WPC9 vi\=´&Y),Ji]a-Z@2.i\XXrLm[-\SD\gh\W r6爓ߓuqGzna֘zE\J hW?KTM*XF(ȁ>QɁÅUʧe>toǮS.0q(ZʗUn)l>IЅҞc"g>fv24@#fmʸ߯]/dm.Mg# eLoT̄|JE<6ĐGAip 5 J4Nz P!Lq](0ـPBiRSBUv2u,ewI9ABzRl.0h}Yt8MVU h ;JQ4A~eɏ(c~@Q~z3\ZU>* 0 0 0 0 0v 0d 0O 0: 0" 0 0 0! 0" 0# 0b$ 0;% 0& 0& 0' 0( 0) 0]* 08+ 0, 0, 0- 0. 0m/ 00 00 0u:1 0<1 0|1 0<g2 0Y2 0_2 0[3 0:3 0 n4 0B4 0O4 0n5 0 4I6 0<}6 0~6 077UD8 0<9 0 M9 0"9 0 s: 0+; 0; << 0= 1e|> 7> 0>3? (R? 0z?7? 2?7@ 0J@7z@U .@ $@=A 0@AEpA "A4A * B 5B (QB 6yB B .B:B &7C "]CDC C (C "D5'D "\D0~D D "D6D "E8@E xE 4E,E $E1F GF BcF 0CFLF $J/3J bJ "|J/J "J-J K 6K PK jK K &K/K  K5LU2HL "zL2L :L"M $*MNM $jMM 8M!M (N?+N  jN 0N &NN NO 0)O 0YO 0O 0O OP 0S ,S='T .dT3T &T 0T 0U 0KUA{U (U $U4V . .Footer  >4X` hp x >:8Page Number< :Footnote TexXXX<:Footnote Ref8kn 6Block Text X X   /%` ` ` hp x/     2( ` hp x 2XXX6 4Body Text XXX .,term1 64pmterms31 0'' .Style1XXX< :Body Text I1Y1"`,Century SchoolbookY X 2(` ` ` hp x 2  2( ` hp x 2XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS"`,Century Schoolbook64pmterms21 :'' 8Body Text 2     XXX :22 8Body Text 3    XXX<>> :Body Text In X     XXX X :4'8TOA Heading d XXX<MJ:Table of Aut 8  5+ ` hp x 5  2( ` hp x 2 8    :֊)..      NXN XXNXXN XXNXN   '!  X!  '  (2֊$ L:f!..      NXN XXNXXN XXNXN    35;AGMSY_1A.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.; i.>___ Cal.App.4th ___4 )Peoplev.Vaugn(2004)___Cal.App.4th______ Cal.App.4th ___A122 Cal.App.4th 4194 -Peoplev.George(2004)122Cal.App.4th419C121 Cal.App.4th 15514 -Peoplev.Ochoa(2004)121Cal.App.4th1551E122 Cal.App.4th 2064 -Peoplev.Sample(2004)122Cal.App.4th206 $VerdanaH9 Cal.4th 3314 3AnalogizingtoPeoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331J98 Cal.App.4th 10564 ;Peoplev.Marchland(2002)98Cal.App.4th1056,1060-1061L530 U.S. 4664 *Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466121 Cal.App.4th 15519 Cal.4th 33198 Cal.App.4th 1056QPENAL CODE section 2907 PenalCodesection290S42 Cal.App.4th 4614 0Peoplev.Brown(1996)42Cal.App.4th461,47142 Cal.App.4th 461V376 F.3d 9674 :UnitedStatesv.Adeline(9thCir.2004)376F.3d967,974376 F.3d 967122 Cal.App.4th 206Z535 U.S. 6254 +UnitedStatesv.Cotton(2002)535U.S.625\CRIMPROC 5210 &FederalRulesofCriminalProcedure52CRIMPROC 52_520 U.S. 4614 ,Johnsonv.UnitedStates(1997)520U.S.461a507 U.S. 7254 .UnitedStatesv.Loan(1993)507U.S.725,731520 U.S. 461dCA PENAL section 12597 "CaliforniaPenalCodesection1259f5 Cal.4th 5804 'Peoplev.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th5805 Cal.4th 580 d($     B L:f!..      NXN XXNXXN XXNXN   <( ` hp x X<)x XXN     )  *    1  *JL  ݀~ xTotheextentthatPeoplev.Saundersholdsthatadefendanthasno  constitutionalrightthatthereisnoSixthAmendmentrighttojurysentencing,  Mr.BlackassertsthatsuchaconclusionisquestionablefollowingtheUnited  StatesSupremeCourtsdecisioninBlakely.XN X~l54 Cal.2d 4424 %Peoplev.Holmes(1960)54Cal.2d442535 U.S. 625o497 U.S. 6394 %Waltonv.Arizona(1990)497U.S.639q536 U.S. 5844 #Ringv.Arizona(2002)536U.S.584530 U.S. 466523 U.S. 257523 U.S. 257536 U.S. 584536 U.S. 584x124 S.Ct. 25314 %Blakely,supra,124S.Ct.2531,2537z477 U.S. 794 +McMillanv.Pennsylvania(1986)477U.S.79%2A`Helvetica}526 U.S. 2274 (Jonesv.UnitedStates(1999)526US227PENAL CODE section 288.57 PenalCodesection288.5PA ADC 27613 Pen.Code276PA ADC 117013 Pen.Code1170PENAL CODE section 11707 PenalCodesection1170933 Cal.4th 3354 5Nolanv.CityofAnaheim(2004)933Cal.4th335,340933 Cal.4th 335PENAL CODE section 1170PA ADC 117013 Pen.Code1170SB 427 SenateBill42PENAL CODE section 1170PENAL CODE section 1170PENAL CODE section 1170PENAL CODE section 1170PA ADC 1170  L:f!..      NXN XXNXXN XXNXN   9% ` hp xX9)x XXN     )  *    2  *GL  ݀~ xAsenactedin1977,PenalCodesection1170B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(a)(2)statedin  pertinentpart, 8thecourtshallapplythesentencingrulesoftheJudicial  Council8Subdivision(b)statesinpart,8thecourtshallorderimposition  ofthemiddleterm,unlesstherearecircumstancesinaggravationormitigation  ofthecrime.XN X~PENAL CODE section 1170167 Cal.App.3d 724 3NeitherPeoplev.Thornton(1985)167Cal.App.3d72148 Cal.App.3d 6994 )Peoplev.Myers(1983)148Cal.App.3d699148 Cal.App.3d 699PENAL CODE section 1170PENAL CODE section 1170122 Cal.App.4th 6144 7Peoplev.Lemus(2004)122Cal.App.4th614,619-620122 Cal.App.4th 41916 Cal.4th 904 *Peoplev.Ledesma(1997)16Cal.4th90,95145 Cal.App.2d 7674 APeoplev.MunicipalCourt(Lozano)(1956)145Cal.App.2d767,775PENAL CODE section 1170PENAL CODE section 1170NJ ST 2C:39-4a7 N.J.Stat.Ann.2C:39-4aNJ ST 2C:39-4a526 U.S. 22710 Cal.App.3d 5134 .Peoplev.Powell(1980)10Cal.App.3d513,518152 Cal.App.3d 9004 +Peoplev.Reeder,152Cal.App.3d900,918154 Cal.App.3d 11324 9Peoplev.Hetherington(1984)154Cal.App.3d1132,11431 PENAL CODE section 6697 1.PenalCodesection669152 Cal.App.3d 900195 Cal.App.3d 13474 *Peoplev.Lepe(1987)195Cal.App.3d1347PENAL CODE section 6697 PenalCodesection66961 Cal.App.2d 1774 +Peoplev.Radovich(1943)61Cal.App.2d177PENAL CODE section 669 M L!  /% ` hp x/  *      *  ݀S\  `&Times New RomanSPenalCodesection669  ,subdivision(a)statesinpart: Whenanypersonisconvictedof%  %  twoormorecrimes,whetherinthesameproceedingorcourtorindifferentproceedingsorcourts,andwhetherbyjudgmentrenderedbythesamejudgeorbydifferentjudges,thesecondorothersubsequentjudgmentuponwhichsentenceisorderedtobeexecutedshalldirectwhetherthetermsofimprisonmentoranyofthemtowhichheorsheissentencedshallrunconcurrentlyorconsecutively..... Uponthefailureofthecourttodeterminehowthetermsofimprisonmentonthesecondorsubsequentjudgmentshallrun,thetermofimprisonmentonthesecondorsubsequentjudgmentshall%  %  runconcurrently.. (Emphasisadded.))    )  S\  `&Times New RomanSXXXS\  `&Times New RomanSPENAL CODE section 669SearchTermSDU_3401 U.S. 8084 (Rewisv.UnitedStates401U.S.808,81242 Cal.3d 8914 *Peoplev.Overstreet(1986)42Cal.3d891%2A`Arial42 Cal.3d 891_Hlt86031956_Hlt86031957495 U.S. 4114 +Hugheyv.UnitedStates(1990)495U.S.411447 U.S. 3814 1Bifulcov.UnitedStates(1980)447U.S.381,387PENAL CODE section 669p. 34 - 35 PENAL CODE section 11707 $p.34-35.)PenalCodesection1170196 Cal.App.3d 3804 0Peoplev.Jackson(1987)196Cal.App.3d380,388128 Cal.App.3d 754 -Peoplev.Peters(1982)128Cal.App.3d75,82128 Cal.App.3d 75PA ADC 1170.313 Pen.Code1170.330 Cal.3d 7054 %Peoplev.Wright(1982)30Cal.3d70530 Cal.3d 70530 Cal.3d 705PENAL CODE section 1170186 Cal.App.2d 4884 0Cohenv.Herbert(1960)186Cal.App.2d488,49352 Cal.App.2d 1844 0Gossmanv.Gossman(1942)52Cal.App.2d184,195PENAL CODE section 669536 U.S. 5454 0Harrisv.UnitedStates(2002)536U.S.545,566477 U.S. 79536 U.S. 545124 S.Ct. 253110 Cal.App.3d 513523 U.S. 2244 6Almendarez-Torresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224 35;AGMSY_21.a.i.1.a.i.1.a. i.523 U.S. 224523 U.S. 224523 U.S. 224523 U.S. 224530 U.S. 46691 Cal.App.4th 2124 *Peoplev.Thomas(2001)91Cal.App.4th212PENAL CODE section 667.57 PenalCodesection667.591 Cal.App.4th 21291 Cal.App.4th 212523 U.S. 224526 U.S. 227526 U.S. 227526 U.S. 227348 F.3d 12734 EUnitedStatesv.Venegas-Ornelas(10thCir.2003)348F.3d1273,1274259 F.3d 11404 >UnitedStatesv.TrinidadAquino(9thCir.2001)259F.3d1140 ] L:f!..      