WPCQ> ձ5Cf. ^VZ */Ya>@N+QˬꝎm$6 ɗߥ?tq@I["5Lp )V7a| |hֻ S-C̈%>-"hҪRB߃>f݄YOm,i߳r梍piiY^mxTI좬x==6{a޼,{{\8hWY21q|q^}c!/=jÛU%tW̘5'mԚ8p#qx:1Q'Z;R0es$P@G՝;t Z77|=>a߫S? Rէ[(i`C$K%:*n4$\Luoxn BCR` }͂BSEI?CR);)ڶS,LnBFW /KU$k{ly2v #tUN= % 0U$:)Nc^ ewq4u m 0+HOz 0 0D 0#c1 1u 72  0w; 0 0< 0 0 0W 02 0D! 1e 72.  0N!x"z"x!$ 1$ 72$% 1V% 72%b &&j'j(P((Pl*B*U*S,, -/b*001 B*233f&4455V*66V8El8zn88z:::::::::::::::::: B ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 0=;=;=;=;=;=;=;=; 0;;;;;;;;;;; D5<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< C<<<<<< AS<G= 0D >HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(p$  6i6i6iUSUS.,,@E Z"Book Antiqua <2 J22p0Backup3|x Uhttp://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=372269(,$ p d\$ X/XXX!qXX/USUS.,    3    _  http://_appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov_/search/_dockets.cfm?dist_=0&doc_id=3722 P 69((3d\$ !  X/XXX!qXX/USUS.,      0  (#$  0  (;3$2#  0  .3  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# pA_cimquy}DiamondsDiamond Bullet`1.``````` $  -' X/XXX!qXX/USUS.,  _   U!qFirstDistrictAppellateProject#!qU#  AWB),dE,Aր !q730HarrisonStreet,Suite201SanFrancisco,California94107(415)4953119Facsimile:(415)4950166#!q րm#(3-$ !  X/XXX!qXX/USUS.,  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/casehand/guideforifpcases.pdf  d\$ X/XXX!qXX/USUS.,    5    _ ` 4# ` ,  5  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/casehand/guideforifpcases.pdf6,  7 \"http://www.supremecourtus.gov/casehand/guideforifpcases.pdfx"Icgkosw{Large BulletLarge Bullet$xK?[_cgkoswSquaresSquare Bullet&- -  d\$ X/XXX!qXX/USUS.,    6    _ ` 4* ` ,  5  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/bar/baradmissions.html6,  7 Ԁhttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/bar/baradmissions.htmlhttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/bar/baradmissions.htmlhttp://www.fdap.org/t-forms.html#habeas  d\$ X/XXX!qXX/USUS.,    4    _ ` 4. ` ,  5  http://www.fdap.org/t-forms.html#habeas6,  7 Ԁhttp://www.fdap.org/t-forms.html#habeashttp://www.fdap.org/contact.html K -" X/XXX!qXX/USUS.,  _Note:Theelectronic  versionofthisdocument  hashyperlinks(inblue).  tovariousonline  sources.http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrules/rulesofthecourt.pdf#page=39Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  d\$ X/XXX!qXX/USUS.,    7    _ ` ThesemaybeobtainedfromtheCourtwithawrittenrequestanda  feeof$1.00.Sendyourrequest,paymentandselfaddressedenvelopeto:   CaliforniaSupremeCourt,350McAllisterSt.,Room1295,SanFranciscoCA  94102.(Call415-865-7000forinformation.)http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrules/rulesofthecourt.pdf#page=43;I:\Website\HTML\DOWNLO~1\blakely\BLACKS~2.PDFhttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/ctrules/rulesofthecourt.pdf#page=14 Cal.Rptr IFP AOBApprendiaffirmance DSLTowneBappellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov$dockets.cfm?distdoc_idGressmanGellerHibbs Winn S.CtremittiturpauperisAlmendarezU.S.S.CtMcAllisterBlakely&$ d dhttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/casehand/guideforifpcases.pdf#page=7http://www.supremecourtus.gov/casehand/guideforifpcases.pdf#page=8I:\Website\HTML\downloads\blakely\BlackS126182.PDFhttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/titleone/title1-1-50.htm#TopOfPagehttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/titleone/title1-1-62.htm#TopOfPagehttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/titleone/title1-1-63.htm#TopOfPagehttp://www.fdap.org/PostBlackSampleAOB.htm  