 64Hyperlink    <IJ :Signature Bl  #p x #   2( ` hp x 2  <3% :Single Spaci   86Hyperlink664pmterms11 23% 0Address   62 4CourtName !           <W)r..      k<XkX<k<    E1` hp x (#XE(2W$ ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  Table_A  d  d  d'dxd  d J <W)r..      k<XkX<k<  r$  f!%X$"' f!  f!'  "  F2($F3 5 <W)r..      k<XkX<k<  t$tr<( ` hp x X< ,Sb < ,S< b-  JKBcSO~c- p X@E---  (2W$ ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  IBo&"D&raw Object Text <C HKKKK LW"..      k<XkX<k<    ! %X!  iv  (2W$ ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  Table_B  d  d  d  d d($      ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  r<( ` hp x X<$<    $  %  <,  1  %Xi  ݀TheCourtnotedthatithadpreviouslycarvedoutanexceptionforprior  convictions,becauseofthe substantialproceduralsafeguardsinherenttothe  dispositionofcriminalcases.(Id.atp.488,citingAlmendarezTorresv.  UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224[118S.Ct.1219,140L.Ed.2d350].)$9݌  Ќ<<  $<  $  < a ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  r<( ` hp x X<$<    $  %  <,  2  %Xi  ݀BasedonotherfactorsadmittedbyBlakely,thepotentialsentenceranged  from4953months.(Id.atp.2535.)  ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  r<( ` hp x X<$<    $  %  <,  3  %Xi  ݀McMillanwassentencedtoatermof3to10years. E ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  r<( ` hp x X<$<    $  %  <,  4  %Xi  ݀Twoyearslater,inBlakely,theSupremeCourtwouldclarifythatthe  statutorymaximum, isthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimposesolelyon  thebasisofthefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythe  defendant.(Blakelyv.Washington,supra,124S.Ct.2531,2537.)'\  `(Times New Roman  # ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  r<( ` hp x X<$<    $  %  <,  5  %Xi  ݀FactorsinaggravationandmitigationareoutlinedinCaliforniaRulesof  Court,rules4.421and4.423.$9݌  Ќ<<  $<  $  < p ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  r<( ` hp x X<$<    $  %  <,  6  %Xi  ݀ThesentencingrulesfoundthereinwerepromulgatedbytheJudicialCounsel   pursuanttoPenalCodesection1170.3andpursuanttotheauthoritygranted  totheJudicialCouncilbytheConstitution,articleVI,section6,toadoptrules  forcourtadministration,practiceandprocedure.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule  4.401.)  ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  r<( ` hp x X<$<    $  %  <,  7  %Xi  ݀ThispositionhasalsobeenadoptedbyRespondent.(AnswerBriefonthe  Merits,p.28.)$9݌  Ќ<<  $<  $  <  ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  r<( ` hp x X<$<    $  %  <,  8  %Xi  ݀TheargumentisalsoatoddswiththeAdvisoryCommitteeCommenttoCal.  RuleofCourt,rule4.420,whichspecifiesthat Section1170(b)retainsthe  requirement,howeverthatthemiddletermbeselectedunlessthereare   circumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime8.$9݌  Ќ<<  $<  $  <  ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  r<( ` hp x X<$<    $  %  <,  9  %Xi  ݀TheWagenercourtappearstohavecommittedtheerrorofipsedixit as  whenHumptyDumptytoldAlice,WhenIuseaword8itmeansjustwhatI  chooseittomean"neithermorenorless.[footnoteomitted](SeePeople  v.Hoard(2002)103Cal.App.4th599,607,quotingCarroll,Throughthe  LookingGlassandWhatAliceFoundThere(1872).) ] ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  r<( ` hp x X<$<    $  %  <,  10  %Xi  ݀Ajurysfindingsonelementsandenhancementsaretheonlyfactsfoundto  betruebeyondareasonabledoubt. ` ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  r<( ` hp x X<$<    $  %  <,  11  %Xi  ݀Presumablyasentencingcourtmayalsoapplythestatutoryfactorsin  aggravationfoundinPenalCodesections1170.71170.89andanynon  enumeratedfactorssolongastheyarereasonablyrelatedtothecourts  decision(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.408;Peoplev.Tobia(1979)98  Cal.App.3d157,165.)  ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  r<( ` hp x X<$<    $  %  <,  12  %Xi  ݀Asindicated,thecourtsfindingsatsentencingaremadebyapreponderance  oftheevidence.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(b)[ Circumstancesin  aggravationandmitigationshallbeestablishedbyapreponderanceofthe  evidence.].)  ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  r<(  ` hp x X<$<    $  %  <,  13  %Xi  ݀Thisconclusionappliesonlytosentencingschemeswherethecourthas  discretiontoimposeconcurrentorconsecutivesentencesandhasno  applicationwheretrialcourtsaremandatedtoimposeconsecutiveterms.  <W)r..      k<XkX<k<  t$tY<<wr6" p x X6 ,SYb Y<db Yb ,Sd< db<d<-  JeaQM~ p @X@E88-  &\  i`(Times New Romani LW"..      k<XkX<k<  ! %X!Q (2$ ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  &X<r  0  )Hairline d#|x(h$r..      k<XkX<k<__NTFDAP_Jomo/LAPTOP-FDAP/Session 43,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularkX12 41ebsiteU ih!r..      k<XkX<k<  _       :8<dd8;9!!    9W  P-< INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA9W݌ ! Ќ    <P-  -9!-     9  X&X<91݌̌    <XX&9!    9  X&X<9T݌̌    <XX&*=> ddd Xdd Xdd Xf!f!, ,h+  :?' @: PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF  CALIFORNIA ,   Plaintiff/Respondent, s   v. e    KEVINMICHAELBLACK , W   Defendant/Appellant. I   6,!; @? @6 ?+ ` hp x X? B( ` hp x ` XBӀ No.S126182   ?+ ` hp x X? B( ` hp x ` XBӀCourtofAppealNo.F042592 s   ?+ ` hp x X? B( ` hp x ` XBӀTulareCountySup.Ct.No.79557 e   ?+ ` hp x X? H@A5W @   @H B( ` hp x ` XBKB(X4KX&X< =C,!4@@A @= ?+ ` hp x X?<204@   C < KB(X&vK  P-XX&BRIEFOFAMICUSCURIAE h INSUPPORTOFAPPELLANT $t X&XP-8<XX&  X `   9h hhp x ` X98   X&X< 8 ݌ f ЌX&XXX&  8<XX&  X ` 6  p x hhhX68v   ORANGECOUNTYPUBLICDEFENDERSOFFICE8v$݌ & ЌX&X<  8<XX&  E( ` hp x  XE8  X&X< 8݌̌X&XXX&  8<XX&  X 0  p x X08$  X&X<   <XX&DEBORAHA.KWAST8$݌ V! ЌX&X<  8<XX&  6p x   X68    PublicDefender8U݌ f" ЌX&X<  8<XX&  3p x X38  8݌ &# ЌX&X<  8<XX&  3p x X38    THOMASHAVLENA8݌ $ ЌX&X<  8<XX&  VX8U    ChiefDeputyPublicDefender8U݌ V% ЌX&X<  8<XX&  XV3p x X38v  8v݌ f& ЌX&X<  8<XX&  3p x X38    KEVINJ.PHILLIPS81݌ &' ЌX&X<  8<XX&  8    AssistantPublicDefender8:݌  ( ЌX&X<  8<XX&  3p x X38  8}݌ V!) ЌX&X<  8<XX&  3p x X38     MARTINF.SCHWARZ8 ݌ "f* ЌX&X<  8<XX&  8K    DeputyPublicDefender8K݌ "&+ ЌX&X<  8<XX&  8X    StateBarNo.1840628X݌ #, ЌX&X<  8<XX&  3p x X38c  8c݌ V$- ЌX&X<  8<XX&  3p x X38     14CivicCenterPlaza8 !݌ %f . ЌX&X<  8<XX&  8!    SantaAna,California9270140298!"݌ %&!/ ЌX&X<  8<XX&  8"    (714)83421448"3#݌ &!0 ЌX&X<  X ' f!%X'<XX&f!f!Gf! V'"1 f!f!Gf! '  f!%f!'   AttorneysforAmicusCuriae,OrangeCountyPublic H)$3   DefendersOffice,insupportofAppellant  A*%4 : : :  rD;XX   B( ` hp x   f!B    $ 2 X $    &   ;&  TABLEOFCONTENTS ;&& &Ԍ %u Ќ  $ X 2 $    B+ ` hp x X BPage'%&    ' 2:  X 'TableofAuthoritiesB: . #ii  _  IntroductionC: . 2    ArgumentC: . 4  I  '    X$ ` ` 2 2:  $')  I.UnderCaliforniasdeterminatesentencingscheme,theimposition n   ofanuppertermsentence,absentanadmissionbythedefendantora g  findingbythejuryofafactorinaggravation,violatesBlakelyv. `  Washingon.C.b b d d E 4')q)݌ Y  Ќ   '    ,X$ 442 ` ` 2 $'"+  '"+{+݌̌   '    ,$   2 442 $'+  A.ApprendiandBlakelyguaranteethatadefendantcannot K  bepunishedforfactsnotfoundbyajurybeyondareasonable D doubt.C. d d E 4'+$,݌ = Ќ   '    'k-  'k--݌̌   '    '-  B.McMillanandHarrispermitatrialcourttomakefindings / affectingadefendantssentenceonlywithintherange (x providedbystatute.C.ff-d d E 8'- .