WPC ǭ9&{\.>sv\)PT_j2uaב?wh?#K# l)q`aInd5T*B !d 66xm:aaMǶVɚaL?4QhAQI/)4)+('qW3kĞ}Ixd)oQ? }`=#=D#΁d^GO ձH(҂hC*U&j{Dψ9<=\aW6{rP5>dP=Wh& _5u+pҽAjL5U>$ 0 0uJ 0 0lc 0 0<W 0| 0 0: 00 04 0Y 0<l 0n 0B 0<X 0: 0 0V 0~ is 0 "R4t B 0CU.U* "%-G $tM 0:   0(,T 0d#UN %1M7(;Nc^ ewq4u m\  `&Times New Roman' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA E Kotler0MIS .   64 '4Heading 1       XXX 6! 4Heading 2       67 *4Heading 3       XXX 6 4Heading 4       6) 4Heading 5   XXX <:Default Para.'' ,Title     XXX 0> .Footer  >4X` hp x >:8Page Number8kn 6Block Text X X   /%` ` ` hp x/     2( ` hp x 2XXX.,term1 64Hyperlink    64pmterms21 < :Footnote TexXXX<:Footnote Ref64pmterms31 42Emphasis:'' 8Body Text 2     XXX :4'8TOA Heading d XXX0'' .Style1XXX   )..      +X#-XX+XX#-XX+X#-   !  X!     (2$ )!..      +X#-XX+XX#-XX+X#-  530 U.S. 4664 *Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466 d($      )!..      +X#-XX+XX#-XX+X#-  <( ` hp x X< XX#-        V ,  1  J)  ݀Formersection1170,subdivision(h)statedinpertinentpart:  "Notwithstandinganyotherprovisionoflaw,thecourtmaystrikethe  additionalpunishmentfortheenhancementsprovided"in13ofthe16  enhancementsectionssetforthinsection1170.1,subdivision(d),"ifit  determinesthattherearecircumstancesinmitigationoftheadditional  punishment...."X#-XV $Verdana%2A`Arial"3 Cal.3d 2264 #InreKing(1970)3Cal.3d226,237$28 Cal.2d 5364 CDanskinv.SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDist.(1946)28Cal.2d536,555(2؉$ )!..      +X#-XX+XX#-XX+X#-  #-XXX#-  0  '4($#|x($..      +X#-XX+XX#-XX+X#-\\NTFDAP\Central Office,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular+XzG2 uZm,PagesU )!..      +X#-XX+XX#-XX+X#-  _       XX8#-XXdd8 VXX#-      e  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA e݌  Ќ  X#-XV  VXX#- <(  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  VV      &    APPELLANTSSUPPLEMENTALOPENINGBRIEF+  Ԍ @ Ќ  VV  X#-XV'@      &  '  ARGUMENT'm  IԌ o Ќ      VXX#- 'aVV     &  4   UNITEDSTATESV.BOOKER(2005)4   u Ԍ N Ќ  VV  ___U.S.___,125S.CT738,2005LEXIS'  G 628,REAFFIRMEDTHATTHESIXTH @ AMENDMENTREQUIRESAJURYFINDING 9 ANDPROOFBEYONDOFREASONABLE 2 DOUBTOFFACTSUSEDTOIMPOSEA + SENTENCEBEYONDTHESTATUTORY $ MAXIMUM,BUTTHECOURTSREMEDY  HASNOCONSTITUTIONALSIGNIFICANCE   ASAPPLIEDTOCALIFORNIAS             & y$     DETERMINATESENTENCINGLAW   Ԍ  Ќ   VV      {   A.Introduction{   Ԍ %u ЌVV  VV           ` PursuanttothisCourtsorderofJanuary19,2005,Mr.Black g submitsthissupplementalbriefaddressingtheeffectofUnitedStatesv.  Y Booker[ Booker](2005)___U.S.___,125S.CT738,2005LEXIS628on  K hiscase.TheBookercourtreaffirmedthattheSixthAmendmentappliedto  =  factsusedtoaggravateasentencebeyondthestatutorymaximumas /   definedinApprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466B  C    B  C  Ԁ[ Apprendi]and !  Blakelyv.Washington(2004)___U.S.___,124S.Ct.2531[ Blakely].Ina  separateopinion,theBookercourtdeterminedthatCongresswouldhave  preferredmakingtheFederalSentencingGuidelinesadvisory,thereby  increasingthediscretionofsentencingcourtstosentenceadefendantwithin  thestatutoryrange.  Ԍ  Ќ  VV    X#-XV  ` VXX#-Althoughthissolutionmaybeviablewhenconsidering } Congressionalintent,Mr.Blackassertsthatthesameisnottruein o California.AreviewofthehistoryofCaliforniasindeterminateand a! determinatesentencinglawsrevealsthatbyenactingtheDSL,California S#  intendedtodiminishratherthanexpandthetrialcourtsdiscretioninorder E% " topromoteuniformityinsentencing.'y$  7'"$  ` FurthermoretheDSLdiffersfromtheFederalSentencingGuidelines ))y$& inkeyrespects:1)TheDSLlimitsthetrialcourtschoicetothreespecified +k&( termswhiletheGuidelinespermittedthecourttosentenceadefendant  -](* withinarangeofmonthsoryears;2)Californiasstatutoryscheme  mandatespleadingandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtofmany  sentencingenhancementswhiletheGuidelinesconsideredthoseenhancing  factstobemerelysentencingfactorswhichcouldbedecidedbythecourt   underapreponderancestandard;and3)EvenabsenttheFederalSentencing x  Guidelines,Congresssetforthstatutorystandardsforfederalsentencing(18 j  U.S.C.3553)nosimilarprovisionexistsinCaliforniastatutes. \   ` Thedifferencesintheschemesnecessitatedifferentsolutions. x Mr. N  BlacknotesthatfederaldecisionsinthepostBookerworldhaveadvocated @ differingpositionsonwhatcourtsmustconsideronsentencingcriminal 2 defendants,whatisthemaximumrangeinwhichthecourtispermittedto $t exercisediscretionandtheweighttobegiventothenowdefunct f Guidelines.SuchdisparitycannotfurtherCaliforniasgoalofuniform X sentences.Accordingly,Mr.BlackbelievesthatunlikeBooker,the J CaliforniaLegislaturewouldprefertoinvalidatetheDSLorengrafta < requirementthatthejuryfindaggravatingfactstoPenalCodesections1170 !. and669ratherthanstriketheportionsofPenalCodesection1170and #   maketheRulesofCourtadvisory. %!"  VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` Nonetheless,shouldthisCourtchooseasolutionthataltersthe '#$ statuteinawaythatremovesthenecessityofajuryfindingbeyonda )$& reasonabledoubtonaggravatingfacts,dueprocessrequiresthattheCourts +&( holdingoperateprospectively. ݌ -(* Ќ    $ X X $VV    X#-XVVXX#- B.TheHoldingInBookerandFanfan     ` Bookerwasconvictedofpossessingwithintenttodistributeatleast  50gramsofcrackcocaine.(21U.S.C.841(a)(1).)Thestatutoryrangefor z  thatoffensewas10yearstolife.