d\$ X/XXX!qXX/USUS.,    1    _ ` 4A ` ,  5  http://www.fdap.org/PostBlackSampleAOB.htm6,  7 http://www.fdap.org/PostBlackSampleAOB.htmhttp://www.fdap.org/downloads/blakely/PostBlackPFRsample.pdf  d\$ X/XXX!qXX/USUS.,    2    _ ` 4E ` ,  5  http://www.fdap.org/downloads/blakely/PostBlackPFRsample.p  df6,  7 |Ԁhttp://www.fdap.org/downloads/blakely/PostBlackPFRsample.pdf d(3-$ !  X/XXX!qXX/USUS.,  (3-$ !  X/XXX!qXX/USUS.,  WWWW)!dxdxdE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  !  X/XXX!qXX/USUS.,  _  (8۷ dd8  08888E51l|  `@E-}  e  ee(#(#Blakely,Booker,andBlack.NowWhat?     ր !q4/ ,  5  JonathanD.Soglin64,H  7 ys   StaffAttorney \   June,2005#!q ր# |  OnJune20,2005,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtissuedits  opinionin45 ,  5  Peoplev.Black6,  7 :(no.S126182,filedJune20,2005)---    (#(#eeCal.Rptr.3d----,2005WL1421815,holdingthatthereisnofederalconstitutional   righttoajurytrialonfactfindingrelatingtoaggravatingfactorsusedtoimpose   theuppertermunderCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLaw.TheCourtalso   heldthatthereisnorighttoajurytrialonfactfindingusedinthedecisionto   imposesentencesconsecutively.Thismemorandumwillprovidequick (  suggestionsastohowappellantscanprocedurallyrespondtoBlackinorderto 2 preserveBlakelyclaims.Thismemorandumwillalsoprovidesomeguidancefor < triageofcasesinordertodeterminewhichcasesmaybebestsuitedforcertiorari F petitionsraisingBlakelyclaims.Inthecomingweeks,samplecertioraripetitions P andpostBlackopeningbriefswillbeavailable. Z  Note:themosturgentcategoryofcasesnotedbelowarethoseinwhichthe n CaliforniaSupremeCourtdeniedreviewandthe90daywindowtofilea p certioraripetitionisstillopen.Ifyouhavesuchacase,pleasereviewthis  r materialA.S.A.P.Filingacertioraripetitionrequiressomegroundwork(e.g.  t IFPaffidavits;admissionstothebar,etc.)thatcouldcausedelays.FDAPwill !v soonbepostingasamplecertioraripetition,whichshouldsaveyou "x considerabletime.  #z AWB) xdE%xA %~      & * I. >&  ProceduralOptionsforPostBlackBlakelyClaimsintheCourtofAppeal  B("   A.PreAOB: IfacaseisstillprebriefingintheCourtofAppeal,theBlakelyclaim J*!$ canbepreservedwithaverybriefargumentsimplyacknowledgingthatthe T+"% CourtofAppeal'*>& isboundbyBlackandnotingthattheissueisbeingraisedto ^,#& preserveitforfederalcourtreview.SuchabriefneednotexplainwhyBlackis h-$'y wronglydecided.(Savethatforcertioraripetitionsandfederalhabeaspetitions.)  Butbesuretoadequatelyidentifytheerror(denialofajury,applicationofwrong   burdenofproof,etc.),identifytherelevantfactsandproceduralhistory,address  waiverifapplicable,federalizetheclaim(citingtheSixthAmendment,Apprendi,  andBlakely),notethatBlackiscontrolling,andexplainthattheclaimisraisedin ( ordertopreserveitforfederalcourtreview._FDAP_Ԁhasposteda4? ,  5  samplepost  2 BlackAOB6,  7  .@ #  1        <  B.PostAOB: Thereisnotmuchtodoifyouhavealreadyfiledanopeningbrief,  P excepttoacknowledgeinthereplybriefthatBlackiscontrolling.