݌ !q Ќ   '    ']/  ']//݌̌   '    '/  C.Alegislaturemaynotshroudelementsassentencing c factorstododgeconstitutionalrequirements.C.FD 11'//݌  \ Ќ   '    ' 1  ' 101݌̌   '    '1  D.Absentadditionalfindings,asentencingcourtmust N imposethemiddletermC./D 13'11݌ G Ќ   '    '2  '22݌̌   '    '3  E.Theimpositionoftheuppertermthroughjudicial 9 factfindingviolatesBlakelyC.5D 17'3<3݌  2  Ќ   '    ,$ 442   2 $'=4  '=44݌̌   '    X,$ ` ` 2 442 $'4  II.Theimpositionofconsecutivetermsbasedonfactorsnotfound "$" bythejuryviolatesBlakely.C.1D 21'4?5݌ ## Ќ   '    ,X$ 442 ` ` 2 $'O6  'O66݌̌   , ,$ 2442 $ConclusionC.  %!% A.25 &"& CertificateofComplianceC.( '#' A.26 (#( DeclarationofServiceC.% )$) A.27 *%*  ,?( ` hp x 2? -(-   TABLEOFAUTHORITIES 󀀀  Ѐ@..@..@..@..@..@..  E  0dVX&X<1XXXX&     $ 2  X $0B:  1 X1X< 1-  Cases 0B::݌ V Ќ<<<<  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2;  AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224= .@@E6,23242;k<݌ O Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2c=  Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466SS. .,,928,10,13,21,23,252c=>݌ H Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  )( ' 2  ` X'2>  -  Blakelyv.Washington(2004)124S.Ct.2531ss1 .VV:24,67,9,1213,2>?݌  A Ќ $ 2  2  $ )  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  '( ' 2  ` X'2@    2 .1617,1921,24252@{A݌  : Ќ $ 2  2  $ '  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2QB  Harrisv.UnitedStates(2002)536U.S.545-  7 .:2,813,20212QBB݌  3 Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2C  -  InreEricJ.(1979)25Cal.3d522? .113,172CD݌  , Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2{E  McMillanv.Pennsylvania(1986)477U.S.798 .:8,10,11,132{EF݌  %  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2 G  Peoplev.Beaudrie(1983)147Cal.App.3d686C .;222 GG݌   Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2H  Peoplev.Bejarnao(1981)114Cal.App.3d693C .  ;222H5I݌   Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2J  Peoplev.Callahan(1983)149Cal.App.3d1183C .vv<222JJ݌   Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2K  Peoplev.Harvey(1979)25Cal.3d754C .LL4172KFL݌   Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2'M  Peoplev.Hoard(2002)103Cal.App.4th599C .9172'MM݌  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2N  Peoplev.Jackson(1987)196Cal.App.3d380C .:172NSO݌  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2:P  Peoplev.Jaffe(2003)122Cal.App.4th1559C .:242:PP݌  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2Q  Peoplev.Kozel(1982)133Cal.App.3d507= .83,22232QgR݌  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2RS  Peoplev.Lobaugh(1987)188Cal.App.3d780C .:172RSS݌  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2T  Peoplev.Myers(1983)148Cal.App.3d699C .8162TyU݌  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2^V  Peoplev.Piceno(1987)195Cal.App.3d1353C .:172^VV݌  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2W  Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331C .  3232WX݌  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2kY  Peoplev.Thornton(1985)167Cal.App.3d699C .  ;162kY Z݌ z Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2Z  Peoplev.Tobia(1979)98Cal.App.3d157? .rr718,222Z[݌ s Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2{\  Peoplev.Vaughn(2004122Cal.App.4th1363C .:242{\]݌ l Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  )( ' 2  ` X'2^  Peoplev.Wagener(Oct.22,2004,D042896)__Cal.App.4th__[20042^^݌ e Ќ $ 2  2  $ )  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2_    Cal.App.LEXIS1760]@ .@16172_J`݌ ^ Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2?a  Peoplev.Walker(1978)83Cal.App.3d619= .83,21222?aa݌ W Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2b  Peoplev.Wiley(1995)9Cal.4th580@ .II33,232bjc݌ P  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2Sd  Peoplev.Wright(1982)30Cal.3d705C .((4172Sdd݌ I! Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2e  UnitedStatesv.Gaudin(1995515U.S.506[ [ D .952etf݌ B" Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2Yg  Williamsv.NewYork(1949)337U.S.241C .xx7192Ygg݌ ;# Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  6:?( ` hp x 2  ? `     h      p G(  0d% -%} X&X<1XXXX&   $ 2  X $0i  1 X1X< 1-  ConstitutionalProvisions 0iDj݌ % ! Ќ<<<<  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2@k  -  U.S.Const.5thAmend.[ [ D .&22@kk݌ 'V"# Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2l  U.S.Con.6thAmend.[ [ D .$22l^m݌ {(#% Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2.n  U.S.Con.14thAmend.[ [ D .$22.nn݌ )@%' Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2o  2o>p݌ e+&) Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2p  CourtRules2pvq݌ ,*(+ Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2r  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.401C .pp.152rr݌  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2s  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.406@ .pp.3,222s4t݌ %u Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2 u  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.408? .pp.18,222 uu݌  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2v  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420oo5 .pp.2,1518,20,232v%w݌  _ Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2x  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420,AdvisoryCommitteeCommentC .J162xx݌   Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2y  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.421oo5 .pp.3,1314,18,222y9z݌  I  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2{  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.423? .pp.14,222{{݌ n   Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2|  CalRulesofCourt,rule4.425@ .::-3,222|5}݌ 3  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2 ~  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule40C .bb+172 ~~݌ X  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2~  2~݌   Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2  Statutes2V݌ B Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2  PenalCode669@ .  3,212݌  Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ' 2  ` X'2h  PenalCode1170-  {{- .n n 23,1314,1617,20212h݌ ,| Ќ $ 2  2  $ (  2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ( ' 2  ` X'2  -  PenalCode1170.71170.89gg; .+13,18,222݌  Ќ $ 2  2  $   2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ( ' 2  ` X'2  -  2X݌̌ $ 2  2  $   2 ( B+ ` hp x 2  B  ( ' 2  ` X'2  2݌̌ $ 2  2  $   ?( ` hp x 2  ?-   }   iHD9!!    9߉  @..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..@..P-< INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA9߉M݌ ! Ќ    <P-  -9!-     9э  X&X<9э?