(21U.S.C.841(a)(1)(iii).)Underthe l  FederalSentencingGuidelineswhichconsideredBookerscriminalhistory ^   andthequantityofdrugsfoundbythejury,thetrialcourtwasrequiredto P  imposeaprisonsentenceof210to262months.However,thecourthelda B  posttrialsentencingproceedingandconcludedbyapreponderanceofthe 4 evidencethatBookerpossessedanadditional566gramsofcocaineandwas &v guiltyofobstructingjustice.Onthebasisofthisadditionalfinding,the h Guidelinesmandatedasentenceof360monthstolife.Thedistrictcourt  Z imposeda30yearsentence. L  ` TheCourtofAppealsfortheSeventhCircuitfoundpursuantto > Apprendi,supra,530U.S.466andBlakely,supra,524U.S.___,124S.Ct. 0 2531,thattheSixthAmendmentprohibitedasentencebeyondthestatutory  " maximumwithoutthenecessaryjuryfindingsandremandedtheactionto " thedistrictcourtwithinstructionstoeithersentenceBookerwithinthe $ ! Guidelinerangesupportedbythejuryfindingsortoholdasentencing &!# hearingbeforeajury. (#%  ` Similarly,inacaseconsolidatedwithBookers,Fanfanwas *%' convictedofconspiracytodistributeandtopossesswithintenttodistribute ~,') 500ormoregramsofcocaine.(21U.S.C.846,841(a)(1)and  841(b)(1)(B)(ii).)Basedonthejuryfindingsalone,Fanfansconviction  supportedasentenceof78months.Againthecourtheldasentencing  hearingandfoundthatFanfanwasresponsibleforagreaterquantityof   drugsandthathewasaleaderinthecriminalenterprise.Thus,Fanfanwas x  subjectedtoaGuidelinessentenceof15!16years.Nonetheless,thetrial j  courtheldthatsuchasentencewasprohibitedbyBlakelyandsentenced \  Fanfantoatermbasedonthejuryfindingsalone. N   ` TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtgrantedcertiorariinbothcasesto @ determinewhetheranenhancedsentenceundertheGuidelinesbasedon 2 factsnotfoundbythejuryviolatedtheSixthAmendmentandifso,whether $t anypartoftheGuidelinescouldbesalvaged.Theopinionproducedtwo f majorityopinionsandfourseparatedissents. X  ` ThefirstmajorityopinionreaffirmedtheHighCourtsopinionsin J ApprendiandBlakelyandfoundthattheyappliedtothefederalsentencing < guidelines.Therefore,theSixthAmendmentguaranteeofatrialbyjuryand !. adefendantsrighttoproofbeyondareasonabledoubt(seeInreWinship #   (1970)397U.S.358,364)prohibitedatrialjudgefromfindingfactsbya %!" preponderanceoftheevidencethatexposedadefendanttoatermlonger '#$ thanthedefinedstatutorymaximumregardlessofwhetheradefendantis )$& sentencedinafederalorstateproceeding.(Booker,supra,atpp.*22,26.) +&( Thecourtheld,however,thatiftheGuidelineswerenotmandatorythey -(* wouldnotoffendtheConstitutionbecauseatrialjudgemayconstitutionally  exercisehisorherdiscretiontosentenceadefendantwithinadefined  range.(Id.,atp.27.)   ` Inthesecondpartoftheopinionadifferentmajoritydeterminedthat   byseveringtwoprovisionsoftheSentencingReformActof1984[ Act] x  thatmadethefederalGuidelinesmandatory,therestofthestatutoryscheme j  couldbepreserved.Specifically,thecourtexcised18U.S.C.3553(b)(1), \  whichmadetheGuidelinesmandatoryand18U.S.C.3742(e),which N  providedforadenovostandardofreview.Asmodified,theGuidelines @ becameadvisoryandtrialcourtsweregivencompletediscretionlimited 2 onlybythestandardof reasonablenesstosentenceadefendantwithin $t thestatutoryrange. f  ` TheSupremeCourtlookedtoCongressionalintenttoanswerthe X remedialquestion:WouldCongresshavepreferredgraftingajurytrial J requirementontothestatutoryscheme,excisingthemandatoryprovisions < oftheActortotallyinvalidatingtheAct?(Booker,supra,atpp.*4849.) !. TheCourtrecognizedthatanyremedywouldfundamentallyalterthe #   systemthatCongressdesigned.(Id.,atpp.*49!50.) %!"  ` Lookingfirsttothepossibilityofaddingarequirementofajurytrial '#$ onsentencingfactstotheAct,theHighCourtdeterminedthatsucha )$& requirementwouldsotransformtheschemethatCongresswouldnothave +&( intendedtheActtostand.TheSupremeCourtfoundthatprovisionsofthe -(* Actthatreferredtocourtsentencingofadefendantcouldbeinterpreted  onlytomeanthejudgealoneandcouldnotbeinterpretedtoincludethe  jury.(Id.,atpp.*54!55.)   ` Second,thecourtdeterminedthatthecongressionalgoalof   diminishingsentencingdisparitycouldbesuccessfulonlyifajudgewas x  permittedtobaseanoffenderspunishmentontherealconductunderlying j  thecrime,andthatCongressintendedthatthetrialjudgeswouldmakethis \  decision.Thiswasespeciallyimportantinthefederalsystem,wherethe N  statutorydefinitionsofcrimesencompassawiderangeofconduct. @  VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <   };  ToengrafttheCourtsconstitutionalrequirementontothe 2 sentencingstatutes,however,woulddestroythesystem.It +{ wouldpreventajudgefromrelyingonapresentencereport $t forfactualinformation,relevanttosentencing,uncovered m afterthetrial.Indoingso,itwould,evencomparedtopre f Guidelinessentencing,weakenthetiebetweenasentenceand _ theoffendersrealconduct.Itwouldtherebyunderminethe X sentencingstatutesbasicaimofensuringsimilarsentences Q forthosewhohavecommittedsimilarcrimesinsimilarways. };-<݌ J Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <   ?   ?V@݌̌ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X?% ` hp x` ` ` Xx? A  (Booker,supra,atpp.*58!59.) AA݌ < Ќ  X  $ X Xx$VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X?% ` hp x` ` ` Xx? B   BC݌̌  X  $ X Xx$VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB {D   ` Third,citingconcernswithpleadingandprovingsentencingfacts !. suchasfirearmuseandgreatbodilyinjury,theCourtthoughtthatgraftinga "' SixthAmendmentrequirementuntothestatutoryschemewouldmakeit #   vastlymorecomplexthanCongressintendedandperhapsunworkable.(Id. $ ! atpp.62!63.) {DwE݌ %!" Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB G   ` Fourth,theCourtopinedthattherequirementofajuryfindingwould & "# diminishatrialcourtsabilitytopromoteuniformityinsentencingby '#$ acceptingorrejectingapleaagreementbecausethesentencingcourtwould (#% nolongerhaveanopportunitytolearnaboutthedefendants realconduct )$& byreadingapresentencereport.(Id.atpp.*65!66.) GH݌ *%' Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB YK   ` Finally,theCourtfoundthatCongresswouldnothaveenacteda +&( systemthatmadeitmoredifficulttoadjustsentencesupwardthantoadjust ,') themdownward.(Id.,atp.*68.)TheCourtbelievedthatCongresswould -(* havepreferredtotalinvalidationoftheAct,ratherthanaddingthe  constitutionalmandateofjuryfindings. YKUL݌  Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB N   ` Next,theSupremeCourtconsideredwhetheritcouldseverthe  offendingportionsoftheAct.TheCourtdeterminedthatmostoftheAct  wasconstitutionalandfunctionedindependentlyeveniftheCourtexcised  themandatoryprovisionsoftheAct.(Booker,supra,atpp.*70!72.)   DeletingtheprovisionoftheActthatsetforththatstandardofreviewwas   notoverlyproblematicbecauseastandardof reasonablenesscouldbe   implied.(Id.,atpp.*73!74.) NO݌ x  Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB R   ` TheCourtrecognizedthatCongressintendedtocreateamandatory q   Guidelinessystem.Butgiventhealternatives,thecourtdeterminedthata j  discretionarysystemmostapproximatedCongressintentandpassedthe c  balltoCongresstoenactanewconstitutionalsystemiftheHighCourts \  holdingwasunacceptable.(Id.,atp.*82.) RS݌ U  Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB VV   ` TheSupremeCourtheldthatBookerssentencewasunconstitutional N  becausethedistrictcourthadimposedasentencehigherthanthatpermitted G byjuryverdictandremandedBookerscaseforresentencing.Since @ Fanfanssentencewasbasedonlyonfactsauthorizedbythejuryverdict, 9 thecourtremandedthatactiontopermiteitherpartytoseekresentencing 2 underthenewadvisorysystem. VVRW݌ +{ Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB Z   ` Inaddition,theCourtheldthattheirdecisionappliedretroactivelyto $t allcasesondirectreview.(Id.atp.*86.) Z[݌ m Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB p\  C.BookerReaffirmsThe6thAmendmentRequirementThatFacts f NecessarytoImposeASentenceInExcessOfTheStatutoryRangeAs p\l]݌ _ Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB ^  DefinedinApprendi,BlakelyAndBookerMustBeFoundByAJury ^_݌ X Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB `  BeyondAReasonableDoubt `a݌ Q Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB b   bc݌̌    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB ^d   ` BynowitisclearthatCaliforniamaynolongertoleratejudicialfact C findingbyapreponderancestandardtosentenceanoffendertoaterm < exceedingthemaximumauthorizedbyapleaofguiltyorbyjuryverdict.  5 (Booker,supra,atpp.45!56.)TheBookerdecisionalsoinvalidatesan !. argumentadvancedbytheAttorneyGeneral(seeAns.atpp.28!29) and "' acceptedbysometrialcourts(seee.g.Peoplev.Picado(2004)123 #   Cal.App.4th1216,1237,depublishedonJanuary19,2005)!thatatrial $ ! courtmayexerciseitsdiscretionandsentenceadefendanttotheupperlimit %!" ofCaliforniastripartitestatutoryrangeidentifiedinthechargingstatute & "# withoutviolatingtheSixthAmendment. ^dZe݌ '#$ Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB i   ` Infact,thetopofthestatutoryrangetowhichBookerwassubjected (#% waslifeimprisonment.(21U.S.C.841(a)(1)(iii).)Yet,theUnitedStates )$& SupremeCourtlookedtothemaximumtermasdefinedbytheSentencing *%' Guidelinesratherthanthestatuteandfoundthatthedistrictcourtssentence +&( violatedtheSixthAmendmentbecauseitwashigherthanthemaximum ,') authorizedbyjuryverdict.(Booker,supra,atp.*85.)Likethesituationin -(* Booker,inCaliforniathechargingstatutedoesnotcontrol.Rather,onemust  looktoPenalCodesections1170,subdivision(b)and669,andtheRulesof  CourttodeterminewhatthestatutorymaximumisforApprendiandBlakely  purposes. ij݌  Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB o  D.FollowingApprendi,BlakelyandBooker,ThisCourtMustInvalidate  TheDeterminateSentencingLawOrBringItIntoConstitutional   Compliance o p݌   Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB q   qr݌̌    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB ;s   ` Mr.BlackhasmaintainedthatunderCaliforniasDeterminate x  SentencingLaw[ DSL],hewassubjectedtotheuseofunconstitutional q   factfindingwhenhewassentencedtobothanaggravatedandconsecutive j  term.AssumingthatthisCourtsoholds,itwillbenecessaryfortheCourtto c  determinewhethertheLegislaturewouldpreferthatitinvalidatetheDSLor \  bringitintoconstitutionalcompliance.Toanswerthisquestion,Mr.Black U  firstlookstotheintentoftheCaliforniaLegislaturewhenenactingtheDSL N  andwhytheLegislaturechosetooverhaultheindeterminatesentencing G schemethatprecededit. ;s7t݌ @ Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB x   ` 1.TheIndeterminateSentencingLawOf1917 xy݌ 9 Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB  z   ` Firstenactedin1917,Californiassentencingschemeassetforthin 2 PenalCodesection1168didnotpermitthetrialcourttodeterminetheterm +{ ordurationoftheperiodofimprisonment.(InreLee(1918)177Cal.690, $t 691.)Instead,thatauthorityrestedwiththegoverningboardoftheprison, m whichdeterminedtheprisonerssentencebasedupontheprisonersconduct f andrehabilitativeeffortsandwaslimitedonlybytheminimumand _ maximumtermssetbystatute.(InreLee,supra,177Cal.690,692.)The X purposeoftheindeterminatesentencinglawwastoreformtheoffenderand Q mitigatethepunishmentthatmightotherwisebeimposed.