NXN XXNXXN XXNXN   9% ` hp xX9)x XXN   )  *    3  *;L  ݀~ xThesameistrueofthemisdemeanorconvictions,whichincludedburglary  andtheftinasinglecase.(CT401.)XN X~213 Cal.App.3d 10914 +Peoplev.Searle(1989)213Cal.App.3d1091226 Cal.App.3d 6694 2Peoplev.Fernandez(1990)226Cal.App.3d669,681226 Cal.App.3d 669PENAL CODE section 667.617 PenalCodesection667.6127 Cal.4th 7354 ,Peoplev.Mancebo(2002)27Cal.4th735,742226 Cal.App.3d 66926 Cal.4th 3164 -Peoplev.Sengpadychith(2001)26Cal.4th316282 F.3d 6644 JUnitedStatesv.Sanchez-Cervantes(9thCir.2002)282F.3d664,668-671CTA9 2002 PA ADC 186.2213 Pen.Code186.22 46 Cal.2d 8184 cPeoplev.Watson(1954)46Cal.2d818,836.(Id.,atp.325;Peoplev.Wims(1995)10Cal.4th818.)386 U.S. 184 ,Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,2426 Cal.4th 2974 ,Peoplev.Collins(2001)26Cal.4th297,311508 U.S. 2754 [Sullivan,supra,508U.S.275,278-282[113S.Ct.2078,2081-2083,124L.Ed.2d182].)n526 Cal.4th 29718 Cal.4th 4704 %Peoplev.Flood(1998)18Cal.4th4704 Cal.4th 12334 .Peoplev.Cummings(1993)4Cal.4th1233,131518 Cal.4th 470478 U.S. 5704 IRosev.Clark(1986)478U.S.570,577-578[106S.Ct.3101,3105-31064 Cal.4th 1233146 Cal.App.3d 7294 0Peoplev.Young(1983)146Cal.App.3d729,734%2A`Arial!128 Cal.App.3d 1034 /Peoplev.Moreno(1982)128Cal.App.3d103,110#PA ADC 28813 Pen.Code288PENAL CODE section 288.5&PA ADC 288.513 Pen.Code288.5122 Cal.App.4th 419122 Cal.App.4th 419PENAL CODE section 1170  L:f!..      NXN XXNXXN XXNXN   9% ` hp xX9)x XXN     )  *  ~ ,x  4  *GL  ݀ Thepowersofstategovernmentarelegislative,executive,andjudicial.  Personschargedwiththeexerciseofonepowermaynotexerciseeitherofthe  othersexceptaspermittedbythisConstitution.(Cal.Const.,art.III,3.)  XN X~,18 Cal.2d 834 (Parkerv.Riley(1941)18Cal.2d83,89.13 Cal.4th 4974 6Peoplev.SuperiorCourt,(Romero)13Cal.4th497,51602 Cal.3d 6194 2Keelerv.SuperiorCourt(1970)2Cal.3d619,6312117 Cal.App.4th 9314 0InreJorgeG.(2004)117Cal.App.4th931,941411 Cal.4th 6074 ?Koppv.FairPol.PracticesCom.(1995)11Cal.4th607,660-661PENAL CODE section 1170PA ADC 1170PENAL CODE section 1170933 Cal.3d 1894 (InrePipinos(1982)33Cal.3d189,19833 Cal.3d 189<33 Cal.3d 4914 $Peoplev.Roder(1983)33Cal.3d49133 Cal.3d 49133 Cal.3d 491  L:f!..      NXN XXNXXN XXNXN   <( ` hp x X<)x XXN   )  *    5  *>L  ݀~ xInRoder,asecondhanddealerwaspresumedtohaveknownpropertywas  stolenwhenhepurchaseditifhefailedtomakeareasonableinquiry  regardingtheoriginofthepropertywhencircumstancesdemandedthathe  didso.XN X~PENAL CODE section 1170B3 Cal.3d 2264 #InreKing(1970)3Cal.3d226,237D28 Cal.2d 5364 CDanskinv.SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDist.(1946)28Cal.2d536,555(2R=$ L:f!..      NXN XXNXXN XXNXN   N XXXN   0  G4($G7G10G13#|x(:f$..      NXN XXNXXN XXNXN __NTFDAP_Jomo/LAPTOP-FDAP/Session 43,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularNX3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Si)U12 41ebsite"U L:f!..      NXN XXNXXN XXNXN   _       8XX8N XXdd89#~XXN      #e  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA#e݌  Ќ  XN X~  ~XXN  <(  hp x X<PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA,No.126182  E( ` hp x  X E `     h      p CourtofAppealNo. F     `     h      p F042592   ?(  hp x X ?   PlaintiffandRespondent,   p TulareCounty x  F         h      p No.79557 x  E( ` hp x  X Evs. q    KEVINMICHAELBLACK, c   `  DefendantandAppellant. U  _______________________________________/ N  ~~      &    REPLYBRIEFONTHEMERITS.  Ԍ @ Ќ  ~~   XN X~'@"!      &  !  ARGUMENT!\  8Ԍ o Ќ      'PI. ; ~XXN     &  #   THESIXTHANDFOURTEENTHAMENDMENTS# y   U Ԍ  ЌXN X~  TOTHEUNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTION'm   REQUIRETHEJURYTOFINDBEYONDA  REASONABLEDOUBTFACTSTHATARE | USEDEITHERTOAGGRAVATEA b DEFENDANTSSENTENCEORIMPOSE H CONSECUTIVESENTENCES .~  ; (03S""  ,B+4 44` hp x X B  X,  B%` ` hp x 444` X B&  ~XXN   2  A  .3   `   Mr.BlackHasNotForfeitedOrWaivedHisClaims  ݌  J Ќ X$ X ` ` X $   '    ` WithoutcitinganyCaliforniacasethatholdsotherwise(seee.g. "<  Peoplev.Vaugn(2004)___Cal.App.4th___B  C   = B  C  ,2004Cal.App.LEXIS1673, $. " filedOctober5,2004;Peoplev.Butler(2004)___Cal.App.4th___B  C   ? B  C  ,2004 & "$ Cal.App.LEXIS1610,filedSeptember27,2004;Peoplev.Barnes(2004) ($& ___Cal.App.4th___B  C   ? B  C  ,2004Cal.App.LEXIS1601,filedSeptember24, *&( 2004;Peoplev.George(2004)122Cal.App.4th419B  C   @ B  C  ;Peoplev.Ochoa ,'* 8 8 8  (2004)121Cal.App.4th1551B  C   B B  C  ;butseePeoplev.Sample(2004)122Cal.  App.4th206B  C   D B  C  ,contra),F~ ~F respondentclaimsthatMr.Blackhasforfeitedhis  claimspursuanttoBlakelyv.Washington(2004)124S.Ct.2531[ Blakely]  byfailingtoraisethembelow.(RB11!16.)Infact,thecasescitedby   respondentareinappositeandforfeituredoesnotapplyinthissituation.   9" ` Up x X 9 ` AnalogizingtoPeoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331B  C   G B  C  Ԁinwhichthe   defendantfailedtoobjecttoaflawedstatementofreasonsandPeoplev. z  Marchland(2002)98Cal.App.4th1056,1060!1061B  C   I B  C  Ԁinwhichthe l  defendantfailedtoobjecttoanApprendierror(Apprendiv.NewJersey ^ (2000)530U.S.466B  C   K B  C  Ԁ[ Apprendi]),respondentarguesthatBlakelyerrors P areforfeitedaswellabsentatimelyobjection.Theseargumentshavebeen B raisedandsoundedrejected.(Seee.g.Peoplev.Ochoa(2004)121Cal. 4 App.4th1551B  C   M B  C  .[ Ochoa].) &v H( ` hp x ` UX H ` TheobjectofthewaiverrulesetforthinPeoplev.Scott,supra,9 h Cal.4th331B  C   N B  C  Ԁisthepromptdetectionandcorrectionoftheerrorinthetrial  Z court.(Id.,atp.351B  C   N B  C  .)InOchoa,Blakelywasdecidedaftertheappellate !L casewasfullybriefed.(Ochoa,supra,atp.1564B  C   M B  C  .)TheAttorneyGeneral #>  raisedtheScottwaiverruleandarguedthatOchoawaivedtheBlakelyissue %0!" onappealbyfailingtoraiseitinthetrialcourt.(Id.,atpp.1564B  C   M B  C  Ԁ!1565.) '"#$ TheOchoacourtrecognizedthatpriortoBlakely,bothCaliforniaand )%& federalCourtshadconsistentlyheldthattherewasnoconstitutionalrightto +'( ajurytrialonconsecutivesentences.(SeeId.,atp.1565B  C   M B  C  Ԁandthecasescites -(* therein.)Therefore,thecourtreasonedthatachallengetotheimpositionof  consecutivesentenceswouldnothaveachievedtherationaleofthewaiver  rulessetforthinPeoplev.Scott,supra,9Cal.4th331B  C   N B  C  Ԁandheldthatwaiver  doctrinedidnotapply.(Peoplev.Ochoa,supra,atp.1565B  C   M B  C  .)    ` Likewise,inPeoplev.Barnes,supra,___Cal.App.4th___B  C   ? B  C  ,2004Cal. x  App.LEXIS1601[ Barnes],theAttorneyGeneralcriedforfeitureand j  waiverwhenaBlakelyclaimwasfirstraisedduringtheappellate \  proceeding.(Id.,atpp.*34!35.)Nonetheless,theBarnescourtheld, The N  holdingofBlakelywassufficientlyunforeseeablethatwefindnoforfeiture @ duetodefendant'sfailuretoobjectatsentencing.(Barnesatp.*41.) 