݌̌    <XX&9!    9  X&X<9b݌̌    <XX&*pMN dd hh=>  p, ,h+  :O' @: PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF  CALIFORNIA ,   Plaintiff/Respondent, s   v. e    KEVINMICHAELBLACK , W   Defendant/Appellant. I   6,!; @O @6 B+ ` hp x X B E( ` hp x ` X EӀ No.S126182   B+ ` hp x X B E( ` hp x ` X EӀCourtofAppealNo.F042592 s   B+ ` hp x X B E( ` hp x ` X EӀTulareCountySup.Ct.No.79557 e   B+ ` hp x X B HPQ5W @   @H E( ` hp x ` X EKB(X4KX&X< =R,!4@PQ @= B+ ` hp x X B<204@   R < KB(X&vK  P-XX&_______________________________ h BRIEFOFAMICUSCURIAE 0 INSUPPORTOFAPPELLANT < _______________________________ H   <P-  TheOrangeCountyPublicDefendersOffice,byandthroughcounsel, Y" MartinF.Schwarz,herebyrespectfullysubmitsthisBriefofAmicusCuriae $ inSupportofAppellant. C &  +;'6   Introduction      InApprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466[120S.Ct.2348,147 %u L.Ed.2d435],theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthattheDueProcess  ClausesoftheFifthandFourteenthAmendmentsandtheSixth  _ Amendmentsjurytrialguaranteerequiredthatanyfactwhichincreasesthe   penaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbe  I  submittedtoajuryandbeprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt.Fouryears n   later,inBlakelyv.Washington(2004)__U.S.__[124S.Ct.2531,159 3  L.Ed.2d403]theCourtexplainedthatthestatutorymaximum,as X  envisionedbyApprendi,isthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimpose   basedsolelyonfactsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbya B defendant.TheCourtreasonedthatsentencingadefendantbasedon   aggravatingfactorsnotfoundbythejurydeprivedthedefendantofthe ,| righttotrialbyjuryandtherighttohaveeveryelementofthecrimeproven  beyondareasonabledoubt. f   Ontheotherhand,theCourthasalwaysdistinguishedbetweenfactors  whichincreaseadefendantspunishmentandsentencingfactorswhicha P  courtmayrightfullyconsiderinselectingasentencewithinarange u" providedbystatute.InHarrisv.UnitedStates(2002)536U.S.545[122 :$ S.Ct.2406,153L.Ed.2d524],theCourtheldthatasentencingcourtmay _ & engageinjudicialfactfindingwhenitischoosingasentenceeitherator !$( belowthemaximumallowablebystatute.However,theCourtre I#* emphasizedthatacourtmaynotincreasethemaximumallowablesentence $ , withfactsnotfoundbythejuryoradmittedbythedefendant. 3&!.   JustwhatisthemaximumallowablesentenceunderCalifornias '"0 DeterminateSentencingLaw,which,withafewexceptions,assignsa )m$2 sentencingrangeoflowterm,middletermanduppertermtomostcrimes? *%4 BothPenalCodesection1170,subdivision(b)andCaliforniaRulesof ,W'6 Court,rule4.420(b),mandatethatasentencingcourtcannotimposean  uppertermsentencewithoutfindingfactorsinaggravation.Inotherwords, %u ajudgecannotimposeasentenceharsherthanthemiddleterm,absentsome  judicialfactfindingtojustifytheupperterm.SinceBlakelyandApprendi  _ prohibitacourtfromengaginginfactfindingtoimposeasentencehigher   thanwhatitcouldrenderwithoutaspecificfindingbyajury,oran  I  admissionbyadefendant,asentencingcourtislimitedtoselectingthe n   middletermasthemaximumallowablesentenceunderthelaw.Therefore, 3  theimpositionofanuppertermsentence,basedonjudicialfactfindingof X  factorsinaggravation,violatesBlakely.     Thesamereasoningapplieswhensentencingcourtsengagein B factfindingtojustifyconsecutivesentences.Whenadefendantisconvicted  ofmorethanonefelonycountforwhichtheimpositionofconsecutivesis ,| notmandatedbystatute,thesentencingjudgehasdiscretiontoimpose  concurrentorconsecutivetermsofimprisonment.(Pen.Code669.) f Sentencingcourtsarerequiredtostatethereasonsjustifyingtheimposition  ofaconsecutiveterm.(PenalCode1170,subd.(c);Cal.RulesofCourt, P  rule4.406(b)(5);Peoplev.Walker(1978)83Cal.App.3d619,622;People u" v.Kozel(1982)133Cal.App.3d507,540.)Factswhichjustifyconsecutive :$ sentencesareoutlinedinCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rules4.421and4.425. _ & Theoverwhelmingmajorityofthetime,trialcourtsarecalledupon to !$( makefactualdeterminations,byapreponderanceoftheevidence,with I#* regardtofactorsinaggravationtovalidlyimposeaconsecutivesentence. $ , (Peoplev.Wiley(1995)9Cal.4th580,587.)Becausethestatutory 3&!. maximumforApprendipurposesisthemaximumsentenceajudgemay '"0 imposebasedsolelyonfactsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbya )m$2 defendant,judicialfactfindingoffactorsinaggravationtojustifya *%4 consecutivesentenceviolatesadefendantsrighttohaveallelementswhich ,W'6 increasehissentenceproventoajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.The  impositionofconsecutivesentences,basedonfactorsnotproventoajury, %u thereforeviolatesBlakely.    _  X X  ?"` ` hp x` X ? I.     UnderCaliforniasdeterminatesentencingscheme,the }   impositionofanuppertermsentence,absentanadmission v   bythedefendantorafindingbythejuryofafactorin o   aggravation,violatesBlakelyv.Washingon. h   X X?( ` hp x ` ` Xx? X X  9"` ` hp xX 9 A. &    ApprendiandBlakelyguaranteethatadefendantcannot   bepunishedforfactsnotfoundbyajurybeyonda  reasonabledoubt.   X X?( ` hp x ` ` Xx?  ` InApprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.466,theSupremeCourt / struckdownaNewJerseystatutewhichallowedasentencingcourtto  doublethemaximumsentenceforfirearmpossessionfrom10to20yearsif i atrialjudgefoundbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthecrimewas  raciallymotivated.ThedefendantinApprendifiredtwoshotsintothe S homeofanAfricanAmericanfamilythathadrecentlymovedintoa x previouslyallwhiteneighborhood.Afterhisarrest,Apprenditoldthe =! policeofficersthattheshootingwasraciallymotivated,thoughhelater b # retractedthestatement.Apprendiultimatelypleadedguiltytotwocountsof !'% seconddegreefirearmpossessionandacountofthirddegreepossessionof L#' anantipersonnelbomb.Atthetime,theNewJerseysentencingscheme $ ) providedapenaltyrangeof5to10yearsforseconddegreeoffensesand3 6&!+ to5yearsforthirddegreeoffenses.Becausethepleaagreementcalledfor '"- thethirddegreechargetorunconcurrent,Apprendifacedamaximum  )p$/ sentenceof20yearsifbothseconddegreechargeswereimposed *%1 consecutively.However,atthesentencinghearingtheprosecutorinvokeda  ,Z'3 statestatutewhichpermittedthecourttodoublethepotentialsentenceon  oneoftheseconddegreecountsto20yearsuponafindingthatthecrimes %u wasraciallymotivated.ThestatuehadtheeffectofincreasingApprendis  exposuretoanaggregatesentenceofupto30years.Afterholdinga  _ hearing,thesentencingcourtfoundthatthecrimewasmotivatedbyaracial   biasandheldthatthestatuteprovidingforanenhancedsentencewas  I  applicable.Accordingly,thecourtsentencedApprendito12yearsonthe n   seconddegreecounttowhichtheenhancementattached,ratherthanthe10 3  yearmaximumallowedbystatute.Thecourtimposedconcurrentsentences X  ontheremainingcounts.    ` Onreview,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtbeganbynotingthatat B stakewere constitutionalissuesofsurpassingimportance:theproscription  ofanydeprivationoflibertywithoutdueprocessoflaw,Amdt.14,and ,| theguaranteethatinallcriminalprosecutions,theaccusedshallenjoythe  righttoaspeedyandpublictrial,byanimpartialjury,Amdt.6. f (Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.466,476477.)TheCourtnoted,   Takentogether,theserightsindisputablyentitleacriminaldefendanttoa P  jurydeterminationthat[he]isguiltyofeveryelementofthecrimewith u" whichheischargedbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Id.atp.477,quoting :$ UnitedStatesv.Gaudin(1995)515U.S.506,510[115S.Ct.2310,132 _ & L.Ed.2d444].)Withtheseprinciplesinmind,thecourtframedtheissueas !$( whetherthestatutessentenceenhancementforracialbiaswasanelement I#* oftheoffenseandtherebytriggeredtheprotectionsoftheDueProcess $ , Clauseandthejurytrialguarantee. 3&!. S l<`  ` TheCourtrecognizedthatasentencingjudgemayexercise '"0 discretionbasedonjudicialfactfinding inimposingajudgmentwithinthe )m$2 rangeprescribedbystatute.(Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S. *%4 466,481,originalitalics.)However, thejudgesroleinsentencingis ,W'6 constrainedatitsouterlimitsbythefactsallegedintheindictmentand  foundbythejury.(Id.atp.485,fn.12.)Therefore, anyfactsthatexpose %u adefendanttoapunishmentgreaterthanthatotherwiselegallyprescribed  [are]elementsofaseparatelegaloffense.%  U T  1     %ovid  ݀(Ibid.)TheNewJerseystatute  _ allowedthesentencingcourtbyapreponderanceoftheevidencetomakea   factualfindingofracialbiaswhichincreasedApprendissentenceabovethe  I  maximumcontainedinthestatuteitself.Accordingly,theSupremeCourt n   foundthatracialbiaswasanelementandthatthejudicialfactfinding 3  deprivedApprendiofhisrighttohaveeveryelementofthecrimeproven X  beyondareasonabledoubttoajury.(Id.atpp.491496)    ` Fouryearslater,theCourtappliedApprenditooverturnasentencing B schemefromthestateofWashingtoninBlakelyv.Washington,supra,124  S.Ct.2531.Blakelypleadedguiltytokidnappinghisestrangedwifeand ,| facedamaximumsentenceof53months.%  V T  2     %ovid  ݀Atthesentencinghearing,the  courtrelieduponastatutewhichallowedittoupwardlydeviatefromthe f maximumsentenceifitfoundtruecertainaggravatingfactors.Thecourt,  afterahearing,foundthatBlakelyhadactedwith deliberatecruelty,an P  aggravatingfactorenumeratedinthestatute,andsentencedBlakelytoa u" termof90months. :$  ` TheUnitedSupremeCourtbeganitsreviewofthecaseby _ & reiteratingtheruleofApprendi: Otherthanthefactofapriorconviction, !$( anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribed I#* statutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury,andprovedbeyonda $ , reasonabledoubt.(Blakelyv.Washington,supra,124S.Ct.2531,2536,  citingApprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.466,490.)Forpurposesof %u thisrule,thestatutorymaximum isthemaximumsentenceajudgemay  imposesolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictor  _ admittedbythedefendant.(Blakely,atp.2537.)TheWashingtonlaw   allowedthecourttoenhanceasentencebeyondthestatutorymaximum  I  basedonfindingsmadebyajudgeusingapreponderancestandardata n   sentencinghearing.TheCourtreasonedthatbydisguisingtheseelements 3  assentencingfactors,Blakelywasdeprivedofhisrighttoajurytrialandto X  haveeveryelementprovenbeyondareasonabledoubt.    ` Takentogether,ApprendiandBlakelystandforasingleproposition: B Anyfactwhichexposesadefendanttoaharshersentencethanwouldbe  permittedbasedonthejurysverdictisanelementofthecrimeandsubject ,| totheconstitutionalsafeguardsoftrialbyjuryandproofbeyonda  reasonabledoubt.UnderCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLaw,a f judicialfindingoffactorsinaggravationusedtojustifytheimpositionofan  uppertermsentenceisnotsubjecttojuryfindingsorproofbeyonda P  reasonabledoubt.Therefore,ifthejurysverdict,byitself,doesnotpermit u" theimpositionoftheupperterm,acourtmaynotimposetheupperterm :$ withoutrunningafoulofBlakely.Ifhowever,ajurysverdictbyitself _ & allowsasentencingcourttoimposetheupperterm,anyfactsusedbythe !$( courtinreachingtheuppertermaresentencingfactors,notelements,and I#* arenotsubjecttoconstitutionalsafeguards.Thereforetheissuehinges $ , uponthedistinctionbetweenelementsofcrimesandsentencingfactors. 3&!.  ,W'6 Ї X X  9"` ` hp xX 9 B.    McMillanandHarrispermitatrialcourttomakefindings  affectingadefendantssentenceonlywithintherange  providedbystatute.   X X?( ` hp x ` ` Xx?  ` InMcMillanv.Pennsylvania(1986)477U.S.79[106S.Ct.2411,91  Y L.Ed.2d67],theSupremeCourtfirstdistinguishedtheconstitutional ~  guaranteeswhichattachtoelementsofcrimesfromthoseattachingto  C  sentencingfactors.Mr.McMillanwasconvictedofanaggravatedassault h  forshootingsomeoneinthebuttocksduringanargumentoveradebt.At -  sentencing,hewassubjecttoaPennsylvaniastatutewhichprovidedfora R  fiveyearminimumsentenceuponafindingbythesentencingjudgethatthe  defendantwasinpossessionofafirearmduringthecommissionofthe < offense.However,thesentencingcourtfoundthestatuteunconstitutional  andimposedalessersentencethanthefiveyearsrequiredbystatute.%  W T  3     %ovid  ݀ &v  ` Onreview,theSupremeCourtheldthatsincethestatutedidnotalter  themaximumpenalty,andoperatedsolelytolimitthecourtsdiscretionin ` imposingaminimumsentence,itdidnotaddanadditionalelementtothe  offense.(McMillanv.Pennsylvania,supra,477U.S.79,8789.)Itwas J  thereforeapermissiblesentencingfactorandnotsubjecttothe o" constitutionalprotectionsaffordedtoelementsofcrimes,suchasproof 4$ beyondareasonabledoubtandtherighttojurytrial. Y!&  ` InHarrisv.UnitedStates(2002)536U.S.545[122S.Ct.2406,153 "( L.Ed.2d524],theCourtrevisitedtheissueofpermissiblesentencingfactors C$* inlightofApprendi.InHarris,thedefendantwasconvictedofcommitting %!, anarcoticsoffensewhilearmedwithafirearm.Thefederalstatutecarried -'}". anindeterminatesentenceandcontainedgraduatedminimumtermsof5 (#0 yearsforcarryingthefirearm,7yearsforbrandishingthefirearmand10 *g%2 yearsfordischargingthefirearm.Harriswaschargedinanindictment  whichallegedonlythatafirearmwascarriedinthecommissionofadrug %u traffickingcrimeandmadenomentionofeitherthebrandishingor  dischargingafirearm.Afterhisconvictionattrial,thesentencingcourt  _ foundthathehadbrandishedafirearmandimposedaminimumtermof   sevenyears.  I   ` Onreview,theSupremeCourtframedtheissueasaconsiderationof n    thedistinctionthelawhasdrawnbetweentheelementsofacrimeand 3  factorsthatinfluenceacriminalsentence.(Harrisv.UnitedStates,supra, X  536U.S.545,549.)Whereaselementsofcrimesaresubjecttothe   constitutionalguaranteesofproofbeyondareasonabledoubtandtrialby B jury,sentencingfactors,thoughthey mayhaveasubstantialimpactonthe  sentence,theyarenotelements,andarethusnotsubjecttothe ,| Constitutionsindictment,juryandproofrequirements.(Ibid.)Whilethe  Constitutionrecognizesadistinctionbetweenelementsandsentencing f factors,itdoesnotpermittheStatestoduckconstitutionalrequirementsby  labelingelementsassentencingfactors.(Id.atp.550)Thebrightlinetest P  distinguishingasentencingfactorfromanessentialelementofacrimeis u" whetherthefactthatgivesrisetoitincreasesthepenaltyforthecrime :$ beyondthestatutorymaximum.%  X T  4     %audi  ݀SincethetrialcourtsfindingthatHarris _ & brandishedafirearmmerelyaffectedhisminimumsentence,andnothis !