(Itmaystillbe  Z  necessaryinreplybriefstoaddresssuchquestionsasthescopeofthe d  AlmendarezTorresexceptionorharmlesserror.Thusfar,itappearsthatpostBlack n  opinionsterselydisposeofBlakelyclaimswithcitationstoBlack.Itistooearlyto (x  knowwhetherthecourtsofappealwill,inothercases,alsoaddressother 2  considerationsasalternativegroundsforaffirmance.) <  C.PostOpinion: Giventhatthefederalcourtsmayhaveadifferentviewofthe P DSL,itwouldbeprudentinappropriatecases(seethetriagediscussionbelow) Z topreservetheissuewitha4C ,  5  petitionforreview6,  7 ԀintheCaliforniaSupreme_Court.D #  2      _ d    &  II. x ProceduralOptionsforCasesPostPetitionforReview  |  A.ReviewGrantedCases: IncasesinwhichtheappellantprevailedonaBlakely  '#claiminthecourtofappealandinwhichtheCaliforniaSupremeCourtgranted  review(deferringbriefingpendingBlackandTowne),thereisnothingtodointhe  shorttermexceptwaitfortheCaliforniaSupremeCourttotransferthecaseback   tothecourtofappealforreconsiderationinlightofBlack.(Thisprobablywont ! happenuntiltheBlackdecisionisfinal,i.e.30daysafterthedecision,assuming " norehearing.Infact,evenafterBlack,theCourtisstillgrantingreviewand #   deferringbriefingpendingthefinalityofBlack.(Seee.g.Peoplev.Castro,no. $  4  ,  5  S13422063,G  7 r. #  3      ))Thecourtofappealmayormaynotsolicitadditionalbriefing.After   thecourtofappealissuesitsnewopinion"presumablyrejectingtheBlakely   claimunderBlack"appellantcanthenpetitionforreview,preservingtheissue  forfederalcourtreview.Onlythenwillthecasebe finalforpurposesofa  certioraripetitionorafederalhabeaspetition. ( IncasesinwhichtheappellantlostintheCourtofAppealandtheCalifornia  < SupremeCourtgrantedreviewandstayedbriefing(thisisprobablylimitedtoa  F fewpublisheddecisions),theCaliforniaSupremeCourtwilllikelydismiss  P reviewwithoutreturningthecasestotheCourtofAppeal.Thetimetofile  Z  certiorariinthosecaseswouldrunfromthedateoftheorderdismissingreview. d   B.ReviewDeniedCases: Reviewdeniedcasespresentmorecomplex,and,in (x  somecases,moreurgentconsideration.Atypicalorderinsuchcasesstatesthat 2  reviewis deniedwithoutprejudicetoanyrelieftowhichdefendantmightbe < entitledafterthiscourtdeterminesinPeoplev.Black,S126182,andPeoplev. F Towne,S125677,theeffectof[Blakely]onCalifornialaw.Theoptionsavailable P forsuchcasesdependuponwhetherthe90daywindowforacertioraripetition Z hasrun. d  (#33"3"  &   ,3 #2#  1  .3  0    90DayCertiorariWindowStillOpen . [Note:TimeSensitiveConsiderations x FollowandinSectionIII] 3 #T#݌~(#(# Ќ  ,F#Inacaseinwhichreviewwasdeniedandthereisstilltimetofileacertiorari  '7#petition,counselmustdecidewhetherthecasewarrantssuchapetition.Below,  insectionIII,aresomehighlightsofproceduralaspectsoffilingacertiorari  petitionand,insectionIV,adiscussionoffactorstoconsiderinatriageofcases  forcertioraripetitions.Asanalternativetocounselfilingacertioraripetition,   counselcouldwritetotheclient,advisinghim/heroftheoutcomeofBlackand ! providingformsforfilingeitheraprosecertioraripetitionoraprosefederal " habeascorpuspetition.TheadvantageofU.S.SupremeCourtdirectreviewover # federalhabeasreviewisthattheU.S.SupremeCourt,ifitgrantscertiorariin $"   Blackoranothercasepresentingthesameissue,woulddecidetheissuedenovo. %,!  Incontrast,onfederalhabeasreview,thefederalcourtsaccorddeferencetothe  statecourtsdeterminationoftheconstitutionalquestions.    Acertioraripetitionshoulddescribetherulingbelow,thewaysinwhich  BlackconflictswiththeentireApprendilineofcases,thenumberofcasesaffected ( byBlack,andhowthisanalysisconflictswith(orcomparesto)thereasoningof  2 Blakelydecisionscomingfromstatesthathavesimilarsentencingschemes.FDAP  < hopestoahavesamplecertioraripetitionalongtheselinesavailableshortly.  