(Ibid.)  z {݌ J Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB %   ` TheLeecourtfoundnoseparationofpowersprobleminpermitting C anadministrativebodytoexecuteasentence.Thejudicialactswere < completewiththepronouncementofjudgment.(Id.,atp.959.) %!݌  5 Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` Undertheindeterminatesentencingscheme,thenatureofthe !. offenderratherthanthenatureoftheoffensewastheprimaryfactorin "' determiningthelengthofasentence.Onceaprisonernolongerpresenteda #   dangertosociety,incarcerationservednopurpose.(ReviewofSelected $ ! 1976CaliforniaLegislation, CriminalProcedure,8PacificLawJournal %!" 282,284285(1977).)Althoughthegoalofprisonerrehabilitationwas & "# theoreticallyviable,itdidntworkwellinpracticebecausetheAdult '#$ Authoritylackedboththeexpertiseandmethodstotreatoffenders.Asa (#% result,thesentencingschemewascharacterizedasarbitrary,excessiveand )$& unfair.(SenateBill42!TheEndOfTheIndeterminateSentence,17Santa *%' ClaraLawRev.133,139(1977).)Inaddition,therewascriticismofthe +&( LegislaturesundirectedanduncheckedgrantofpowertotheAdult ,') Authoritytosetprisonterms.(SenateBill42!TheEndOfThe -(* IndeterminateSentence,17SantaClaraLawRev.133,134,n.6.)Underthis  system, CaliforniahadthelongestaveragesentencesintheUnitedStates  andperhapstheworld.(Id.atp.146.)Furthermore,theprisoners  uncertaintyregardingthelengthofhisincarcerationwasasourceofprison  unrest.(ReviewofSelected1976CaliforniaLegislation, Criminal  Procedure,8PacificLawJournal282,291(1977).) ݌   Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` In1975,thisCourtheldthatasentenceimposedunderthe   indeterminatesentencinglawmustconsiderboththecircumstancesofthe   offenseandoftheoffenderinsettingasentence,andthataprisontermwas x  subjecttothequalificationthatthemaximumsentencecouldnotbe q   disproportionatetotheindividualprisonersoffense.(InreRodriquez j  (1975)14Cal.3d639,652,InreWingo(1975)14Cal.3d169;U.S.Const., c  8thAmend;Cal.Const.,art.I,17.) ݌ \  Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` 2.TheDeterminateSentencingLaw  p  ݌ U  Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` GiventheproblemswiththeIndeterminateSentencingLawandthe N  unsuccessfulattemptoftheAdultAuthoritytopromoteuniformsentences G (seeInreStanley(1976)54Cal.App.3d238,248),theLegislaturewas @ forcedtostepin.TheenactmentoftheDeterminateSentencingLaw 9 [ DSL]in1976rejectedrehabilitationasagoalofimprisonmentand 2 insteadexpresslyfocusedontheobjectivesofpunishmentandthe +{ uniformityofsentences.(Pen.1170,subd.(a).)Furthermore,the $t Legislaturesoughttoachieveuniformitybyspecifyingtheconditionsunder m whichacourtcouldimposeasentence,therebylimitingitsdiscretion.Penal f Codesection1170,subdivision(a)(1)states: ݌ _ Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <     TheLegislaturefindsanddeclaresthatthepurposeof X imprisonmentforcrimeispunishment.Thispurposeisbest Q servedbytermsproportionatetotheseriousnessofthe J offensewithprovisionforuniformityinthesentencesof C offenderscommittingthesameoffenseundersimilar < circumstances.TheLegislaturefurtherfindsanddeclaresthat  5 theeliminationofdisparityandtheprovisionofuniformityof !. sentencescanbestbeachievedbydeterminatesentencesfixed "' bystatuteinproportiontotheseriousnessoftheoffenseas #   determinedbytheLegislaturetobeimposedbythecourt ݌ $ ! Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X  B( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB O   ` withspecifieddiscretion. OW݌ %!" Ќ    $ X X $VV   VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X  B( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB @   @H݌̌    $ X X $VV   l<`  VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` AlthoughinitiallytheDSLsubstantiallyreducedtheminimumand '#$ maximumstatutorytermsascomparedwiththeIndeterminateSentencing (#% Law,since1976theLegislaturehasincreasedthelengthofprisontermsby )$& enactingorincreasingthetermsofanumberofenhancementsoralternative *%' sentencingschemes.(Seee.g.TheThreeStrikesLaw[Pen.Code +&( 1170.12];TheOneStrikeLaw[Pen.Code667.61,subds.(d)&(e)];Pen. ,') Code12022.53[increasedsentenceforuseofafirearminspecified -(* felonies];Pen.Code12022.7[increasedsentenceforinflictinggreat  bodilyinjury].)Inaddition,theLegislaturehascontinuedtorestrictjudicial  discretion.Forexample,in1998theLegislaturerepealedPenalCode  section1170,subdivision(h),whichpermittedthecourttostrikethe  punishmentforcertainlistedenhancements.(Stats.1997,ch.750,9.)     1     reh   V&      &V Thenatrialcourtsdiscretiontostrikesomeenhancementswascompletely   eliminated(seee.g.Peoplev.Thomas(1992)4Cal.4th206[courtmaynot   strikePenalCodesection12022.5sgunuseenhancement]){ V i {  R iV R orlimitedtothe    furtheranceofjusticestandardofPenalCodesection1385(seee.g. x  Peoplev.Meloney(2003)30Cal.4th1145[courtmaystrikeonbail q   enhancementofPenalCodesection12022.1intheinterestofjustice.].)  ݌ j  Ќ    $ X X $VV  X#-XV VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB ,   ` ConsideringthehistoricalperspectiveofCaliforniassentencing c  lawsandtheLegislaturesexpressintent,thisCourtmustnowdetermine \  whichalternativewouldfurthertheLegislativeaimsinenactingand U  subsequentlymodifyingtheDSL. ,(݌ N  Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB (  E.EitherInvalidatingtheLawOrEngraftingTheRequirementofA G JuryDeterminationofAggravatingOrEnhancingFactsWouldBest @ ServeTheLegislativePurposesOfUniformityInSentencingAnd 9 LimitingTheTrialCourtsDiscretion ($݌ 2 Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB     ݌̌    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` InBooker,supra,theHighCourtfoundthatCongresswouldhave $t preferredmakingtheGuidelinesadvisoryratherthancompletely m invalidatingthelaworengraftingarequirementforthejurydetermination f offactsusedtoenhanceasentenceabovethestatutorymaximumasdefined _ byApprendiandBlakely.Nonetheless,nothinginBookerortheconstitution X requiresthisCourttofashionthesamesolutionandthedifferencesbetween Q thefederalandCaliforniasentencingschemenecessitateadifferentresult. J Furthermore,suchafixappearscontrarytoourLegislaturesintenttolimit C theauthorityofthetrialcourttoimposeundefinedsentences. ݌ < Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB Դ   ` First,Mr.Blackassertsthatitwouldnotbeconstitutionally  5 permissibletosubstantiallyrewritePenalCodesection1170,subdivision !. (b)toachievearesultthattheLegislatureneitherintendednoranticipated. "' Anyfixthatwouldreformsection1170,subdivision(b),eitherby #   followingtheBookersleadandmakingtheRulesofCourtadvisoryorby $ ! definingtheuppertermasthestatutorilypermissiblemaximum,would %!" violatetheseparationofpowersdoctrinebecausethisCourtwouldbe & "# legislatingratherthaninterpretingthestatute.(Youngerv.SuperiorCourtof  SacramentoCounty,21Cal.3d102, 117!118; Cal.Const.,art.III,3.) Դе݌  Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` Mr.BlackstandsbythepositionthatheassertedinhisReplyBrief  ontheMerits!thattheLegislaturemustrestructureCaliforniasDSLina  waytorespecttheSixthAmendmentbecausetheprovisionsoftheDSLare  soentwinedthatseveranceofselectedprovisionsoftheDSLwould   underminethepurposeofthestatute.(Seee.g.InreKing(1970)3Cal.3d   226,237B  C   ! B  C  ԀquotingDanskinv.SanDiegoUnifiedSchoolDist.(1946)28   Cal.2d536,555B  C   # B  C  .) Ifeliminationofobjectionablepartsofastatuterequires x  awholesalerewriting,acourt'sattempttodosotransgressesboththe q   legislativeintentandthejudicialfunction.(InreKing,supra,3Cal.3d j  226,237citingVogelv.CountyofLosAngeles(1967)68Cal.2d18,25; c  Peoplev.Stevenson(1962)58Cal.2d794,798;CityofLosAngelesv. \  Lewis(1917)175Cal.777,781.)ShouldthisCourtdisagreethat U  invalidatingtheDSListhepreferredremedy,Mr.Blackassertsthatthe N  Legislaturewouldhavechosentoreformthestatutebyengraftinga G requirementthatthejuryfindfactsnecessarytoimposetheaggravatedand @ consecutivetermsratherthanincreasingjudicialdiscretioninsentencing. 9 (Seee.g.Koppv.FairPol.PracticesCom.(1995)11Cal.4th607,660 2 661.)Mr.Blackreachesthisconclusionbasedon1)theLegislativepurpose +{ inadoptingadeterminatesentencingschemeoveranindeterminateone;2) $t thesubsequentactionsoftheLegislaturelimitingjudicialdiscretionin m sentencing;3)theCaliforniaLegislaturesapparentpreferenceforjuryfact f findingincontrasttothefederalsystem;and4)becauseBookerssolution _ ofmakingtheGuidelinesadvisoryhaveleftfederalcourtsfreetoapplythe X guidelinesinadisparatemanner,therebydilutingtheuniformityinprison Q termsthattheCaliforniaLegislaturesoughttopromote.Finally,someof J theconcernsthattheBookerCourtaddressedinrejectingarequirementof C juryfactfindingaresimplyinapplicabletotheCaliforniasentencing < scheme. ݌  5 Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB ^   ` 1.TheLegislatureSwitchedToADeterminateSentencing SchemeInOrderToLimitTheDiscretionofTheSentencing !.  ` AuthorityAndToPromoteUniformityInSentencing ^Z݌ "' Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ݌̌    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( A hp x ` ` ` XxB    A AsMr.BlackhasdiscussedinsectionD,ante,in1976whenthe $ ! LegislatureenactedtheDSL,itmovedfromarehabilitativemodeltooneof %!" punishmentbutsoughttodecreasesentencesandpromoteuniformityin & "# sentencingbylimitingjudicialdiscretion.Therefore,unliketheFederal '#$ Guidelines,whichpermitthesentencingcourttoimposeatermwithina (#% rangeofmonthsoryearsafterconsideringtheoffenselevelandthecriminal )$& historycategory(seeUSSG,GuidelinesManuel(Nov.2004)atp.376),the *%' courtsdiscretionunderCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLawisstrictly +&(  proscribedandlimitedtooneofthreespecifiedterms. ݌ ,') Ќ    * X A X *X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XE+ ` A hp x ` ` ` XxE    ` Therefore,itappearsthattheCaliforniaLegislatureintendedto   strictlylimitthecourtsdiscretioninordertopromoteitsgoalofuniformity  ofsentencesandwouldprefertograftanadditionoffactfindingbythejury  ratherthengivingthecourtscompletediscretiontosentenceadefendant  withinthefullstatutoryrange.(SeePeoplev.Martin(1986)42Cal.3d437,  442443[ Thusthemovementtopromoteuniformityinsentencing...was   innosmallpartamovementtodiminishjudicialdiscretion.].) ݌   Ќ    - X ` A X -X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB %   %!݌̌    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` 2.TheCaliforniaLegislatureHasIndicatedAPreferenceFor! JuryDeterminationofEnhancingFacts ݌ x  Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ݌̌    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` UnliketheCongressionalschemesetforthintheFederalSentencing j  Guidelines,theCaliforniaLegislaturehasindicatedapreferenceforajurys c  determinationoffactsthatformofthebasesofsentenceenhancements.For \  example,theFederalSentencingGuidelinespermitatrialcourttofindfacts U  whichsubjectanoffendertoanincreasedsentenceincluding offense N  characteristicssuchastheuseofagunorinflictiongreatbodilyinjury(see G e.g.USSG2A2.2),orrelevantconductfactorssuchasthepossessiona @ specifiedquantityofdrugs(seee.g.USSG1B1.3),whileCalifornia 9 considersthefactorsofgunuseandgreatbodilyinjurytobeenhancements 2 andthereforesubjecttoastatutoryrequirementofpleadingandproofbythe +{ finderoffact.