$( maximum,theCourtfoundittobeasentencingfactor.Thecourt I#* explained: $ ,   6 ` hp X 6Theprovisionsbeforeusnow,however,havean 3&!. effectonthedefendantssentencethatismore ,'|"/ consistentwithtraditionalunderstandingsabout %(u#0 howsentencingfactorsoperate;therequired  findingsconstrain,ratherthanextendthe  sentencingjudgesdiscretion.[Thestatute]  doesnotauthorizethejudgetoimpose steeply  higherpenalties"orhigherpenaltiesat  all"oncethefactsinquestionarefound.Since   thesubsectionsalteronlytheminimum,the   judgemayimposeasentencewellinexcessof   sevenyears,whetherornotthedefendant x  brandishedthefirearm.Theincremental q   changesintheminimum"from5years,to7,to j  10"arepreciselywhatonewouldexpecttosee c  inprovisionsmeanttoidentifymattersforthe \  sentencingjudgesconsideration. U    ?( ` hp x  ` X ?(Id.atp.554) N   ` ThecourtwentontoexplainthatMcMillanremainsviableinlightof  Apprendiandharmonizedthecasesasfollows: 8   6 ` hp X 68McMillanandApprendiareconsistent  becausethereisafundamentaldistinction  betweenthefactualfindingsthatwereatissue  inthosetwocases.Apprendisaidthatanyfact  extendingthedefendantssentencebeyondthe  maximumauthorizedbythejurysverdict  wouldhavebeenconsideredanelementofan  aggravatedcrime"andthusthedomainofthe | jury"bythosewhoframedtheBillofRights. u Thesamecannotbesaidofafactincreasingthe n mandatoryminimum(butnotextendingthe g  sentencebeyondthestatutorymaximum),for `! thejurysverdicthasauthorizedthejudgeto Y"  imposetheminimumwithorwithoutthe R#! finding.AsMcMillanrecognized,astatutemay K$" reservethistypeoffactualfindingforthejudge D% # withoutviolatingtheConstitution. =&!$   ?( ` hp x  ` X ?(Harrisv.UnitedStates,supra,536U.S.545,557.) 6'"%  X X  9"` ` hp xX 9 C. +&+   Alegislaturemaynotshroudelementsassentencing   factorstododgeconstitutionalrequirements.   X X?( ` hp x ` ` Xx?  ` McMillanrecognizedthatthereareconstitutionallimitationstoa g legislaturesauthoritytodelineateelementsofcrimesandsentencing   factors.(McMillanv.Pennsylvania,supra,477U.S.79,8688.)Although  Q theMcMillancourtfeltthefactgivingrisetothemandatoryminimum v   sentenceatissueinthecasewasnotanelement,JusticeStevenswarnedof  ;  legislaturesdisguisingelementsassentencingfactorstoavoidconstitutional `  safeguardsandfacilitateconvictions: %    6 ` hp X 6[A]statemaynotadvancetheobjectivesofits J  criminallawsattheexpenseoftheaccurate C factfindingowedtothecriminallyaccusedwho < suffertheriskofnonpersuasion.[]Itwould 5 demeantheimportanceofthereasonabledoubt .~ standard"indeed,itwoulddemeanthe 'w Constitutionitself"ifthesubstanceofthe  p standardcouldbeavoidedbynothingmorethan i alegislativedeclarationthatprohibitedconduct b thatisnotan elementofacrime.  [   ?( ` hp x  ` X ?(McMillanv.Pennsylvania,supra,477U.S.79,102(dis.opn.ofStevens, T J).) y  ` ThisconcernwasreiteratedbyJusticeKennedy,writingforthe >  majorityinHarris: c "   6 ` hp X 6Congressmaynotmanipulatethedefinitionofa !($ crimeinawaythatrelievestheGovernmentof "!% itsconstitutionalobligationstochargeeach #& elementintheindictment,submiteachelement $ ' tothejury,andproveeachelementbeyonda % !( reasonabledoubt.[citations.]McMillanand &") Apprendiaskedwhethercertaintypesoffacts, '"* thoughlabeledsentencingfactorsbythe (#+ legislature,wereneverthelesstraditional )$, elementstowhichtheseconstitutional *%- safeguardsapply.[citation.] +&.   ?( ` hp x  ` X ?(Harrisv.Pennsylvania,supra,536U.S.545,557558.) ,'/  ` SowhiletheSupremeCourthasrecognizedtherightoflegislatures  toallowthetrialcourtstodeterminesentencesbasedonfactorsnotproven %u tothejury,theConstitutionprovidesaclearlimitonthatauthority.A  legislaturemaynotallowasentencingjudgetounderminetheconstitutional  _ protectionsoftrialbyjuryandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtby   consideringfactsnotreflectedinthejurysverdicttoincreasethe  I  defendantssentence.AspointedoutbythemajorityinBlakely,thefailure n   toadheretothislimitationisaninvitationtodisaster: 3    6 ` hp X 6  ThosewhowouldrejectApprendiare X  resignedtooneoftwoalternatives.Thefirstis Q  thatthejuryneedonlyfindwhateverfactsthe J  legislaturechoosestolabelelementsofthe C crime,andthatthoseitlabelssentencing < factors"nomaterhowmuchtheymayincrease 5 thepunishment"maybefoundbythejudge. .~ Thiswouldmean,forexample,thatajudge 'w couldsentenceamanforcommittingmurder  p evenifthejuryconvictedhimonlyofillegally i possessingthefirearmusedtocommitit"orof b makinganillegallanechangewhilefleeingthe  [ deathscene.NotevenApprendiscriticswould T advocatethisabsurdresult.[citation]Thejury M couldnotfunctionascircuitbreakerinthe F Statesmachineryofjusticeifitwererelegated ? tomakingadeterminationthatthedefendantat 8  somepointdidsomethingwrong,amere  1! preliminarytoajudicialinquisitionintothe !*" factsofthecrimethestateactuallyseeksto "## punish. #$   ?( ` hp x  ` X ?(Blakelyv.Washington,supra,124S.Ct.2531,2539;fn.omitted;original $ % italics.) :&!'  ` Itisaxiomaticthatalegislaturecannotshirkconstitutional '") obligationsbydisguisingelementsassentencingfactors.InCalifornia,the $)t$+ legislaturehasempoweredthetrialcourtstoimposeanuppertermsentence *%- basedonjudicialfindingsofthefactorsinaggravationfoundinCalifornia ,^'/ RulesofCourt,rule4.421andPenalCodesections1170.71170.89.At  issuehereiswhetherthefactorsinaggravationusedbythetrialcourtsto %u justifytheuppertermarepermissiblesentencingfactorsorelementsand  thereforesubjecttoconstitutionalsafeguardsnotfoundinCalifornias  _ determinatesentencingscheme.    X X  9"` ` hp xX 9 D.  I    Absentadditionalfindings,asentencingcourtmust  B  imposethemiddleterm.  ;   X X?( ` hp x ` ` Xx?  `  ` InlightofApprendi,Blakely,McMillanandHarris,theSupreme Y  Courthasclearlyadoptedabrightlineruleseparatingpermissible   sentencingfactorsfromelementsofcrimes:Anyfactthatincreasesthe C penaltyforacrimebeyondthestatutorymaximumisanelement,whereasa  factthatallowsthecourttoselectasentencewithintherangeprescribedby -} statuteisasentencingfactorandneednotbeprovedtoajurybeyonda  reasonabledoubt. g  ` InCalifornia,anuppertermsentencemayonlybeimposedupona  judicialfindingoffactorsinaggravationatsentencing.(Pen.Code1170, Q subd.(b);InreEricJ(1979)25Cal.3d522,530.)Theissuesquarely v! beforethisCourtiswhetherthefactorsinaggravationusedbysentencing ;# courtstojustifyanuppertermareelementsoftheoffensewhichelevatethe ` % statutorymaximumorsentencingfactorsacourtcanconsiderinselectinga !%' termwithintherangeallowedbystatute. J#) $<  $  <Y<< `     h Theanalysismustbeginbyascertainingthe $ + statutorymaximuminCalifornia,definedbyBlakelyas themaximum 4&!- sentenceajudgemayimposesolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthe '"/ juryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant.(Blakelyv.Washington,supra, )n$1  124S.Ct.2531,2537.)$݌ *%3 ЌY<Y<   ` Thestatutoryprovisionsfortrialcourtsentencingarefoundinpart   II,titleXII,chapter4.5,article1ofthePenalCode,beginningatsection %u 1170.Subdivision(b)ofsection1170outlinestheprocedureatrialcourt  mustfollowinselectingatermwhenastatuteprovidesarangeoflower,  _ middleorupperterm.Itbeginsbyspecificallystatingasentencingcourt   mustselectthemiddletermintheabsenceofjudicialfindingsin  I  aggravationormitigation: n     6 ` hp X 6Whenajudgmentofimprisonmentisimposed 3  andthestatutespecifiesthreepossibleterms, ,  thecourt shallordertheimpositionofthe %  middleterm,unlesstherearecircumstances   inaggravationormitigationofthecrime.    ?( ` hp x  ` X ? (Emphasisadded.)  Thestatutegoesonspecifythatadeviationfromthemiddletermrequires 5 thesentencingcourttofindfactorsinmitigationoraggravationatthe  sentencinghearing:%  Z T  5     %M  ݀ o   6 ` hp X 6Indeterminingwhethertherearecircumstances  thatjustifyimpositionoftheupperorlower  term,thecourtmayconsidertherecordinthe  case,theprobationofficersreport,otherreports  includingreportsreceivedpursuanttoSection x 1203.03andstatementsinaggravationor q  mitigationsubmittedbytheprosecution,the j! defendant,orthevictim,orthefamilyofthe c " victimifthevictimisdeceased,andanyfurther \!# evidenceintroducedatthesentencinghearing. U"$ Thecourtshallsetforthontherecordthefacts N#% andreasonsforimposingtheupperorlower G$& term. @% '   ?( ` hp x  ` X ?(Ibid.) 9&!(  ` PenalCodesection1170,subd.(a)(3)provides,inpart, In '"* sentencingtheconvictedperson,thecourt shall applythesentencingrules #)s$, oftheJudicialCouncil.(Emphasisadded.)Inotherwords,thesentencing  courtmustapplytheDeterminateSentencingLawsetforthintitlefour, %u divisionIVoftheCaliforniaRulesofCourt.%  [ T  6     %m$M  ݀Inrule4.420,theJudicial  Councilhasmadeitclearthatatrialcourtmustimposethemiddleterm  _ unlesstheupperorlowertermsarejustifiedbyfactorsinaggravationor   mitigation:  I    6 ` hp X 6(a)Whenasentenceofimprisonmentis n   imposedortheexecutionofasentenceof g  imprisonmentisorderedsuspended,the `  sentencingjudgeshallselecttheupper,middle, Y  orlowertermoneachcountforwhichthe R  defendanthasbeenconvicted,asprovidedin K  section1170(b)andtheserules. Themiddle D termshallbeselectedunlessimpositionofthe = upperorlowertermisjustifiedby 6 circumstancesinaggravationormitigation.  / (b)Circumstancesinaggravationand (x mitigationshallbeestablishedbya !q preponderanceoftheevidence. Selectionof j theuppertermisjustifiedonlyif,aftera c considerationofalltherelevantfacts,the  \ circumstancesinaggravationoutweighthe U circumstancesinmitigation. Therelevant N factsareincludedinthecaserecord,the G probationofficersreport,otherreportsand @ statementsproperlyreceived,statementsin 9 aggravationormitigation,andanyfurther  2  evidenceintroducedatthesentencinghearing. !+! Selectionofthelowertermisjustifiedonlyif, "$" consideringthesamefacts,thecircumstancesin ## mitigationoutweighthecircumstancesin $ $ aggravation. %!%   ?( ` hp x  ` X ?(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420;emphasisadded) &"&  ` BothPenalCodesection1170andCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule  4.420,mandatetheimpositionofthemiddletermunlessthesentencing %u courtmakesadditionalfindingsinaggravationormitigation.Also,both  provisionsusetheword shallindirectingtrialcourtstoimposethe  _ middletermabsentadditionalfindings.Moreover,rule4.420specifically   statesthatatrialcourtmayimposeanupperterm onlyifitfindsfactors  I  inaggravationwhichoutweighanyfactorsinmitigation. n    ` RecentlyDivisionOneoftheCourtofAppealfortheFourth 3  AppellateDistrictattemptedanendrunaroundBlakelybyholdingthatthe X  mandatorylanguagefoundinPenalCodesection1170andRulesofCourt,   rule4.420is,infact,discretionaryorpermissive.(Peoplev.Wagener(Oct. B 22,2004,D042896)__Cal.App.4th__[2004Cal.App.LEXIS1760].)The  courtreasonedthatsincethePenalCodedoesnotdefine shallitcouldnot ,| concludethatitsignifiesamandate.RelyingonPeoplev.Thornton(1985)  167Cal.App.3d72andPeoplev.Myers(1983)148Cal.App.3d699,the f courtreasonedthat shallonlybecomesmandatoryintheabsenceofa  judicialfindingoffactorsinaggravationormitigation.Inotherwords,the P  PenalCodeandRulesofCourtonlymandatetheimpositionofthemiddle u" termasadefaultwhentherecordisdevoidofanyfindings.Therefore,the :$ uppertermissimplyadiscretionarysentencingoptionavailabletothe _ & court.%  \ T  7     %5M   !$(  ` TheargumentinWagenerrunscontrarytotheplainwordingofboth I#* thePenalCodeandRulesofCourt,whichbothexplicitlystatethatatrial $ , court shallimposethemiddletermunlessitfindsfactorsinaggravation.%  ] T  8     %6repo   3&!. (PenalCode1170,subd.(b);Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(a).)Thereis  noambiguityastothemandatecreatedbytheuseoftheword shall:Rule %u 4.407(a),whichprovidestherulesofconstruction,specificallystates,   Shallismandatory.(SeealsoCal.RulesofCourt,rule40[ Theword  _ shallismandatory8].)Furthermore,thisCourthasrepeatedlyexplained   thattrialcourtscannotdeviateupwardfromthemiddletermunlessthetrial  I  courtfindsfactorsinaggravationtojustifyanuppertermsentence.%  ^ T  9     %6:repo   n   (Peoplev.Wright(1982)30Cal.3d705,709;Peoplev.Harvey(1979)25 3  Cal.3d754,758;InreEricJ(1979)25Cal.3d522,530;seealsoPeoplev. X  Jackson(1987)196Cal.App.3d380,391;Peoplev.Lobaugh(1987)188   Cal.App.3d780,785;Peoplev.Piceno(1987)195Cal.App.3d1353,1360.) B  X X  9"` ` hp xX 9 E. ,|   Theimpositionoftheuppertermthroughjudicial %u factfindingviolatesBlakely. n  X X?( ` hp x ` ` Xx?  ` Sinceasentencingcourtcannotimposetheuppertermwithout  findingfactorsinaggravation,thenextstageintheanalysisaskswhether Q thejudicialfactfindinginvolvedinimposingtheuppertermviolates v! Blakely. ;#  ` FactorsinaggravationarelistedinCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule ` % 4.421.Thelistisnotexhaustiveandasentencingjudgemayapply !%' additionalfactorsnotenumeratedinrule4.421iftheyarereasonably J#) relatedtothecourtsdecision.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.408;Peoplev. $ + Tobia(1979)98Cal.App.3d157,165.)Additionally,thelegislaturehas  enactedspecificstatutoryfactorsinaggravationcodifiedinPenalCode %u sections1170.71170.89.   ` Inanalyzingpotentialfactorsinaggravation,asentencingcourtmay  _ notconsideranyfactswhichconstituteanelementofthecrime.(Cal.Rules   ofCourt,rule4.420(d)[ Afactthatisanelementofthecrimeshallnotbe  I  usedtoimposetheupperterm.].)Also,thefactsunderlyingan n   enhancementwhichhasbeenfoundtruemaynotbeusedtoimposethe 3  uppertermunlessthesentencingcourtstrikesthepunishmentforthe X  enhancement.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(c);Pen.Code1170,subd.   (b).)Sinceajuryverdictrepresentsafindingoneveryelementofthe B chargedcrimesandenhancements,theverdictitselfcannotbeusedbeused  tojustifyfactorsinaggravation;thesoleexceptionbeingwherethe ,| sentencingcourtstrikesanenhancementandthenusesthosefactsasan  aggravatingfactor.Thisproscriptionagainstdualuseprohibitsatrialcourt f fromeverbeingabletouseafactprovenbeyondareasonabledoubtbya  juryinfindingfactorsinaggravationtojustifytheimpositionoftheupper P  term. u"  ` Tojustifyanuppertermsentence,thetrialjudgeneedonlyfindthat :$ aggravatingfactorsexistbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.(Cal.Rules _ & ofCourt,rule4.420(b).)Withregardtothestandardofproof,theAdvisory !