F  (p3 X&  2.90DayWindowIsClosed:  Z   X,Ifapetitionerreceivedsucha reviewdeniedwithoutprejudiceorderandif b  ' ,morethan90dayshavepassedsincetheissuanceofthatorder,theonlyavenue l  ofreliefstillopenwouldbeafederalhabeaspetition.BecauseBlackiscontrolling &v  forallCaliforniacourts,astatehabeaspetitionwouldbetonoavail.Becausethe 0 90dayshavepassed,bothacertioraripetitionandarequesttoextendthetime : forfilingacertioraripetitionwouldbeuntimely.Althoughthe90daydeadlineis D notjurisdictionalincriminalcases,itisextremelyunlikelythattheCourtwould N consideralatefiledcertioraripetition.(Schachtv.UnitedStates(1970)398U.S.58, X 6364;seealsoR.Stern&E.Gressman,S.Shapiro,&K.Geller,SupremeCourt b Practice350353(8thed.2002).) l AnattempttoreopentheCaliforniaSupremeCourtproceedingsinorderto  obtainaneworderissueddenyingreview,wouldlikelybefruitless.Rehearingof  anorderdenyingreviewisnotpermitted.(Rules4< ,  5  25(a)6P1,d1  7 1,4= Z,  5  29.4(b)(2)(A)61, 2  7 52,4> |,  5  29.5(a)62,2  7 2Ԁ(and  adv.comm.note).)Anditwouldbedifficulttoconvinceacourtofappealto  recallitsremittiturforthepurposeofreopeningthecertiorariwindow,andits  doubtfulsuchaprocedurewouldbeeffective.(SeeMissouriv.Jenkins(1990)495   U.S.33,49.)Itwould,moreover,bedifficulttoshowthatextremecircumstances !  warrantanyoftheseactions.Whiletheordersdenyingreviewsufferfromsome " vaguenessandare,tothesaytheleast,unusual,themeaningoftheordersisstill #  clearenoughthatitisastraintoarguethatthedenialswere withoutprejudice $*  tosomeproceduralreliefshouldtheCourtholdinBlackthatBlakelydoesnot %4!  apply;theorders,instead,onlyimpliedthatreliefcouldbeobtainediftheCourt &>"! heldthatBlakely did applytotheDSL. 'H#" Wherereviewwasdeniedmorethan90daysago,itappearsthattheonlyavenue  *\%$ leftisafederalhabeaspetition.ShouldtheU.S.SupremeCourtultimately +f&% reverseBlackoranothercaseraisingtheissue,statehabeasmayagainbe  available,butthatisnotareasontoletthefederalhabeasstatuteoflimitations   run.    Note:Thereisnocompensationunderastatecourtofappealappointment ( forpreparationofafederalhabeascorpuspetition.Counselcaneitherprepare  2 thepetitiononaprobonobasisorsendtheappropriateforms,includinganIFP  < application,totheappellant.Suchformscanbefoundonthe4, ,  5  federalcourtWeb  F sites6:,:  7 T:.- #  4      ׀Counselcouldalsoinstructthepetitionertoattachacopyofthecourtof  P appealopinionandtherelevantexcerptsfrommodelcertioraripetitionsshowing  Z  whyBlackwaswronglydecided.Unlessthereistollingofthefederalhabeas d  statuteoflimitations,inthenormalcasethefederalhabeaspetitionmustbefiled n  withinoneyearofthedenialofreviewbytheCaliforniaSupremeCourt. (x     &  III. < BackgroundonCertiorariProcedures!TimeSensitive @  =Whilethismemorandumcannotfullycovertheproceduralrequirementsofa D '=certioraripetition,acoupleofareasmeritspecialattentiongiventheshorttime N lineforsomecases.Asnoted,FDAPwillbepostingamodelcertioraripetition X foryouruse,butyoumuststillfollowproperprocedures. b  (#3p"3"  38@2#  1  .3  0    Timing :Thepetitionisdue90daysafterthedenialofreviewbythe v CaliforniaSupremeCourt. (Thetimerunsfromthefilingdateofthe  reviewdenialorder,notfromthedateoftheremittitur.) Adocumentis  timelyfiledifitisreceivedbytheClerkwithinthetimespecifiedforfiling;  orifitissenttotheClerkthroughtheUnitedStatesPostalServiceby   first-classmail(includingexpressorprioritymail),postageprepaid,and ! bearsapostmark,otherthanacommercialpostagemeterlabel,showing " thatthedocumentwasmailedonorbeforethelastdayforfiling;orifitis #  deliveredonorbeforethelastdayforfilingtoathird-partycommercial $  carrierfordeliverytotheClerkwithin3calendardays.