(Pen.Code1170.1,subd.(e).) ݌ $t Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` TheCaliforniaLegislaturehasindicatedapreferenceforjuryfact m findinginothersituations,aswell.Forexample,tosubjectadefendantto f thepunishmentprescribedbyPenalCodesection667.61,ajurymustfind _ theunderlyingfactssuchasgreatbodilyinjury,mayhemortorture,theuse X ofadeadlyweapon,tyingorbinding,oradministrationofacontrolled Q substancebyforce8(Pen.Code667.61,(d)(e)&(i).)InaThree J StrikesCase,adefendantspriorconvictionmustbepleadedandproved. C (Pen.Code1170.12,subd.(a).)Thefactsthatpermitenhancementsof < punishmentsforviolatingvariousdruglawsmustalsobepleadedand  5 proved.(Seee.g.Health&Saf.Code11353.1,subd.(b);11353.4,subd. !. (c);11353.6,subd.(e).) ݌ "' Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB (   ` BecauseCaliforniaalreadyprovidesastatutoryrequirementofajury #   trialformanyenhancingfactorswhennoconcomitantrightexistsinthe $ ! Guidelines,itappearsthattheBookerCourtsfearthatincludingSixth %!" Amendmentrequirements wouldcreateasystemfarmorecomplexthan & "# Congresswouldhaveintended(Booker,supra,atp.*32)isinapplicableto '#$ theCaliforniaDSL.Furthermore,anyincreaseinjurytrialsonsentencing (#% factorsinCaliforniaislikelytobeminimalbecausetherequirementwould )$& affectveryfewcases.In1999,only2%ofcriminalcasesweretriedtoa *%' jury.(ExaminingtheWorkofStateCourts,19992000atp.10; +&( www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/csp/19992000_Files/1999 ,') 2000_Criminal_Section.pdf.)   ($݌ -(* Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` Moreover,inBlakely,supra,124S.Ct.2431,theCourt  acknowledgedthatadefendantcouldwaivehisSixthAmendmentrightand  consenttojudicialfactfindingeitheraspartofapleaagreementoraspart  ofabifurcatedtrial(Id.,atp.2541.)Asapracticalmatter,thisprocedureis  oftenutilizedinCaliforniacourtrooms.Forexample,althoughadefendant  hasastatutoryrighttoatrialbyjuryonhispriorconvictions(Pen.Code   1025;Peoplev.Kelii(1999)21Cal.4th452),defendantsoftenwaivethat   rightoradmitthepriors.Accordingly,thereislittlechancethatrequiring   aggravatingfactstobetriedtoajurywillundulyburdenthecriminaljustice x  system. ݌ q   Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` TheBookerCourtalsoworriedthatinthecontextofplea j  agreements,thedistrictcourtwouldbeunabletoconsiderthepresentence c  reporttodetermine realconductandthereforethecourtwouldbelimited \  totheprosecutorschargingdiscretioninordertodeterminetheapplicable U  sentencingrange.(Booker,supra,atpp.*66!67.)However,asthedissent N  pointedout,prosecutorsalreadywieldconsiderablebargainingpowerin G pleanegotiationsandinfact,thatdiscretionwouldbetemperedbythe @ necessityofhavingtoprovesentencingfactsbeyondareasonabledoubt. 9 (Booker,supra,atpp.121122;Stevens,J.dissent.)Furthermorein 2 California,prosecutorswouldretainthediscretiontoseeklongersentences +{ bypleadingaggravatingfactorswhilecourtswouldretainthediscretionto $t imposetheuppertermbytheuseofthosefacts. ݌ m Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` 3.CreatingASolutionTheMakesTheRulesofCourt x  f AdvisoryWouldLeaveSentencingCourtsWithoutAnyClear x  _ Guidance ݌ X Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ݌̌    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB H   ` Asignificantdifferencebetweenthefederalsentencingschemeand J CaliforniasDSListhattheCaliforniastatutedoesnotindependentlystate C factorsthatatrialcourtmustconsiderinimposingasentence.(Pen.Code < 1170.)Comparethefederalstatute.18U.S.C.3553,whichstatesin  5 pertinentpart: HD݌ !. Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <      V&     &V (a)Factorstobeconsideredinimposingasentence.Thecourt #  shallimposeasentencesufficient,butnotgreaterthan $! necessary,tocomplywiththepurposessetforthinparagraph % " (2)ofthissubsection.Thecourt,indeterminingtheparticular &!# sentencetobeimposed,shallconsider" @݌ '"$ Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <      ݌̌ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <   Q  ݁(1)thenatureandcircumstancesoftheoffenseandthe w)$& historyandcharacteristicsofthedefendant; Q݌ p*%' Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <   1    ⁁(2)theneedforthesentenceimposed" 1݌ b,') Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <       ⁁(A)toreflecttheseriousnessoftheoffense,topromote  respectforthelaw,andtoprovidejustpunishmentforthe  offense; w݌  Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <      Ё(B)toaffordadequatedeterrencetocriminalconduct; ݌   Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <       Ё(C)toprotectthepublicfromfurthercrimesofthe   defendant;and  N ݌ x  Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <       Ё(D)toprovidethedefendantwithneedededucationalor j  vocationaltraining,medicalcare,orothercorrectional c  treatmentinthemosteffectivemanner;   ݌ \  Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <       Ё(3)thekindsofsentencesavailable;8  U݌ N  Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <   U   U݌̌ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` Indeed,sincetheBookercourtmadetheGuidelinesadvisory,federal @ courtshavelookedtotheprovisionsof18U.S.C.3553forguidancein 9 formulatingasentence.