2 Furthermore,inrejectingaforfeiturechallenge,theBarnescourt $t distinguishedPeoplev.Marchland,supra,98Cal.App.4th1056B  C   O B  C  .In f Marchland,thedefendantfirstassertedonappealthatrequiringhimto X registerasasexoffenderunderPenalCodesection290B  C   P B  C  ,subdivision J (a)(2)(E)violatedhisrighttodueprocessunderApprendibecausethe < predicatefactwasnotallegedintheinformationorfoundtohavebeen !. provenbeyondareasonabledoubt.AlthoughtheMarchlandcourt #   concludedthatthewaiverdoctrineapplied,itexerciseditsdiscretionto %!" addresstheclaimsonthemeritsbecausetheypresentedimportantquestions '#$ ofconstitutionallaw.(Marchlandatp.1061;seePeoplev.Brown(1996) )$& 42Cal.App.4th461,471B  C   R B  C  .)Itdidnotaddresstheargumentassertedbothin +&( Barnesandinthepresentcase,thatitwouldhavebeenfutiletoobject -(* underApprendi.(Peoplev.Barnes,supraB  C   T B  C  ,2004Cal.App.LEXIS1601at  p.*37,n.8.)   ` TheNinthCircuithasalsopermittedaBlakelychallengethatwas  firstraisedonappeal.(UnitedStatesv.Adeline(9thCir.2004)376F.3d967,   974B  C   U B  C  .)NotingthatBlakelysclarificationofadefendantsSixthAmendment x  rightsworkeda seaofchangeinthebodyofsentencinglaw,theAdeline j  courtconcludedthatprecedentprovidedamplesupportfortheirauthorityto \  considertheclaimsuasponte.(Ibid.B  C   W B  C  ) N   ` Mr.BlackrecognizesthattheThirdDistrictCourtofAppealheld @ otherwiseinPeoplev.Sample,supra,122Cal.App.4th206B  C   X B  C  .TheSample 2 courtrelieduponUnitedStatesv.Cotton(2002)535U.S.625B  C   Y B  C  Ԁandheldthat $t aclaimofBlakelyerrorwasforfeitedduetothedefendantsfailureto f objecttotheerroneoussentenceinthetrialcourt.(Peoplev.Sample,supra, X 122Cal.App.4th206,217!218B  C   X B  C  .)InUnitedStatesv.Cotton,thedefendant J arguedforthefirsttimeonappealthatx ~F|(  xtF F|(~Fheirsentenceswereinvalidunder < Apprendi,becausetheissueofdrugquantitywasneitherallegedinthe !. indictmentnorsubmittedtothepetitjury.(Id.atpp.628B  C   X B  C  Ԁ!629.)The #   UnitedStatesSupremeCourtreviewedtheomissionundertheFederal %!" RulesofCriminalProcedure52B  C   [ B  C  Ԁ(b),(18U.S.C.52(b)),whichrequiresthe '#$ appellanttoshowinpartthattheforfeitederrorseriouslyaffectsthe )$& fairness,integrityorpublicreputationofjudicialproceedings.(Id.,atp. +&( 631B  C   ] B  C  .)ThecourtconcludedthattheApprendierrordidnotseriouslyaffect -(* thejudicialproceedinganddeniedrelief.(Id.,atpp.632B  C   ] B  C  Ԁ!634.)The  holdinginCottonisinapplicabletothepresentcase.First,asrespondent  acknowledges,theFederalRulesofCriminalProceduredonotgovernState  claims.(RBatp.13,fn2.)InCotton,thecourtreliedonJohnsonv.United   States(1997)520U.S.461B  C   ^ B  C  ԀandUnitedStatesv.Loan(1993)507U.S.725, x  731B  C   ` B  C  x ~F|(  x,F F|(~Fforthepropositionthatthatthedefendanthadtomeettherequirements j  ofRule52(b)becausetheerrorwasnotraisedinthetrialcourt.However, \  Johnsonexplicitlydistinguishedcasesarisingfromdirectappealsof N  judgmentsofconvictioninthefederalsystemtowhichRule52(b)applied @ fromStatecasesthatconsiderthewaiverorforfeitureundertheirownrules. 2 (Johnson,supra,atp.466B  C   b B  C  .)Accordingly,theSamplecourtsrelianceon $t UnitedStatesv.Cottonismisplaced. f  ` InCaliforniaPenalCodesection1259B  C   c B  C  Ԁcontrolsandstatesinpertinent X part: J +~~ X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  +M8  Uponanappealtakenbythedefendant,theappellatecourt < may,withoutexceptionhavingbeentakeninthetrialcourt,  5 reviewanyquestionoflawinvolvedinanyruling,order, !. instruction,orthingwhatsoeversaidordoneatthetrialor "' priortoorafterjudgment,whichthingwassaidordoneafter #   objectionmadeinandconsideredbythelowercourt,and $ ! whichaffectedthesubstantialrightsofthedefendant8+M88݌ %!" Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'~~  X X<%` ` ` hp xX <h l<`  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB ` InPeoplev.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580B  C   e B  C  ,thisCourtheldthatthe '#$ waiverdoctrineappliedwhenadefendantsrighttoajurytrialwas )$&  conferredbystatute,butnotwhenitwasguaranteedbyconstitution.(Id.,at +&( p.589n.5B  C   g B  C  .)*  j i  1     *v>],  ݀Similarly,inPeoplev.Holmes(1960)54Cal.2d442B  C   k B  C  ,this   Courtconcludedthatadefendantswaiverofhisrighttoajurytrialcould  notbeimpliedfromhisconduct.InBlakely,theUnitedStatesSupreme  CourtconfirmedthatadefendantsrighttoajurytrialwastheSixth   Amendment. x   ` Finally,neitherUnitedStatesv.Cotton,supra,535U.S.625B  C   m B  C  Ԁnor j  Peoplev.Sample,supra,122Cal.App.4th206B  C   X B  C  ԀconsideredMr.Blacks \  claimthatunderthecircumstances,anobjectionwouldhavebeenfutile. N   ` Insum,thevastmajorityofCaliforniacasesdecidedafterBlakely, @ haverebuffedtheargumentsprofferedbytheAttorneyGeneralonwaiver 2 andforfeitureandhavedecidedthecasesonthemerits.ThisCourtshould $t declinetofollowPeoplev.Samplebecauseitreliedontheplainerror f standard,whichdoesnotapplytoCaliforniacases.Becausethedenialofa X jurytrialaffectedMr.Blackssubstantial(andconstitutional)rights,this J Courtshoulddecidethisissueonthemerits. < ""  ,B+4 44` hp x X B  X,  B%` ` hp x 444` X B E2  B  .3   `   BlakelyAppliesToAggravatedSentencesBecauseTheJury !. VerdictAloneOnlyPermitsTheCourtToImposeTheMidtermEF݌ "' Ќ X$ X ` ` X $   XN X~ ,~XXN    ,G  ,GG݌̌XN X~  ,~XXN      ,0H   ` InhisOpeningBrief,Mr.Blackassertedthathecouldnotbe $ ! sentencedtotheaggravatedtermonthebasisoffactorsthathedidnot %!" admitandthatwerenotsubmittedtothejuryandfoundtruebeyonda & "#  reasonabledoubt.,0HyH݌ '#$ ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,#J   ` Inresponse,respondentclaimsthatinCaliforniatheuppertermis   thelegislativelymandatedmaximumrangepermittedbythejuryverdict  aloneandtherefore,thecourthadthediscretiontouseextrinsicfactorsto  sentenceappellanttotheuppertermwhich merelyinformandguidethe  courtsdiscretionwithinthestatutoryrange.(Ans.atpp.28!29.)  Respondentcontendsthat1)unlikeApprendi,inwhichthehatecrime   sentencewassetforthinaseparatestatute,inCaliforniathe relevant   sentencingrangeformostfeloniesandnumerousenhancementsconsistsof   threepossibletermsofimprisonment8thatarespecifiedbythesamecode x  sectionorsetofcodesectionsthatenumeratetheoffense(Ans.atpp.17! q   18);2)thatinCalifornia,adefendantchargedwithaspecificoffensehas j  noticeofthesentencingrangefortheparticularoffenseandhasarighttoa c  jurydeterminationoffactssubjectinghimtothatsentencingrange(Ans.at \  p.21;3)thatinCaliforniathefactsonwhichatrialcourtreliesinimposing U  theaggravatedtermaresentencingfactorsratherthanelementsofthe N  offense.