(U.S.S.Ct.41 ,  5  Rule % !   29.26oD,D  7D.) 38@h@݌&*"!(#(# Ќ  "3"  3}E2#  2  .3  0    ExtensionsofTime. Incasesinwhichthecertiorariwindowclosesinthe   comingweeks,considerationshouldbegiventofilingarequestintheU.S.   SupremeCourtforanextensionoftime.TheSupremeCourtrulespermit  anextensionoftimeofupto60daysforacertioraripetition,butonlyifan  applicationisfiled atleast10daysbeforethedatethepetitionisdue, ( exceptinextraordinarycircumstances.(U.S.S.Ct.Rules46,  5  13.56,H,@H  7kH,44,  5  30.26H,H  7|I.)Ideally,  2 ifatallpossible,thecertioraripetitionshouldbefiledbytheoriginal  < deadline;thereisnoguaranteethattheU.S.SupremeCourtwillviewthe  F issuanceofBlackasgoodcauseorextraordinarycircumstances.3}EE݌ P(#(# Ќ  "3"  3J2#  3  .3  0    IFPApplications. Filingacertioraripetitionwithoutfeesandinan81/2x d  11format(insteadofbookletformat)requiresanapplicationforleaveto n  proceedinformapauperis(IFP).Suchanapplicationmustaccompanythe (x  certioraripetitionandnoexceptionismadewhentheappellanthad 2  appointedcounselinthestatecourt.Counselanticipatingfilinga < certioraripetitionshouldforthwithobtainasignedfinancialaffidavitfrom F theclient.(A49: ,  5  blankIFPapplication6M,M  70MԀand4: ,  5  financialaffidavit6fN,zN  7NԀcanbefoundin P theSupremeCourts4! ,  5  casehandlingguideforIFPcases6TO,hO  7 XO." #  5      )Ifitislogistically Z impossibletogettheaffidavitbackfromtheclientintimeforfilingwith d thepetitionbeforethe90daysrun,filethepetitionandanapplicationfor n IFPstatusstatingthattheappellanthadcourtappointedcounselinthe x statecourtandthatacompletedfinancialaffidavitisforthcoming.Ifthe  IFPaffidavitarrivesshortlythereaftertheCourtwilldocketthepetition.If  theIFPaffidavitdoesntarriveshortly,theCourtmayreturnthepetition  withaletterstatingthatitcanberesubmittedwiththefinancialaffidavit  withinacertainamountoftimeandwillthenbedeemedtimely. Note:  thisshouldbealastresortapproach.Ifatallpossible,obtainthe  affidavitpriortofiling.Iftimeisshort,useovernightdeliveryserviceto   theprisonorevenseekpermissiontofaxtheblankaffidavittoyour ! clientscounselor. 3J K݌" (#(# Ќ  "3"  3U2#  4  .3  0    SupremeCourtBarMembership. Attorneysfilingcertioraripetitionsmust $  bemembersoftheSupremeCourtbar.Nevertheless,theCourtwillaccept %!  acertioraripetitionforfilingwherecounselofrecordhasanapplication &""! foradmissionpendingatthecourt.Uponreceivingthecertioraripetition, ',#" theclerkwillconfirmthattheapplicationispendingandcomplete.4+ ,  5  Forms (6$# andinstructions6[W,oW  7  WԀcanbefoundontheU.S.SupremeCourtWebsite.) #  6        MembershipintheU.S.SupremeCourtbarrequires,amongotherthings,a   certificateofgoodstandingfromastatehighcourtandthesponsorshipof  twomembersofthebaroftheU.S.Supremecourt.(SomeFDAPattorneys  aremembersofthatbarandmaybeabletosponsorpanelattorneys.) ( Becauseoftheimpendingsummerrecess,applicationsreceivedbythe  2 SupremeCourtwillnotbeacteduponuntilsometimeinAugust,atthe  < earliest. Ifatallpossible,submittheapplicationforadmissionin  F sufficienttimesuchthatitcanbeacteduponpriortothefilingofthe  P certioraripetition.Ifyoureunsureaboutwhetheryouwillbefilinga R  certioraripetition,youmightconsideratleastbeginningtheinitialsteps T  ofobtainingthecertificateofgoodstanding3 #  7      ׀andpreparingthe V  applicationforadmission. 