$( CommitteeCommenttorule4.420states: I#*   6 ` hp X 6Proofbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceisthe $ , standardintheabsenceofastatuteora %!- decisionallawtothecontrary(Evid.Code, &". 115),andappearsappropriatehere,sincethere '"/ isnorequirementthatsentencingdecisionsbe (#0 basedonthesamequantumofproofasis )$1 requiredtoestablishguilt.SeeWilliamsv.New *%2 York(1949)337U.S.241. +&3   ?( ` hp x  ` X ?(Citationsinoriginal.) ,'4  ` InlightofBlakely,theAdvisoryCommitteesrelianceonWilliams  nowseemsmisplaced.InWilliams,thedefendantwasconvictedinNew %u Yorkofcapitalmurder.However,inreturningtheguiltyverdict,thejury  alsorecommendedalifesentenceforMr.Williams.Atthesentencing  _ hearingthetrialcourtrejectedthejurysrecommendationandsentenced   Williamstodeathbasedonevidenceofothercrimesandreferencesto  I  defendants morbidsexualitycontainedintheprobationreport.On n   appeal,WilliamsarguedthatthedeathsentenceviolatedtheDueProcess 3  Clausebecausethetrialcourtconsideredinformationintheprobationreport X  suppliedbywitnesseshehadnotconfrontedorcrossexamined.The   SupremeCourtconcludedthatadefendanthasnodueprocessrightto B confrontwitnesseswhoprovidestatementstothecourtforpurposesof  sentencing.(Williamsv.NewYork(1949)337U.S.241,250251[69S.Ct. ,| 1079,93L.Ed.1337].)Implicitintheholding,thoughnotdiscussedinthe  opinion,isthattheevidencereceivedbythecourtforpurposesof f sentencingisnotsubjecttoproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thiswas  apparentlywhattheadvisorycommitteereferredtobynotingthatthe P  standardofpreponderance appearsappropriate. u"  ` BlakelynotedthatthefactorsconsideredbythecourtinWilliams :$ weretruesentencingfactorsbecausethesentencingjudgecouldhave _ & sentencedWilliamstodeathstrictlyasaresultofthejurysverdict,without !$( makinganyadditionalfindings.(Blakelyv.Washington,supra,124S.Ct. I#* 2531,2538.)Sinceadeathsentencewasauthorizedbythejurysverdictit $ , fellwithintherangeofsentencingoptionsavailabletothetrialcourt. 3&!. Therefore,thefactsofferedinsupportofthesentencewerenotsubjectto '"0 theconstitutionalsafeguardsofproofbeyondareasonabledoubtandtrial )m$2  byjury.(Ibid.) *%4  ` Bycontrast,theimpositionoftheupperterminCaliforniaisnot   authorizedsolelybythejurysverdict.Sinceajurysverdictreflectsa %u findingoneachandeveryelementofthechargedcrimesandenhancements,  whichinturnmaynotbeusedasfactorsinaggravation,themiddletermis  _ themaximumsentencewhichcanbeimposedabsentadditionaljudicial   factfinding.%  _ T  10     %AWrepo  ݀Furthermore,PenalCodesection1170,subd.(b)and  I  CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule4.420(a)and(b),explicitlyprohibitthetrial n   courtsfromimposinganuppertermsentencewithoutajudicialfindingof 3  factorsinaggravation.Byallowingjudicialfactfindingbyapreponderance X  oftheevidencetoelevateasentencetotheupperterm,Californias   determinatesentencingschemeviolatesthetwofundamentaldueprocess B safeguardsBlakelyseekstoprotect.   ?(  ` hp x X ? ` GiventhebrightlinetestofBlakely,anyjudiciallyfoundfactorsin ,| aggravationusedtoimposetheuppertermareelementsofthecrimeand  subjecttoajuryfindingofproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.Theyare f elementsbecausetheyallowthecourttoimposeapunishmentgreaterthan  thestatutorymaximumofmiddleterm.Thisisborneoutbyasimpletest P  articulatedinHarristodifferentiateelementsfromsentencingfactors.The u" Harriscourtnotedthatfactorswhichlimitthecourtsdiscretionin :$ sentencingarepermissible,whereasfactswhichextendthetrialjudges _ & authoritytosentencebeyondthestatutorymaximumneededtobeproven !$( beyondareasonabledoubttoajury.TheCourtexplained: I#*   9 ` hp   ` X 9ThefactualfindinginApprendiextendedthe $ , powerofthejudge,allowinghimorherto %!- imposeapunishmentexceedingwhatwas &". authorizedbythejury.Thefindingin '"/ McMillanrestrainedthejudgespower,limiting (#0 hisorherchoiceswithintheauthorizedrange. )$1 Itisquiteconsistenttomaintainthattheformer  typeoffactmustbesubmittedtothejurywhile  thelatterneednotbe.    ?( ` hp x  ` X ?(Harrisv.UnitedStates,supra,536U.S.545,567.)   ` Theuseofjudiciallyfoundfactorsinaggravationtoimposeanupper  ` termsentencenecessarilyextendsthepowerofthesentencingcourt.   Absentfindingfactorsinaggravation,itcouldnotimposetheupperterm.  J  ItthereforeviolatesApprendiandBlakelybyallowingthetrialjudgeto o   imposeagreaterpunishmentthanthatauthorizedbythejuryinfindingbya 4  preponderanceoftheevidencefactswhichincreaseasentencebeyondthe Y  statutorymaximumtotheupperterm.    C  X X  9"` ` hp xX 9 II.    Theimpositionofconsecutivetermsbasedonfactorsnot  foundbythejuryviolatesBlakelyv.Washington.   X X?( ` hp x ` ` Xx?  ` Whenadefendantisconvictedofmorethanoneoffense,PenalCode h section669requiresasentencingcourttodeterminewhetherthetermsof  imprisonmentshallrunconsecutivelyorconcurrentlytooneanother, R assumingthecourtsdiscretionisnotlimitedbyanotherstatute.Ifacourt w  failstodeterminehowthesentencesshallrun,thelawrequiresthe <" impositionofconcurrentsentences.(Pen.Code669.) a $  ` Intheeventthecourtsentencesadefendanttoconsecutiveterms, !&& PenalCodesection1170,subd.(c),requiresasentencingcourtto statethe K#( reasonsforitssentencechoiceontherecord.(SeePeoplev.Walker, $ * supra,83Cal.App.3d619,622[holdingthattheimpositionofconsecutive 5&!, sentencesisa sentencingchoice,asusedinPen.Code1170(c),and '". thereforerequiresastatementofreasons].)Therequirementisechoedin )o$0 CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule4.406(a)and(b)(5),whichrequirethecourt *%2 tostateontherecord theprimaryfactororfactorsthatsupporttheexercise  ,Y'4 ofdiscretionin imposingconsecutivesentences.Thefailureofatrial  courttostatereasonsforrunningatermconsecutivelyinvalidatesthe %u sentence.(Peoplev.Beaudrie(1983)147Cal.App.3d686,694;Peoplev.  Bejarnao(1981)114Cal.App.3d693,705708;Peoplev.Walker,supra,83  _ Cal.App.3d619,622.)    ` CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule4.425,providesthetrialcourtswitha  I  listofreasonsor criteriaaffectingthedecisiontoimposeconsecutive n   sentences.(SeealsoPeoplev.Bejarano,supra,114Cal.App.3d693, 3  704.)Theruleincorporatesrules4.421(circumstancesinaggravation)and X  4.423(circumstancesinmitigation)byallowingthat [a]nycircumstances   inaggravationormitigationmaybeconsideredindecidingwhetherto B imposeconsecutiveratherthanconcurrentsentences8.%  ` T  11     %oitio  ݀(Cal.Rulesof  Court,rule4.425.)Therule,however,explicitlyprohibitsasentencing ,| courtfromusingafacttoimposeaconsecutivesentencewhichhasbeen  usedtoimposeanupperterm,formedthebasisofanenhancementorwas f anelementofacrimethedefendantforwhichthedefendantwasconvicted.  (Ibid;seealsoPeoplev.Callahan(1983)149Cal.App.3d1183,1187[dual P  useoffactsrulebarsatrialcourtfromusingthesamefactstoimposean u" uppertermandaconsecutiveterm],disapprovedonanothergroundin :$ Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331,353,fn.6;Peoplev.Kozel,supra,133 _ & Cal.App.3d507,540[sameholding];Peoplev.Bejarano,supra,114 !$( Cal.App.3d693,704[sameholding].)Itispreciselythisprohibition I#*  againstdualuseoffactswhichrequiresthetrialcourttoseparatelystateits $ , reasonsforimposingaconsecutivesentence.