(Ans.atp.21.),#J`J݌ G ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,P   ` TheseargumentswereadvancedinWaltonv.Arizona(1990)497 @ U.S.639B  C   n B  C  ԀandlaterrejectedwhenWaltonwasoverruledbyRingv.Arizona 9 (2002)536U.S.584B  C   p B  C  .InRing,thedefendantwasconvictedoffirstdegree 2 felonymurderthatoccurredinthecommissionofarobbery.Arizona +{ RevisedStatutessection131105,subdivision(A)(2)definesfirstdegree $t murderasonethatoccursinthecommissionofarobbery,while m subdivision(C)declares, Firstdegreemurderisaclass1felonyandis f punishablebydeathorlifeimprisonmentasprovidedby703and13 _ 703.01.Thisstatute,liketheCaliforniacriminalstatutesthatspecify X punishment,givesadefendantnoticeofthemaximumpunishmenttowhich Q heispotentiallysubjected,inthatcase,death.,PP݌ J ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,U   ` TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtattemptedtoreconcileitsholding C inApprendiwiththatofWalton.Itstated,asrespondentargueshere, once < ajuryhasfoundthedefendantguiltyofalltheelementsofanoffensewhich  5 carriesasitsmaximumpenaltythesentenceofdeath,itmaybelefttothe !. judgetodecidewhetherthatmaximumpenalty,ratherthanalesserone, "' oughttobeimposed.(Apprendi,supra,530U.S.466,497B  C   r B  C  Ԁciting #   AllendaleTorres,523U.S.at257,n.2B  C   s B  C  Ԁ(SCALIAJ.,dissenting;emphasis $ ! deleted).TheApprendidissentcounteredthatthisstatementwasuntrue %!" becausewithoutafindingofthestatutoryfactorsthatpermittheimposition & "# ofthedeathpenalty,themaximumpenaltytowhichthedefendantcouldbe '#$ subjectedwaslifeimprisonment.(Id.atp.537B  C   t B  C  Ԁ[opinionofOCONNOR, (#% J.].),UU݌ )$& ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,@[   ` InRing,theCourtheldthatWaltoncouldnolongerbereconciled *%' withApprendi. [O]urSixthAmendmentjurisprudencecannotbehometo +&( both.(Ring,supra,536U.S.584,609B  C   u B  C  .)TheHighCourtoverruledWalton ,')  totheextentthatitallowsasentencingjudge,sittingwithoutajury,tofind -(* anaggravatingcircumstancenecessaryforimpositionofthedeathpenalty.  (Ibid.B  C   v B  C  ),@[}[݌  ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,y^   ` TheBlakelyCourtcitedtheirrulinginRingwithapprovalasthey  reaffirmedthat:,y^^݌  ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    X X<%` ` ` hp xX <,_  therelevant"statutorymaximum"isnotthemaximum  sentenceajudgemayimposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,   butthemaximumhemayimposewithoutanyadditional   findings.Whenajudgeinflictspunishmentthatthejury's   verdictalonedoesnotallow,thejuryhasnotfoundallthe x  facts"whichthelawmakesessentialtothepunishment," q   Bishop,supra,87,at55,andthejudgeexceedshisproper j  authority.,_D`݌ c  ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,b  ,b5c݌̌XN X~  ,~XXN    X?% ` hp x` ` ` Xx?,c  (Blakely,supra,124S.Ct.2531,2537B  C   w B  C  .),c%d݌ U  ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,e  ,e@e݌̌XN X~  ,~XXN    X,e   ` Respondentsattemptstodistinguishthesentencingschemein G BlakelyfromCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingSchememustfail.As @ RingandBlakelyteachus,itissimplyirrelevantwhetherthesentencing 9 provisionsaresetoutinonestatuteortwo.,ee݌ 2 ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,g   ` Respondentarguesthattheaggravatingfactorsusedtoimposethe +{ aggravatedtermarenotthefunctionalequivalentofagreateroffenseand $t therefore,thejuryverdictaloneauthorizestheimpositionoftheupperterm. m (Ans.atp.29.)Mr.BlackrecognizesthatpriortoitsdecisioninBlakely, f theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthadmadethisdistinction.(Seee.g. _ McMillanv.Pennsylvania(1986)477U.S.79B  C   y B  C  Ԁ[visiblepossessionofa X firearmwasasentencingfactor];Jonesv.UnitedStatesx ~{Ƚ x {{Ƚ~{ (1999)526US227B  C   | B  C   Q [seriousbodilyinjuryprovisionofthefederalcarjackingstatutewasan J elementoftheoffenseandsubjecttotheFifthandSixthAmendments].) C Nonetheless,followingBlakelysdeterminationthatthemaximumtermis < definedasthatwhichajudgemayimposesolelyonthebasisoffacts  5 reflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant,thisdistinctionis !. muchlessimportant. ,gh݌ "' ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    , n   ` Moreover,inmanysituationsCalifornialawdoesnotdistinguish #   betweensentencingfactorsandelementsofoffenses.Forexample,although $ ! PenalCodesection288.5B  C   ~ B  C  ,thestatutethatdefinesthecontinuousabuseofa %!" child,doesnotspecificallyincludeinitsprovisionsanincreasedtermbased & "# uponafactorthatcouldalsobeusedtoimposetheaggravatedterm,other '#$ statutesdo.Severalstatutesrelatingtosexcrimessubjectadefendanttoan (#% increasedtermifthecriminaloffensesareaccomplishedbyviolenceorthe )$& threatofbodilyinjury.(Seee.g.Pen.Code276B  C    B  C  ,subd.(c)(2)[sodomy]; *%' 288a,subd.(c)(3)[oralcopulation].)Yet,violenceandthethreatofgreat +&( bodilyharmareaggravatingfactorswithinthemeaningofCaliforniaRules ,') ofCourt,rule4.421,subdivision(a)(1).InCalifornia,anydistinction -(* betweenaggravatingcircumstancesandthefactorsthatarethefunctional  elementofagreateroffensehavebeenblurredifnoteliminated.To  determinethestatutorymaximum,itisnecessarytofollowBlakelys  mandatesratherthanattemptingtomakemeaninglessdistinctionsbetween  elementsandsentencingfactors., nHn݌  ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,t   ` Respondentalsosuggeststhattheimpositionofthemidtermisnot   thepresumptiveterm,butratherthedefaulttermifthecourtfindsno   aggravatingormitigatingfactors.(Ans.atp.28.)Boththeexpresslanguage   ofthestatute thecourtshallorderimpositionofthemiddleterm,unless x  therearecircumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime(Pen. q   Code1170B  C    B  C  ,subd.(b))andtheLegislativehistorytoPenalCodesection j  1170B  C    B  C  Ԁrefutethiscontention.Therulesofstatutoryconstructionarewell c  established.Whenthelanguageofthestatuteisclear,thisCourtneedgono \  furthertoascertainlegislativeintent.(Nolanv.CityofAnaheim(2004)933 U  Cal.4th335,340B  C    B  C  .)Thestatuteusestheword shall.TheMerriamWebster N  OnlineDictionarydefines shallas: b 򀄄 usedinlaws,regulations,or G directivestoexpresswhatismandatory(www.mw.com.)Accordingly,itisreasonabletoinferfromthe 9 expresslanguageofthestatutethattheLegislatureintendedthemidtermto 2 bethepresumptivesentence.,t*u݌ +{ ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,{   ` Ifthereisanyambiguityinthestatute,theLegislativehistorymay $t properlyshedlightonthelegislativeintent.(Nolanv.CityofAnaheim, m supra,933Cal.4th335,340B  C    B  C  .)PenalCodesection1170B  C    B  C  Ԁbecameoperative f onJuly1,1977.(Pen.Code1170B  C    B  C  ,MatthewBender1978Ed.)OnApril _ 18,1977,thedistrictattorneysubmitteddraftamendmentstoAssemblyman X KennethL.MaddyandsuggestedmodificationstothelanguageofSenate Q Bill42B  C    B  C  ,theprecursortoPenalCodesection1170B  C    B  C  .Thedistrictattorney J notedthatthelanguageofPenalCodesection1170B  C    B  C  Ԁprovidedboththat the C court shall imposethemiddletermofimprisonmentand shallapply <  thesentencingrulesoftheJudicialCouncil.(LettertoKennethL.Maddy  5 dated4/18/77atp.4;emphasisadded.)Theyexplained:,{|݌ !. ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    X X<%` ` ` hp xXx<,ˁ  Themiddletermshouldbeviewedasthenorm,butnotmade "' mandatory8Thecourtshouldtakeintoconsideration(rather #   than shallapply)thesentencingrulesoftheJudicial $ ! Councilasguidelinesfortheexerciseofsuchdiscretion.,ˁ`݌ %!" ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,  ,E݌̌XN X~  ,~XXN    X  ?% ` hp x` ` ` Xx?,  (Id.atpp.4B  C    B  C  Ԁ!5.),A݌ '#$ ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,   , J݌̌XN X~  ,~XXN    X  ,   ` Thiscorrespondencerevealsthatboththedistrictattorneyandthe )$& LegislatureunderstoodatthetimethatPenalCodesection1170B  C    B  C  Ԁwas *%' enactedthatthemidtermwasthemandatorysentencewithoutafindingof +&(  additionalfactors.Yet,theLegislaturedeclinedtofollowthedistrict ,') attorneyssuggestionsandenactedthelawusingthemandatorylanguage.  (Pen.Code1170B  C    B  C  ,MatthewBender1978Ed.)*   i  2     *   XN X~ ,݌   XN XXXN   ,~XXN    ,   ` NeitherPeoplev.Thornton(1985)167Cal.App.3d72B  C    B  C  ԀnorPeoplev.  Myers(1983)148Cal.App.3d699B  C    B  C  ,onwhichrespondentreliessupport  respondentsposition.InThornton,thequestionwaswhetheratrialcourt  couldimposeatermotherthanthosesetforthbystatutebystayinga   portionofthebasetermandtheappellatecourtheldthatitcouldnot.In   Myers,thecourtheldthatthetrialcourthadmistakenlydeterminedthatit   wasrequiredtoimposeanaggravatedtermifitfoundthatthefactorsin x  aggravationoutweighedthefactorsinmitigation.Infact,thecourtwas q   authorizedtoimposethemidtermevenifthefactorsinaggravation j  predominated.(Id.,atp.704B  C    B  C  .),݌ c  ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,   ` Contrarytorespondentsclaimthatthemidtermisonesetbydefault \  intheabsenceofaggravatingormitigatingcircumstances,bothMyersand U  Thorntonrecognizethatthecourthasthediscretiontosentenceadefendant N  tothemidtermevenifaggravatingfactorsarepresent.Asthelanguageof G PenalCodesection1170B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(b)states: 8thecourtshallorder @ impositionofthemiddleterm,unlesstherearecircumstancesin 9 aggravationormitigationofthecrime.(Ibid.B  C    B  C  ),ݏ݌ 2 ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,F   ` Mr.BlacknotesthatallbutoneCourtofAppealcasethathas +{ consideredtheBlakelyproblemonthemeritsasitrelatestoaggravated $t termshasheldthatthemidtermwasthegreatestsentenceauthorizedbyjury m findingsalone.(Seee.g.Peoplev.Jones(2004)2004Cal.App.LEXIS f 1731at*4,filedOct.18,2004;Peoplev.Butler,supra,___Cal.App.4th _ ___B  C   ? B  C  ,2004Cal.App.LEXIS1610at*1314;Peoplev.Lemus(2004)122 X Cal.App.4th614,619!620B  C    B  C  ;Peoplev.George(2004)x ~F|(  x F F|(~F 122Cal.App.4th Q 419B  C    B  C  .)Inthesplitdecision,theFourthDistrictCourtofAppeal,Division J Oneheldthatthemidtermisnotthepresumptiveterm.(Peoplev.Wagener C (2004)2004Cal.App.LEXIS1760atp.*15.)However,themajorityrelied < onPeoplev.Ledesma(1997)16Cal.4th90,95B  C    B  C  Ԁforthepropositionthat  5  shalldoesnotmeansomethingthatismandatory.InLedesma,however, !. thisCourtdecidedthat maywasmandatoryratherthanpermissiveinthe "' contextofthefirearmenhancementstatute;itdidnotdefine shall.(See #   Peoplev.MunicipalCourt(Lozano)(1956)145Cal.App.2d767,775B  C    B  C  Ԁ[in $ ! mostcasesshallismandatory].)Asappellanthasexplained,boththeclear %!" meaningofPenalCodesection1170B  C    B  C  Ԁanditslegislativehistoryrevealthat & "# theLegislatureintended shalltobeamandatoryact.,F݌ '#$ ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,~   ` LikethesentencingschemeatissueinBlakely,Californias  DeterminateSentencingSchemeimproperlypermitstheimpositionofan  aggravatedtermbasedonfactorsthatwereneversubmittedtothejuryor  foundtruebeyondareasonabledoubtinviolationofacriminaldefendants  rightstodueprocessandtrialbyjury.,~݌  ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,ߞ   ` C.BlakelyAppliesToConsecutiveSentences,ߞ݌   ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,ӟ   ` Respondentcontendsthatconsecutivesentencesdonotimplicate   Blakely.(Ans.atp.30.)RespondentnotesthatneitherApprendinor   Blakelyexplicitlydiscussedconsecutivesentencing.Mr.Blackagrees.In x  Blakely,thedefendantstipulatedtoacountofdomesticviolencethatwas q   runconcurrentlyandaccordingly,theCourtfoundthattheconcurrentcount j  wasnotrelevanttoitsanalysis.(Id.,atp.2535,fn.2B  C    B  C  .)InApprendi,the c  defendantpleadedguiltytotwocountsofseconddegreepossessionofa \  firearmforanunlawfulpurpose,(N.J.Stat.Ann.2C:394aB  C    B  C  ),andone U  countofthethirddegreeoffenseofunlawfulpossessionofan N  antipersonnelbomb,(2C:393a)andtheprosecutordismissedthe G remaining20counts.Thecourtsentencedthedefendantto12yearson @ count18andimposedconcurrenttermsontheothertwocountsof 9 conviction.(Id.,atp.469B  C    B  C  Ԁ!470.)Likewise,theconcurrentcountswerenot 2 relevanttotheCourtsholding.Nonetheless,theprinciplesgleanedfrom +{ Blakely,ApprendiandJonesv.UnitedStates,supra,526U.S.227B  C    B  C  ,leadto $t theinescapableconclusionthatthejurymustfindfactorsthatpermit m consecutivetermsbeyondareasonabledoubt.,ӟ݌ f ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,   ` Furthermore,Apprendididapplytoasentenceenhancement.In _ California,consecutivesentencingis anenhancement andtheimposition X ofconsecutivetermsisasentencechoicethatrequiresastatementof Q reasons.(Peoplev.Powell(1980)10Cal.App.3d513,518B  C    B  C  ;Peoplev. J Reeder,152Cal.App.3d900,918B  C    B  C  ;Peoplev.Hetherington(1984)154Cal. C App.3d1132,1143B  C    B  C  ;Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.406,subd.(b)(5).)Likethe < enhancementdiscussedinApprendi,theimpositionofconsecutiveterms  5 subjectsacriminaldefendanttoincreasedprisontime.,ϧ݌ !. ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,ѫ   ` 1.PenalCodesection669B  C    B  C  ԀPresumesConcurrentSentencing,ѫ݌ "' ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,   ` First,thepresumptiveterminCaliforniaisconcurrentsentencing. #   (Pen.Code669.)Peoplev.Reeder,supra,152Cal.App.3d900B  C    B  C  ,Peoplev. $ ! Lepe(1987)195Cal.App.3d1347B  C    B  C  ԀandPeoplev.Sample,supra,122Cal. %!" App.4th206B  C   X B  C  Ԁonwhichrespondentrelies,donotconsiderthelegislative & "# historyofPenalCodesection669B  C    B  C  ԀasevidenceofaLegislativeintentto '#$ chooseconcurrentsentencingasthepresumptiveterm.(SeePeoplev. (#% Radovich(1943)61Cal.App.2d177B  C    B  C  .)Respondenthasnotaddressedthe )$& issueeither.,D݌ *%' ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,{   ` Furthermore,thelanguageofPenalCodesection669B  C    B  *  ݍ    ׎*D   C  XN X~ ,which +&( presumesconcurrentsentencingabsentadeterminationbythecourttothe ,') contraryindicatesthattheLegislatureintendedastatutorypresumptionfor w-(* concurrentsentences.IfthisCourtfindsthatthestatuteissilentor  ambiguousastotheLegislativeintentthanitmustapplytheruleoflenity,  which~XXN  providesthat"ambiguityconcerningtheambitof-   criminalstatutes-     | shouldberesolvedinthefavorof-   lenityx ~ .