3U?U݌X (#(# Ќ  "3"  3g]2#  5  .3  0    Compensation. Assumingacertioraripetitioniswarrantedinyour  \ particularcase,FDAPwouldrecommendcompensation.Thegeneral f approachofthejudiciarytocertioraripetitionsisthatapetitionshould  p onlybefiledinacasewithastrong,wellpreservedfederalissuethathas *z importantsocietalimplications.Thus,justbecausethereisaBlakelyissue 4 involved,thatdoesnotnecessarilymeanthecaseiscertworthy.See > belowfordiscussionofwhatmakesaparticularcasemoreorlesscert H worthy.TheFirstDistricttraditionallyhasreferencedtheguidelinefor R PetitionsforReview(10hours)asgenerallyappropriateforcertiorari \ petitions,thoughofcourseaswithanyguidelinetheremaybespecific f reasonsforexceedingorgoingbelowtheguideline.Pleasenote:Oncea p modelpetitionisavailable,panelattorneysareexpectednottoreinvent z thewheelwitheachnewpetitionandconsiderabletimeshouldbesaved   bybasingyourpetitiononthemodelpleading.3g]]݌ (#(# Ќ    &   IV.  TriageofCasesPostBlack   $cIndecidingwhethertofurtherpursueaBlakelyclaim,particularlywhendeciding  '3cwhethertofileacertioraripetition,severalconsiderationsareatplayandsome   triageofcasesshouldbedone.Beforediscussingthosefactors,acoupleof   generalpointsareinorder.Agrantofcertiorariisfarfromcertainforanyof  & thesecases,evenBlackitself.TheSupremeCourtmaynotbeanxioustoaddress  0 thisareaagaininthewakeofBlakelyandBooker,particularlybecausethereare  :  Blakelychallengescomingupfromanumberofstates.Also,becauseof D  impending90daydeadlines,certioraripetitionsinsomecaseswouldhavetobe N  filedbeforethecertioraripetitioninBlackitself. X  Characteristicsofideal_Blakely_/Blackcasestobringtothesupremecourt: l ! ! &(Ky3"3"  3qh2K3  0    UpperTermIssuesOnly.Idealcaseswouldbethosepresentingtheupper 0 termissue,involvingcurrentcaseconductfactors(notcoveredbyany : separatejuryfindingoradmissionbythedefendant),andinwhichthe D Blakelyclaimwasrejectedpurelyonthemerits,withoutwaiverorharmless N errorcomplexities.(Theconsecutivesentenceissueismuchless X compelling,particularlybecauseitisnotnearlyasdirectlycontrolledby b Blakely.)3qhh݌l(#(# Ќ  "3"  3ik2K3  0    AvoidRecidivismComplication.Thecaseshouldnotinvolverecidivist t factors.(Whileitwouldntbesurprisingtoseeacertiorarigrantinacase ~ presentingachallengetoAlmendarezTorres,casespresentingthe  complexityofcombiningbothachallengetoBlackandachallengeto   AlmendarezTorresmaynotbeagoodvehicleforthecourttoresolvethese ! issues).3ikk݌"(#(# Ќ  "3"  3 n2K3  0    ErrorNotHarmless.Thecaseswarrantingacertioraripetitionshouldnot $  haveprejudiceproblems,andespeciallyavoidcasesinwhichthecourtof %!  appealalternativelyaffirmedonthebasisofafailuretoshowprejudice.3 n9n݌&"!(#(# Ќ  "3"  3o2K3  0    LowPriorityforShortSentenceCases.Theclientshouldhaveenoughtime (2$# leftonhisorhersentencesuchthatreversalbytheU.S.SupremeCourt )<%$ wouldhaveameaningfulimpactonthelengthofincarceration.Ifthe *F&% CourtactuallygrantedreviewofaBlackBlakelycase,theveryearliestthe ,P'& courtwoulddosowouldbeSeptemberandadecisiononthemeritswould  notrealisticallycomebeforenextSpring.Eventhenfurtherstatecourt   proceedingscouldfollowbeforeanactualresentencing.Whiletheissueis  notmootforthosewhowillbereleasedbeforereviewbytheU.S.Supreme  Court,suchcasesarenotascompellingvehiclesforcertioraripetitions.