(Peoplev.Kozel,supra,133  Cal.App.3d507,540.) %u   ` Anyargumentimplyingthatatrialcourtneednotmakefactual  findingstoimposeaconsecutivetermiswithoutmerit.Thecriteria  _ providedbytheRulesofCourtrequirethetrialcourts tomakefactual   determinationsintheirdecisionwhethertoimposeconsecutive  I  sentences.%  a T  12     %vitio  ݀(Peoplev.Wiley(1995)9Cal.4th580,587.)Thequestionis n   whetherthefactualfindingsviolateBlakely.Becausethedualuse 3  prohibitionbarstheimpositionofaconsecutivetermbasedontheelements X  ofthecrimeoranyenhancement,thecourtmustgooutsidethefindings   representedbythejurysverdicttoimposeaconsecutivesentence. x  B SincethestatutorymaximumforApprendipurposesisthemaximum  sentenceajudgemayimposebasedsolelyonfactsreflectedinthejury ,| verdictoradmittedbyadefendant,judicialfactfindingoffactorsin  aggravationtojustifyaconsecutivesentenceviolatesadefendantsrightto f haveallelementswhichincreasehissentenceproventoajurybeyonda  reasonabledoubt.Theonlyfactornotreflectedinthejurysverdictwhicha P  trialmaytakeintoconsiderationinincreasingadefendantssentenceisthe u" factofapriorconviction,duetotheproceduralsafeguardsalreadyafforded :$ thedefendantinthepriorproceeding.(Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530 _ & U.S.466,488,citingAlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates,supra,523U.S. !$( 224.) I#*  ` Counselconcedesthatatfirstblushitseemscounterintuitiveto $ , considerfactsusedbythecourtinimposingaconsecutivesentenceas 3&!. elementsofcrimesandthereforesubjecttoajuryfindingbyproofbeyonda '"0 reasonabledoubt.However,sinceanyfactwhichincreasesadefendants  punishmentbeyondthatallowedbythejurysverdictisdefinedasan %u elementbyBlakely,anyfactusedtoimposeaconsecutivesentencemustbe  proventoajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.Becauseasentencingcourt(1)  _ cannotimposeaconsecutivesentencewithoutastatingthereasons   justifyingthesentence;(2)cannotrelyonthefindingsreflectedinthejurys  I  verdict(i.e.proofbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthedefendantsatisfiedall n   elementsofthecrimesandenhancementscharged);and(3)mustengagein 3  judicialfactfindingtoreachthosereasons,itisclearthatunderCalifornias X  determinatesentencingscheme,consecutivesentencesarenotallowed   solelybyvirtueofthejurysverdict.Judicialfindingsoffactorsin B aggravationtosupporttheconsecutivesentencethereforefallwithin  Blakelysdefinitionofelements. ,|  ?(  ` hp x X ? ` ThisanalysishasbeenlostontheCourtofAppealwhenanalyzing  whetherBlakelyappliestoconsecutivesentencing.Forexample,inPeople f v.Vaughn(2004)122Cal.App.4th1363,DivisionFouroftheSecond  Districtheldthatconsecutivesentencingdoesnotincreasethestatutory P  maximumandthereforedoesnotimplicateBlakely.TheSixthDistrict u" cametothesameconclusioninPeoplev.Jaffe(2004)122Cal.App.4th :$ 1559.BothopinionsignorethatBlakelydefinesthestatutorymaximumas _ & theharshestpossiblesentenceacourtmayimposebasedsolelyonfacts !$( reflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbyadefendant,withoutany I#* additionaljudicialfactfinding.(Blakelyv.Washington,supra,124S.Ct. $ , 2531,2537.)Sinceacourtcannotimposeconsecutivesentenceswithout 3&!. makingadditionalfactualdeterminations,consecutivesentencingunder '"0 CaliforniasdeterminatesentencingschemeviolatesBlakely.%  b T  13     %choi  ݀ )m$2   Conclusion     ` AswasthesituationinBlakely, Thiscaseisnotaboutwhether %u determinatesentencingisconstitutional,onlyabouthowitcanbe  implementedinawaythatrespectstheSixthAmendment.(Blakelyv.  _ Washington,supra,124S.Ct.2531,2540.)Initscurrentform,Californias   determinatesentencingschemeallowstrialcourtstoimposeharsher  I  sentencesthanwouldbeallowedbasedsolelyonajurysverdict,by n   allowingthesentencingjudgetoengageinjudicialfactfinding.This 3  allowanceviolatestheDueProcessClauseandthejurytrialguaranteeof X  theUnitedStatesConstitutionundertherationaleofBlakelyv.Washington,   supra,andApprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.466. B  ` Accordingly,forthereasonsstatedherein,theundersignedsubmits  thattheimpositionofanuppertermsentenceandtheimpositionof ,| consecutivesentencesbasedonjudicialfactfindingbyapreponderanceof  theevidenceareunconstitutionalunderBlakelyv.Washington. f    6` p x   ` X 6Dated:November8,2004   p     Respectfully  Submitted, }   `    p      x  v! DEBORAHA.KWAST o"  `    p      x Public h# Defender a $  `   THOMASHAVLENA Z!%  `    p ChiefDeputyPublic S"& Defender L#'  `    p KEVINJ.PHILLIPS E$(  `   AssistantPublicDefender >% )  `    p      x ____________________ ")r$-  `   MARTINF.SCHWARZ *k%.  `    p      x DeputyPublicDefender  ,]'0 Ї  CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE     ` Theundersignedherebycertifiesthatthisbriefhasbeenprepared  using13pointTimesNewRomantypeface.ThetextoftheBriefof g AmicusCuriaeconsistsof7,665wordsascountedbyMicrosoftWord   version2002wordprocessingprogram,uptoandincludingthesignature  Q linesthatfollowthebriefsconclusion. v    ` IdeclareunderpenaltyofperjurythatthisCertificateofCompliance  ;  andcorrectandthatthisdeclarationwasexecutedonNovember8,2004. `   `    p _____________________    `    p MARTINF.SCHWARZ   `   DeputyPublicDefender    9p x ` pX 9  ,a', Ї  DECLARATIONOFSERVICEB  C      E( ` hp x pX EPeoplev.KevinMichaelBlack"SupremeCourtCaseNo.S126182:  Ѐ    `     h    B+ ` hp x X B?( ` hp x X ?STATEOFCALIFORNIA h ) x  9" hp x X 9 h      p )  ss q   COUNTYOFORANGE h ) j  E( ` hp x hX EB+ ` hp x X B ` MartinF.SchwarzdeclaresthatheisacitizenoftheUnitedStates, \  aresidentofOrangeCounty,overtheageof18years,notapartytothe U  aboveentitledactionandhasabusinessaddressat14CivicCenterPlaza, N  SantaAna,California92701. G ?( ` hp x X ?B+ ` hp x X B `     h Thatonthe8thdayofNovember,2004,Iserved 9 acopyoftheBriefofAmicusCuriaeintheaboveentitledactionby 2 depositingacopythereofinasealedenvelope,postagethereonfully +{ prepaid,intheUnitedStatesMailatSantaAna,California.Saidenvelopes $t wereaddressedasfollows: m ?( ` hp x X ?3p x X 3EileenS.Kotler,Esq.  OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral _ Balin&Kotler  Attn:LawrenceM.Daniels X 1750FranciscoBlvd.  300SouthSpringSt. Q Pacifica,CA94044  LosAngeles,CA90013 J 6p x X 6 p ̀ p  < < 6p x pX <ClerkoftheCourt, 6 C.A.C.J.    5 CaliforniaCourtofAppeal 6 1225EighthStreet   !. ?6p x 6pX ?FifthAppellateDistrict 6 Suite150 "' 2525CapitolSt. 6 Sacramento,CA95814 #   Fresno,CA93721 $ !  6 ? 6p x 6pX ?ClerkoftheCourt 6 PhillipJ.Cline & "# Attn:Hon.WilliamSilveira,Jr. 6 DistrictAttorney '#$ TulareCountySuperiorCourt 6 221S.MooneyBlvd. (#% 221S.MooneyBlvd. 6 Visalia,CA93291 )$& ?p x 6pX ?Visalia,CA93291 *%' 9p x pX 9 ,') E( ` hp x pX E ` B+ ` hp x X B ` Ideclareunderpenaltyofperjurythattheforegoingistrueand  correct.  ?( ` hp x X ?B+ ` hp x X B ` Executedonthis8thdayofNovember,2004,atSantaAna,   California.   ?( ` hp x X ?9" p x X 9       p     __________________________________ j    MartinF.Schwarz,DeputyPublicDefender c    OrangeCountyPublicDefendersOffice  \  wcHOH( ` hp x X H