-F   ~ x"(Rewisv.UnitedStates401U.S. u 808,812B  C    B  C  .)InPeoplev.Overstreet(1986)42Cal.3d891B  C    B  C  ,ƒ~AƒԀA~thisCourt n explained:,{݌ g  ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    X X<%` ` ` hp xXx<,  Whenlanguagewhichissusceptibleoftwoconstructionsis `  usedinapenallaw,thepolicyofthisstateistoconstruethe Y  statuteasfavorablytothedefendantasitslanguageandthe R  circumstanceofitsapplicationreasonablypermit.The K   defendantisentitledtothebenefitofeveryreasonabledoubt D  astothetrueinterpretationofwordsortheconstructionofa =  statute.(Citesomitted.),H݌ 6  ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,ú  ,ú݌̌XN X~  ,~XXN    X  ?% ` hp x` ` ` Xx?,f  (Id.,atp.896B  C    B  C  .),f݌ (x  ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,¼  ,¼݌̌XN X~  ,~XXN    X  ,e   ` Therulehasbeenextendedtoencompassthepenaltiesimposedby j -   criminalstatutes.-?    ݀(SeeHugheyv.UnitedStates(1990%  %%  )495U.S.411B  C    B  C  ;x ~F|(  x  c F F|(~F Bifulcov.UnitedStates(1980)447U.S.381,387B  C    B  C  .)Mr.Blackassertsthat  \ thestatuteclearlyevidencesthelegislativeintentforconcurrentsentences. U ShouldthisCourtdisagreeandfindthestatutetobesilentorambiguous,it N mustapplytheruleoflenityandconstruethestatuteinfavorofMr.Black.,e݌ G ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,   ` 2.ACourtMayNotImposeConsecutiveSentencesWithoutA,݌ @ ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,   ` FindingofAdditionalFacts,݌ 9 ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,  ,݌̌XN X~  ,~XXN    ,P   ` Contrarytorespondentsclaim,theimpositionofconsecutive + sentencespursuantPenalCodesection669B  C    B  C  Ԁrequiresfactfindingseparate $ fromthosefactsfoundbythejury.(Ans.atp.34!35.)PenalCodesection  1170B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(c)requiresthecourttostatereasonsforimposinga  consecutivetermindeterminatesentencing.(SeealsoPeoplev.Jackson   (1987)196Cal.App.3d380,388B  C    B  C  ;Cal.RulesofCourt,rule406(b)(5).) ! Indeed,thefailureofthetrialcourttodosoisreversibleerror.(Peoplev. " Peters(1982)128Cal.App.3d75,82B  C    B  C  .)Furthermore,anelementofacrime #  maynotbeusedtoimposeconsecutivesentences.(IbidB  C    B  C  ;Cal.Rulesof $! Court,rule4.425(b).),P݌ % " ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,   ` RespondentsuggeststhattheRulesofCourtare merelyguidelines &!# andthatthetrialcourtsneednotstateanyfactinsupportofitsdecisionto '"$ imposeconsecutivesentences.(Ans.atp.35.)Infact,theLegislature (#% directedtheJudicialCounciltoseektopromoteuniformityunderSection )$& 1170byestablishingcriteriafortrialcourtstoconsiderwhendecidingto y*%' imposeconcurrentorconsecutivesentences.(Pen.Code1170.3B  C    B  C  .)Iftrial r+&( courtswerepermittedtocompletelyignoretheRulesofCourtrelatingto k,') thesecriteria,itwouldunderminetheLegislativepurposeinestablishing d-(* determinatesentencing.Althoughrespondentarguesthatsincethe  Legislaturehasnotmadeconsecutivesentencingconditionalonthefinding  ofanyfactbeyondthosereflectedintheconviction,andthereforethe  JudicialCouncilcannotmakesucharequirementonitsown,infact,by  establishingcriteriaastheLegislaturedirected,theRulesofCourtpromote  andareconsistentwiththeLegislativeintentofconformityinsentencing.   InPeoplev.Wright(1982)30Cal.3d705B  C    B  C  ,thiscourtheldthattherewasno   unconstitutionaldelegationofpowerintheLegislature'sdecisiontoassign   theJudicialCouncilthetaskofestablishingcriteriaforimposingtheupper x  andlowerprisontermssystemofdeterminatesentencing.(Id.atpp.713B  C    B  C  Ԁ! q   714.)Asthiscourtstated, standardsforadministrativeapplicationofa j  statuteneednotbeexpresslysetforth;theymaybeimpliedbythestatutory c  purpose.(Id.,atp.713B  C    B  C  .),݌ \  ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,   ` Mr.Blackagreesthatevenwiththelimitationsofrule4.425(b),a U  trialcourthaswidediscretiononthefactorsthatitcanusetojustifythe N  impositionofconsecutiveterms.PenalCodesection1170B  C    B  C  ,subdivision G (a)(3)mandatesthatthecourtapplythesentencingrulesoftheJudicial @ Councilandthoserulespermitthecourttousespecifiedfactorsrelatingthe 9 crimesandanyfactorinaggravationormitigationsetforthinstatuesorin 2 theRulesofCourt.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rules4.421&4.425(a).) +{ Nonetheless,toadoptthepositionsuggestedbyrespondentthatacourt $t mightexerciseitsdiscretionandimposeconsecutivesentencingwithouta m findingoffact(Ans.atp.34)wouldvesttrialcourtswiththeunfettered f discretiontoenhanceadefendantstermbysentencinghimconsecutively _ foranimproperreasonorfornoreasonatallandthedefendantwouldhave X norecourse.Ithaslongbeenheldthatatrialcourtsdiscretionmustbe Q exercised inconformitywiththespiritofthelawandinamannerto J subserveandnottoimpedeordefeattheendsofsubstantialjustice. C (Cohenv.Herbert(1960)186Cal.App.2d488,493B  C    B  C  ԀquotingGossmanv. < Gossman(1942)52Cal.App.2d184,195B  C    B  C  .), ݌  5 ЌXN X~  ,~XXN    ,A   ` Insum,thedictatesofBlakelyandApprendiapplytoconsecutive !. sentencing.ConcurrentsentencingispresumedinCaliforniaasevidenced "' bythelanguageandlegislativehistoryofPenalCodesection669B  C    B  C  .The #   Legislatureproperlydelegatedthetaskofdeterminingcriteriaforcourtsto $ ! considerwhenmakingthedecisionofwhethertosentenceadefendantto %!" consecutiveorconcurrentterms.Becauseanelementofacrimemaynotbe & "# usedtoimposeconsecutivesentences,thecourtmustlooktofactsother '#$ thanthosedeterminedbythejurybeyondareasonabledoubtinorderto (#% imposeaconsecutivesentence.Assuch,consecutivesentencingin )$& CaliforniaviolatesDueProcessandadefendantsrighttoajurytrialasset *%' forthinApprendiandBlakely.,A~݌ +&(  XN X~  ,~XXN    ,  D . BlakelyAppliestoTheStackingofIndeterminateTerms,V݌ ,') ЌXN X~  XRespondentarguesthatBlakelydoesnotapplytoconsecutivesentencing   ofindeterminatetermsbecausewhenadefendantissentencedtoalifetermon  onecount,consecutivesentencingonanyothercountwillnecessarilyfallwithin | themaximumtermoflife.(Ans.atp.37.)Respondentcontinuesthataspractical b matter,aggregationoflifetermsonlyincreasestheparoleineligibilitydateforthe H defendantandisthereforeanalogoustothepermissibleuseofsentencingfactors . ~ toraisethemandatoryminimumsentence.(Harrisv.UnitedStates(2002)536  d U.S.545,566B  C    B  C  Ԁ(pluralityopinion);McMillanv.Pennsylvania(1986)477U.S.79,  J 82B  C    B  C  .)Mr.BlackhasdiscussedbothHarrisandMcMillanishisOpeningBriefat  0 pages17!18and21andwontrepeatthatdiscussion.However,Mr.Blacknotes    thatHarrislimitedMcMillanto tocasesthatdonotinvolvetheimpositionofa    sentencemoreseverethanthestatutorymaximum...(Harris,supra,atp.563B  C    B  C  .)In   Blakely,thecourtclarifieditsdefinitionofstatutorymaximumasthemaximuma x  courtmayimposewithoutanyadditionalfindingsoffact.