(Seesubdivision4,post.) ݌ 2 Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB b   ` PenalCodesection1170containsnocomparableguidelines.Absent +{ statutoryguidelinestoensureuniformsentencing,theCaliforniaLegislature $t wouldnotprefertheremedythattheBookerCourtcreated. b^݌ m Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB &   &"݌̌    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    `  4.DistrictCourtsDifferingInterpretationsOfThe x  F  _  ` Supreme  CourtsHoldingInBookerRevealsThat x  F  X  ` MoreStructureIs h NecessaryToPromoteUniformityIn x  F  Q  ` Sentencing ݌ J Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB 6   62݌̌    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ` SincetheHighCourtsdecisioninBooker,federalcourtshave < attemptedtoapplyBookersmandateswithvaryingresults.Mr.Black  5 discussesthesecasesnotasprecedent,butrathertoillustratethecourts !. strugglestodecipherwhatmayturnouttobeabarelyworkablescheme. ݌ "' Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB     ` In  UnitedStatesv.Wilson@!ermi  ,CaseNo.2:03CR00882(D.UtahJan. #   13,2005),thecourtdeterminedthatitmustgive greatweighttothe $ ! sentencingguidelinesandonlydepartfromtheguidelinesinunusualcases %!" forclearlyidentifiedandpersuasivereasons.Onlybyfollowingthe & "# guidelinescouldthecourtachievea justpunishmentthatservedcrime '#$ controlpurposesandprovidedadequatedeterrence.BecausetheGuidelines (#% weretheonlystandardsavailable,theirusewasnecessarytoachieve )$& uniformityinsentencing.  !݌ *%' Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB $   ` SoonafterWilson,theEasternDistrictofWisconsinweighedinwith +&( adifferentapproachforimposingasentencelowerthanformallypermitted ,') bytheGuidelines.(UnitedStatesv.Ranum,CaseNo.04CR31(E.D.Wis. -(* Jan.19,2005)TheRanumcourtagreedthattheitmustseriouslyconsider  theGuidelinesandprovideawrittendecisionifitssentencewasoutsideof  theGuidelinerange.Nonetheless,itheldthattheGuidelineswerenot  binding.Thecourtstated: $%݌  Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <   (  Sentencingwillbehardernowthanitwasafewmonthsago.  Districtcourtscannotjustaddupfiguresandpickanumber   withinanarrowrange.Rather,theymustconsiderallofthe   applicablefactors,listencarefullytodefenseandgovernment   counselandsentencethepersonbeforethemasanindividual. x  Bookerisnotaninvitationtodobusinessasusual. ()݌ q   Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <   *,   *,,݌̌ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <   X XE+ ` hp x ` ` ` XxE z-  InUnitedStatesv.Myers,(S.D.Iowa.Jan.26,2005)UKUS.,___F.Supp. c  2d.____,2005WL165314USUK.,,thecourtagreedthattheGuidelineswere \  notpresumptiveanddecidedtofollowthestatutorycriteriasetforthin18 U  U.S.C.3553(a). z-.݌ N  Ќ    * X ` X *X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XE+ ` hp x ` ` ` XxE 0  InUnitedStatesv.HuertaRodriguez,CaseNo.8:04CR365(D.Neb. G Feb.1,2005),thecourtattemptedtoreconcileBookersmajorityand @ remedialopinions.ThecourtdeterminedthatpostBookersentencing 9 requiredconsiderationofboththefactorssetforthin18U.S.C.3553 2 (a),andthenowadvisoryGuidelinestodeterminewhatsentenceis +{ reasonable.Thereasonablenessstandard,ratherthanthestatutory $t maximum,determinedthetopoftherangewithinwhichthecourtcould m exerciseitsdiscretion.Sentencingadefendantabovethatrangerequired f theprosecutiontoproveadditionalfactstothejurybeyondareasonable _ doubt.AlthoughthedefendantcouldwaivehisSixthAmendmentrightto X atrialbyjury,thecourtfoundthatthedefendantcouldnotwaivehisFifth Q Amendmentrighttoproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.Accordingly,the J courtheldthatfactsusedtoenhanceasentencetoanysignificantdegree C hadtobepleadedbyindictmentorinformationandprovenbeyonda < reasonabledoubt. 01݌  5 Ќ    * X ` X *X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XE+ ` hp x ` ` ` XxE 7  ItappearsthatBookersmyriadofopinionsproducedmore !. confusionthanclarityanddidlittletoadvanceaLegislativegoalof "' uniformityofsentences.ThisisnotthepaththatCaliforniashouldfollow. #   Accordingly,Mr.BlacksuggeststhateitherthisCourtdeclareCalifornias $ ! SentencingSchemeinvalidanddefertotheLegislaturetobringthe %!" schemeintoconstitutionalcomplianceorrequirethataggravatingfactsbe & "# pleadedintheinformationanddecidedbyajurybeyondareasonable '#$ doubt. 78݌ (#% Ќ    * X ` X *X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <   X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB ;  // ;<݌ )$& Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <   X XE+ ` hp x ` ` ` XxE =   =>݌ *%' Ќ    * X ` X *X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XE+ ` hp x ` ` ` XxE ?   ?@݌ +&(     * X ` X *X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XE+ ` hp x ` ` ` XxE aA   aA`B݌ ,') Ќ    * X ` X *X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <   X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB )C  F.ShouldThisCourtFindThatReformationofPenalCodeSections   1170,Subdivision(b)And669IsPermissibleandAdvisableAndAlters  TheStatuteInAWayToRemoveTheNecessityofAJuryFinding  BeyondAReasonableDoubtOnAggravatingFacts,DueProcess  RequiresThatTheCourtsHoldingOperateProspectively )C3D݌  Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X  B( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB F   FG݌̌    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB GH   ` ReformingPenalCodesection1170,subdivision(b)andsection669   inamannerthatpermitstheimpositionoftheaggravatedtermand   consecutivetermswithoutajuryfindingofaggravatingcircumstances x  beyondareasonabledoubtenlargesthecriminalstatutesandrequires q   