(Blakely,supra,124S. ^  Ct.2531,2537B  C    B  C  .)AsexplainedintheOpeningBrief,underBlakelysdefinitionthe D  aggregatepunishmentorsentencingrangefortwolifetermsisnecessarilygreater *z  thanforone;consecutivesentencingisanenhancement.(Peoplev.Powell,supra, ` 10Cal.App.3d513,518B  C    B  C  .)Moreover,thosesentencedtolifetermsshouldnothave F toforfeittheir5th,6thand14thAmendmentprotections.Accordingly,theBlakely , rulesmustapplytoindeterminateaswellasdeterminateterms.   E. NeitherARecidivistFindingNorTheMultipleVictimO O xFindingJustifiedTheTrialCourtsImpositionofThe   ` AggravatedTermAndConsecutiveSentencingInMr.Blacks=xCase   `  X ` ShouldthisCourtholdthatBlakelyappliestotheimpositionofaggravated @ orconsecutiveterms,respondentclaimsthatthetrialcourtcouldproperlyrelyon  \ thefactthatMr.Blackspriorconvictionswerenumerousorofincreasing ( seriousnesstoimposetheaggravatedterm.Respondentclaimsthatthisfactor  fallswithintherecidivismexceptionofAlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates p!  (1998)523U.S.224B  C    B  C  .Respondentalsoarguesthatthemultiplevictimexception <#" wassufficienttoimposeconsecutivesentences.(Ans.atp.40.)Asexplained %X $ below,Mr.Blackdisagrees. &$"&   (#(   (00; / /""  ,B+4 44` hp x XxB   ,?" hp x 444` X ?~XXN  2  1  .3     ItIsDoubtfulWhetherTheHoldinginAlmendarezTorres | AppliesToABlakelyMatter݌ u Ќ $ Xx  X $   $ ` Xx$  ` Contrarytorespondentsposition,itisdoubtfulthattheholdingin g  AlmendarezTorresappliesintheBlakelyorApprendicontext.Inhis Y  OpeningBrief,Mr.BlacknotedthatinAlmendarezTorres,theCourthad K   noreasontodecidewhetherornotapriorconvictionwassubjecttoajury =  trialorproofbeyondareasonabledoubtbecausethedefendantpleaded /  guiltytothreepriorconvictionsforaggravatedfelonies.(Id.atp.227B  C    B  C  .)The !q Courtexpresslyleftforanotherdaywhetheraheightenedstandardofproof c appliedtopriorconvictionswhenitincreasedthelengthofadefendants U sentence.(Id.B  C    B  C  Ԁatpp.247248B  C    B  C  .) G ?( ` hp x ` p?Ӏ ` GiventhecourtssubsequentholdingsinApprendisandBlakely, 9 neitherofwhichdealtwiththerecidivismproblem,itappearsthatthe + problemofthestandardofproofofapriorconvictionhasnotyetreached  theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.Accordingly,thisCourtisnotboundby   theholdinginAlmendarezTorresandmayproperlyfindthatrecidivist " factorsmustbefoundbyajurybehindareasonabledoubt. $!   ` Furthermore,appellantquestionswhethertheUnitedStatesSupreme &!# CourtwilloverruleAlmendarezTorreswhentheyhaveanopportunityto (#% dosobecauseitholdingappearstobeinconsistentwiththatofBlakelyand y*%' Apprendi.Mr.BlacknotesthatinApprendi,thecourtrecognizedthat k,') AlmendarezTorreswas an exceptionaldeparture fromthehistoric  practicethatwehavedescribed.(Id.B  C    B  C  Ԁatp.487;emphasisadded.)The  Courtwentontosay:   X X<%` ` ` hp xX <EventhoughitisarguablethatAlmendarezTorreswas   incorrectlydecided,n15andthatalogicalapplicationofour   reasoningtodayshouldapplyiftherecidivistissuewere x  contested,Apprendisdoesnotcontestthedecision'svalidity q   andweneednotrevisititforpurposesofourdecisiontoday j  totreatthecaseasanarrowexceptiontothegeneralrulewe c  recalledattheoutset.Givenitsuniquefacts,itsurelydoesnot \  warrantrejectionoftheotherwiseuniformcourseofdecision U  duringtheentirehistoryofourjurisprudence. N   X?% ` hp x` ` ` Xx?(Apprendi,supra,530U.S.466,489!490B  C    B  C  .) @  X ` Furthermore,Mr.BlacknotesthatotherthanJusticeThomas,the +{ justiceswritingforthemajorityinAlmendarezTorreswerethedissenters m inApprendiandBlakely.IfAlmendarezTorreswasdecidedtoday,itis _ doubtfulwhetheritwouldstand.Becauseofitsquestionableviabilityand Q becausetheSupremeCourtneverdecidedifandwhenproofofaprior C convictionmustbemustbyajuryunderaheightenedburdenofproof,  5 AlmendarezTorresshouldhavelittleimpactontheissuesbeforethisCourt "' andshouldbegivenanarrowreading. $ !   & "#   ` 2. WhetherPriorConvictionsAreNumerousOrOfxxAx   `    Increasing  SeriousnessIsPurelyAMatterThat   `     h AlmendarezTorresDoesNotAddress    ` RatherthanacknowledgingthedeathknellofAlmendarezTorres,  respondentseekstobroadenitsscopetoincludenotonlythefactofthe   priorconvictionbutalsootherfactsinvolvingrecidivism.(Ans.atp.41.) x  ThisiscontrarytotheholdingofAlmendarezTorresandsubsequentcases j  thatreferonlyto thefactofapriorconviction. \   ` Insupportofhisargument,respondentcitesPeoplev.Thomas N  (2001)91Cal.App.4th212B  C    B  C  .TheThomascourtconsideredtheeffectofthe @ defendantsfailuretopersonallywaiveajurytrialonthepriorprisonterm 2 allegations.ThomasarguedthatPenalCodesection667.5B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(b) $t requirednotonlythefactoftheprisonconviction,butalsotheadditional f elementofwhetherhehadservedaprisontermandtherefore,Apprendi X requiredajurytrialontheadditionalelements. J  ` TheSecondDistrictCourtofAppeal,DivisionFivedisagreedand < concludedthatApprendi"otherthanthefactofapriorconviction," !. languagerefersbroadlytorecidivismenhancementswhichincludesection #   667.5priorprisontermallegations.(Peoplev.Thomas,supra,91 %!" Cal.App.4th212,223B  C    B  C  .)TheThomasCourt(andrespondent)relied,inpart, '#$ onthefactthatinAlmendarezTorres,thepriorconvictionshadelements )$& apartfromthemerefactofapriorconviction;theyhadtobeaggravated +&( felonies.(Ibid.B  C    B  C  ;Ans.atp.41.)Theproblemwiththisreasoningisthatin -(* AlmendarezTorresthedefendantadmittedthathispriorswereaggravated  feloniesandtherefore,therewasnothingforthejurytodecide.  (AlmendarezTorres,supra,523U.S.224,227B  C    B  C  .)   ` ThisbroadreadingofAlmendarezTorresisnotwarranted.First,   AlmendarezTorreswasnotaSixthAmendmentcase.Rather,itdealtwith x  theindictmentandnotice.InUnitedStatesv.Jones,supra,526U.S.227B  C    B  C  , j  theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtwasaskedtodecidewhetherthe \  subsectionsoffederalcarjackingstatute,whichprovidedforincreased N  penaltiesifthecrimeresultedingreatbodilyinjuryordeath,wereelements @ oftheoffenseorsentencingfactors.Indecidingthatthestatute 2 encompassedelementsoftheoffensethatmustbesubmittedtothejuryand $t provenbeyondareasonabledoubt,theCourtnotedthattheholdingof f AlmendarezTorreswasnotdispositiveinpart becauseweareconcerned X withtherighttojurytrialandnotalonetherightstoindictmentand J notice8(Jones,supra,526U.S.227,248!249B  C    B  C  .)Furthermore,theJones < Courtrecognizedthattworeasonsthatapriorconvictionwas !. constitutionallydistinguishablefromotherfactsthatincreasedsentencing #   rangeswasthatithadbeentraditionallyusedasasentencingfactorand %!" because, 8apriorconvictionmustitselfhavebeenestablishedthrough '#$ proceduressatisfyingthefairnotice,reasonabledoubt,andjurytrial )$&  guarantees.(Id.,atp.249B  C    B  C  .)Whilethesefactorsapplytothefactofaprior +&( conviction,theyarenotpresentinregardtothewiderangeof recidivistic  factorsastheThomasCourtandrespondentsuggest.      ` Recently,inPeoplev.Jaffe(2004)___Cal.App.4th___B  C   ? B  C  ,2004  Cal.App.4thLEXIS1711,filedOctober13,2004,theSixthDistrictCourtof   Appealrefusedtoextendthescopeofthefactofapriorconviction.The x  JaffeCourtstatedthatitdidnot perceivethephrasethefactofaprior j  convictiontohaveabroadmeaningincludingallrecidivistcircumstances. \  (Id.atp.*51.)AlthoughtheJaffecourtstatedthatevidenceofaprior N  convictiontogetherwithanabstractofjudgmentshowingapriorprison @ termwassufficientproof,itdidnotconsiderwhetherthejuryhadthe 2 responsibilityofmakingthatdeterminationonproofbeyondareasonable $t doubt.(Id.atp.*52.) f  ` InMr.Blackssituation,thepotentialaggravatingfactorthathis X convictionswerenumerousorofincreasingseriousnesswasafactualrather J thanalegaldeterminationthatajurywasperfectlycapableofundertaking. < Incontrast,respondentreliesoncasesthatrequireajudicialdetermination !. ofwhetherastateconvictionsatisfiesthefederaldefinitionofa crimeof #   violence.(UnitedStatesv.VenegasOrnelas(10thCir.2003)348F.3d %!" 1273,1274B  C    B  C  ;UnitedStatesv.TrinidadAquino(9thCir.2001)259F.3d1140B  C    B  C  ; '#$ 1144!1145.) )$&  ` Respondentcontendsthatthecourtmustuseasimilaranalysisin +&( determiningwhetherthepriorconvictionsarenumerousorofincreasing -(* seriousness.(Ans.atpp.44!45.)Mr.Blackassumesthejurorscancount  andarecapableofdeterminingwhetherornothisconvictionsareof  increasingseriousness.Mr.Blackspriorcriminalhistoryisfairly  insignificant.Itappearsthatin1992hewasconvictedofthreetheftrelated   misdemeanorsandin1996,hewasconvictedoftwotheftrelatedfelonies! x  commercialburglaryandgrandtheftinasinglecase.(CT387;401.)The j  recorddoesnotindicatewhetherMr.Blackcommittedburglaryforthe \  purposeofthetheft.*   i  3     *ulw  ݀Between1996and2002,Mr.Blackremainedcrime N  freeoutsideofafewtrafficviolations.(CT401.) @  ` RespondentcitesPeoplev.Searle(1989)213Cal.App.3d1091B  C    B  C  Ԁand 2 Peoplev.Fernandez(1990)226Cal.App.3d669,681B  C    B  C  Ԁfortheproposition $t thatthreeconvictionsare numerouswhiletwoconvictionsarenot.(Ans. f atp.45.)TheSealeCourtssole legalanalysisofwhetherthree X convictionswerenumerouswasthestatement, 8webelievethatthree J convictionsare"numerous"withinthemeaningofrule421(b)(2).(Id.,at < p.1098B  C    B  C  .)Inthepresentcase,itislikelythatseveralofMr.Blacks !. convictionswerepartofasingletransactionandshouldnotbetreated #   separatelyinordertoqualifyunderthiscriterion.Hadevidenceregarding %!" theseconvictionsbeenproperlypresentedtothejury,itislikelythatthey '#$ wouldhavefoundthatMr.Blackspriorrecordwasnotnumerous. )$&  ` Mr.Blackquestionstheproprietyofthe increasinglyseriousness  allegation,whichpunisheshimforhavingaminimalpriorrecord.For  example,ifMr.Blackhadbeenconvictedinthepastoftwocountsof  murder,hewouldnotbesubjecttoanenhancedsentenceunderCalifornia   RulesofCourt,rule4.421,subdivision(b)(2).Nonetheless,contraryto x  respondentsassertion,nothinginAlmendarezTorresencompassedthis j  factorwithinthe factofapriorconvictionlanguage.Thisisafactthat \  Blakelyrequirestobesubmittedtothejuryandprovenbeyondareasonable N  doubt. @ ""  ,B+4 44` hp x XxB   ,E( ` . hp x 444` X E (2  2  .3   .   AJuryFindingOnMultipleVictimsDidNotDiminishThe 2 SixthAmendmentProblem()݌ +{ Ќ * Xx ` . X *   B+ ` . hp x XxB,~~  H( ` hp x ` . X H,M+   ` Thejuryfoundthatforeachcountappellanthadcommitteda m violationoflewdandlasciviousactsagainstmorethanonevictimwithin _ themeaningofPenalCodesection667.61B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(b)(7)and1203.66, Q subdivision(a)(7).Asrespondentnotes,thecourtlaterstruckthesection C 667.61allegationastocountone.(Ans.atp.45,fn.10;CT436.),M++݌  5 Ќ~~  ,~~  ,W.   ` Nonetheless,respondentclaimsthatthejuryfindingalonepermitted "' thecourttoimposeconsecutivesentencesoncounttwoandthreeandthe $ ! recidivistfactoroncountoneauthorizedthecourttoimposetheaggravated & "# termoncountone.(Ans.atpp.47!48.),W..݌ (#% Ќ~~  ,~~  ,d0   ` Mr.Blackdisagrees.Ashepreviouslyexplainedthe recidivist *%' factorfelloutsidethescopeofthepriorconvictionexception,ifoneexists, ,') andthereforethecourtwasnotauthorizedtouseit.Furthermore,asset  forthintheOpeningBrief,thecourtwasnotauthorizedtousethemultiple  victimexceptiononcountstwoandthreebecauseitutilizeditforanother  purpose.Inthepresentcase,thecourthadtheopportunitytoeitherusethe   multiplevictimfactortosentenceappellanttoconsecutivesentences or to x  sentenceappellantasaonestrikeoffender.Becausethetrialcourtchoseto j  sentenceMr.BlackpursuanttotheOneStrikeLaw,itwasnotauthorizedto \  usethatfactortoimposeconsecutivesentences.(Peoplev.Mancebo(2002) N  27Cal.4th735,742B  C    B  C  ;PeoplevFernandez(1990)226Cal.App.3d669B  C    B  C  .) @ Accordingly,respondentsargumentmustfail.,d00݌ 2 Ќ~~  ,~~  ,5  F.TheErrorIsReversiblePerSe,556݌ $t Ќ~~  ,~~   ,6   ` RespondentgivesMr.Blacksargumentthattheerrorisprejudicial f perseshortshrift.RelyingonPeoplev.Sengpadychith(2001)26Cal.4th X 316B  C    B  C  ԀandUnitedStatesv.SanchezCervantes(9thCir.2002)282F.3d664, J 668!671B  C    B  C  ,respondentarguesthatApprendierroristestedunderaChapman < standard,andbecauseBlakelyerrorisanapplicationofApprendis,Blakely !. errorissimilarlysubjecttoaChapmananalysis.(Ans.atp.50.) #   Respondentsargumentinunavailing.,67݌ %!" Ќ~~  ,~~  ,:   ` Unlikethesituationatbar,inPeoplev.Sengpadychith,supraB  C     B  C  ,the '#$ errorwasthetrialcourtsfailuretoinstructthejuryontheprimary )$& activitieselementofthecriminalstreetgangenhancement.(Pen.Code +&( 186.22B  C     B  C  ,subd.(b).)PriortoApprendi,thisCourtheldthattheCalifornia -(* Constitution,ratherthanthefederalConstitution,requiredtheprosecution  toproveallelementsofsentenceenhancementbeyondareasonabledoubt  andtherefore,anyinstructionalfailurehadtobeevaluatedunderthe   reasonablyprobabletestofPeoplev.Watson(1954)46Cal.2d818,836.   (Id.,atp.325;Peoplev.Wims(1995)10Cal.4th818.)B  C     B  C  ԀFollowingApprendi, x  thisCourtdisapprovedWimsandheldthatthefederalharmlesserror j  standardofChapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,24B  C    B  C  Ԁwastheproper \  standard.,::݌ N  Ќ~~  ,~~  ,}@   ` WhileSengpadychithhadajurytrialonallbutoneelementofthe @ gangenhancement,inthepresentcaseMr.Blackdidnothaveajurytrial, 2 withtheconcomitantrightsofconfrontation,thepresentationofevidence $t underthenormalrulesandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtonanyusable f factorthatincreasedhissentencebeyondthestatutorymaximum.,}@@݌ X Ќ~~  ,~~  ,B   ` Acriminaldefendantsrighttoajurytrialisfundamentalunderboth J thefederalandCaliforniaConstitutionsandthedenialofthatrightis < recognizedas structuralerrorandamiscarriageofjusticewithinthe !. meaningofCaliforniaConstitution,articleVI,section13.(Peoplev. #   Collins(2001)26Cal.4th297,311B  C    B  C  .)InCollins,whenthedefendantwas %!" improperlyinducedtowaivehisrighttoajurytrialforanunspecified '#$ benefit,thisCourtthattheerrorwasreversibleperseandexplained:,B