prospectiveapplicationoftheCourtsholding.Suchareformationwould j  permittheimpositionoftheaggravatedtermundercircumstancesnot c  currentlypermitted.Unforeseeablejudicialenlargementofacriminal \  statuteviolatesconstitutionaldueprocessguarantees. GHCI݌ U  Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <   L  Astatute"'whichmakesmoreburdensomethepunishment N  foracrime,afteritscommission'"violatesarticleI,section9, G clause3,oftheUnitedStatesConstitutionasanexpostfacto @ determinationofcriminalliability(Collinsv.Youngblood 9 (1990)497U.S.37,42[111L.Ed.2d30,3839,110S.Ct. 2 2715],quotingBeazellv.Ohio(1925)269U.S.167,169170 +{ [70L.Ed.216,217,218,46S.Ct.68]),aswellasitsCalifornia $t counterpart,articleI,section9ofthestateConstitution(Tapia m v.SuperiorCourt(1991)53Cal.3d282[279Cal.Rptr.592, f 807P.2d434]).Correspondingly,anunforeseeablejudicial _ enlargementofacriminalstatute,appliedretroactively, X operatesinthesamemannerasanexpostfactolaw.(Bouiev. Q CityofColumbia(1964)378U.S.347,354[12L.Ed.2d894, J 900,84S.Ct.1697];seealsoPeoplev.Escobar(1992)3 C Cal.4th740,752[837P.2d1100];Peoplev.Wharton(1991) < 53Cal.3d522,586[280Cal.Rptr.631,809P.2d290].) L`M݌  5 Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <   RS   RSS݌̌ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X?% ` hp x` ` ` Xx? T  (Peoplev.Davis(1994)7Cal.4th797,811.) TU݌ "' Ќ  X  $ X Xx$X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X?% ` hp x` ` ` Xx? V   VsW݌̌  X  $ X Xx$X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB "X   ` ItisaviolationofdueprocessguaranteesundertheFifthand $ ! FourteenthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI, %!" section7oftheCaliforniaConstitutionforcourttointerpretexistinglaws & "# andimposeunexpectedcriminalpenaltiesinamannerthatthedefendant '#$ couldnothaveforeseenatthetimeofhisorhercriminalconduct.(People (#% v.Blakely(2000)23Cal.4th82,91!92;UnitedStatesv.Lanier(1997)520 )$& U.S.259,266!267.) "XY݌ *%' Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB I\  ` ` Inanalogoussituations,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthas +&( recognizedthatstatutoryrevisionsthatgiveacourtgreaterflexibilityto ,') imposeahighertermthanthepresumptivesentenceatthetimeofthe -(* offenseorreducesthe quantumofevidencenecessarytoconvictviolates  theexpostfactoclause.(Millerv.Florida(1987)482U.S.423;Carmellv.  Texas(2000)529U.S.513;seeU.S.Const.Art.I,9,cl.3;Art.I,10,cl.  1 V&  .  &V ) I\E]݌  Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB `   ` SincetheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsholdingsinApprendiand  Blakely,whichmandatedajuryfindingonfactsprovenbeyonda   reasonabledoubttobeusedtoimposetheupperterm,adefendantcouldnot   haveforeseenthatthisCourtortheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinBooker   wouldenlargethestatutetoeliminatesucharequirement.Accordingly, x  shouldthisCourtchoosethispath,itsholdingmustbeapplied q   prospectively. `a݌ j  Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   c   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X  B( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB d  CONCLUSION  df݌  Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB f   ` Fortheforegoingreasons,Mr.BlackasksthisCourttodeclarePenal  Codesection1170,subdivision(b)tobeinvalidoralternativelytoreform  sections1170and669toaddarequirementoffactfindingbyajurybeyond  areasonabledoubtbeforeaaggravatedtermorconsecutivesentencemay  beimposed.ShouldthisCourtchooseasolutionthatpermitstheimposition   ofaggravatedandconsecutivesentenceswithouttheSixthAmendment   requirementssetforthinApprendi,Blakely,andBooker,Mr.Blackasks   thisCourttoapplyitsholdingprospectively. fg݌ x  Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X  B( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB jk  Dated:February2,2005 jkrl݌ q   Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X  B( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB Lm   `     h     Respectfullysubmitted, LmTn݌ j  Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X  B( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB vo   `     h     BALIN&KOTLER,LLP vo~p݌ c  Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X  B( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB q   qr݌̌    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X  B( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB Ss   `     h     _________________________ Ss[t݌ U  Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X  B( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB u   `     h     EILEENS.KOTLER uv݌ N  Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X  B( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB w   `     h     AttorneyforAppellant, G  `     h     KEVINMICHAELBLACK wx݌ @ Ќ    $ X X $X#-XV   VXX#- X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X  B( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB >z   >zF{݌̌    $ X X $X#-XV  VXX#-       {  CERTIFICATIONOFWORDCOURT{J|݌ 2 Ќ  X#-XV  VXX#-       |  |C}݌̌  X#-XV  VXX#-  X  }  Icertifythattheforegoingpetitioncontains5938wordsascounted $t bytheprograminMicrosoftWord.}~݌ f ЌX#-XV  dlXVXX#-  Xl X!  ݀ h   !݌ X ЌX#-XV  deQVXX#-  Qe X ` 6h hhp x X 6    __________________________]݌ Q ЌX#-XV  X ` B( ` hp x hhhX BVXX#- `     h     EILEENS.KOTLER J  VV X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X  B( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB    ݌̌    $ X X $VV  X#-XV?( ` hp x X ?