WPCd vIh-~zDr 1^x}2=Wdܱ\M3l@4p;%V t=XkX{Xy%x;'ݻp4e 'QsbLIAr2SByz7 X̞饆W=K֋,$F*I@U((.3Z&;|dS߸ʷqvlX9Җ;F w? HJ%6M56C["`0"O u΁O"GET;/v©(ocz%ϔߘ`F9ғ85x,Ə_vTE.c!5ɐY婠8 M)}ɇ8]4H$ jX< sRb!B# UNk % 0%(U;>^ %w145IX mZNq 0CsQ 0l{ 0D 1T 1 1ub 1 1^ 1l  72t 1 72-!b_!g! 1-" 1" 72;# 0Nm#*#$' 1( 72#) 1U) 72)**+`, 72&- 72X--3. 1/ 72?0 1q0 720 1*1 721 0A1$2 12 72.3 1`3 723 14 724 14 72Y5 0d)5 55 p66 r7 R28 =8  8 18 S9n9 v:: & ; 3;R; B; 2; 0c&< 0w< 0== 0D > <M>> D ? 72P?\?@~C8(E`E fF BmF AF D-5G 0KbGG \3H ?HHI 1K -!LONL 72MMMMMM |ON ENNNNNNNNNNNO O )-P =VPVPVPVPVPVPVPVPVPVPVPP L$QpQ JQ@R jRAS hSQT dTTTTZU  VV Z6WW t=XX jZYY lnZZ \[[ Xc\\ ^D]] N#^q^ V^L_ V_&` V`a xaVb |HcHcHcHcHcHcc L^dHP LaserJet 40000(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($5\  `&Times New RomanL1 q1' Compon3|xU($      G $    1    _Theundersigned,aschairsoftheamicuscommitteeofCACJcertifytothisCourtthatno  partyinvolvedinthislitigationhastenderedanyformofcompensation,monetaryorotherwise,  forlegalservicesrelatedtothewritingorproductionofthisbrief,andadditionallycertifythatno  partytothislitigationhascontributedanymonies,services,orotherformofdonationtoassistin t theproductionofthisbrief.((3$ !      0   $    8    _ԀSeealsoKansasCriminalLawHandbook,14.8.(3$ !  0+CEKQW]cioAutoList6IIA.1.IIIIIIIIII 5-CEKQW]cioAutoList1IIA.IIIIIIIIIIII3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) 2CEKQW]cioAutoList2i.1.i.i.i.i.i.i.(CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList91.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.  $    2    _ԀSeePenalCode1170(a)providingfor specifieddiscretionandPenalCode1170(b)  notingthatitisthesentencingcourtthatisempoweredtoconsidervarioussourcesofsentencing  relatedinformationandthenimposeasentenceotherthanthedesignatedmiddleterm. $    10    _ԀSeeAdvisoryCommitteecommenttoRule4.405,describingtheavailable  enhancements.  $    5    _ԀWhilethemajorityofthefollowingcasesarenotyetfinalpendingfurtherrulingsfrom  thisCourt,CACJnotesthefollowingrulings:Peoplev.Earley,4thApp.Dist.,DivisionTwo,  CaseNo.EO33600,filedAugust31,2004dealingwithrecidivistbasedsentencingfactorsasa  basisforimpositionofanUpperTerm;Peoplev.Ochoa,4thApp.Dist.,Div.1,CaseNo. t DO42215filedSeptember2,2004holding,amongotherthings,thatBlakelydoesnotapplyto ` consecutivesentences;Peoplev.George,4thApp.Dist.Div1,filedSeptember15,2004,acase L  consideringthebasisfortheimpositionofanUpperTerm,andthequestionofwhetherAppellant 8  Georgehadwaivedtheissuebyfailingtochallengeitbelow.ThediscussioninGeorgeis $ t somewhatpertinenthere,inpartbecauseitinvolvesjudicialconsiderationofwhetherthe  ` impositionofanUpperTermcansurvivewithoutthefindingofaviolationofBlakely.(Seeslip  L  op.atp.21);Peoplev.Lemus,4thApp.Dist.,Div.1,CaseNo.D042549,filedSeptember20,  8  2004,partiallypublishedonthequestionoftheimpositionofanUpperTerm;Peoplev.Barnes, $  6thApp.Dist.,CaseNo.H026137,filedSeptember24,2004,partiallypublishedanalyzing   impositionofthestatutorymaximumauthorizedbyajuryverdictandfactsadmittedbythe   defendant.    $    9    _ԀSeeKansasStatutesAnnotatedof1993,andspecifically214704,4705,4716.1.(գEGMSY_ekqAutoList101.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.i)- -Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 50}CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.(uhCEKQW]cioAutoList5I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.1.(O$  $    11    _ԀSee,forexample,thediscussionoftheoperationofcircumstancesinaggravationinthe  AdvisoryCommitteecommenttoRule4.421.(2004revisededition,CaliforniaRulesofCourt.)  $    12    _ԀThisCourthas,onseveraloccasions,discussedtheimplicationsofaseverability  clausecontainedinaballotinitiative,adraftingandrescuemechanismrecognizedinCalifornia  lawforsomeperiodoftime.SeeMcCaffertyv.BoardofSupervisors(1969)3Cal.App.3d190,  193quotedwithapprovalinSantaBarbaraSchoolDistrict,supra,13Cal.3dat331.  $    4    _ԀSeethewritingsofProfessorDouglasBerman,CollegeofLaw,OhioStateUniversity,  atwww.sentencinglawandpolicy.ProfessorBermanistheauthorofSentencingLawandPolicy  (AspenPublishers,2004).ProfessorBermanhasnotedtheamountofactivityfromCalifornia.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList71.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.)1.0EGMSY_ekqAutoList111.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.+1.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5" $    6    _ԀSee,forexample,TheVeraInstituteofJustice,StateSentencingandCorrections:  PolicyandPracticeReview(August2004),p.3. ) $    7    _ԀVeraInstitute,StateSentencingandCorrections,supra,atp.7,referringtoKansas  StatutesAnnotated214718(b);seealsoBlakelyv.Washington,supra,at2541.0EGMSY_ekqAutoList121.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.51.(EGMSY_ekqAutoList131.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.71.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList81.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.91.(Vm$0    y !  _oXXRule29.1(f)#X`Xo+#(jEGMSY_ekqAutoList14A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.=A.0zEGMSY_ekqAutoList15A.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.?A.(5EGMSY_ekqAutoList161.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.A1.(EEGMSY_ekqAutoList17I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.CI.( $ECASES !  _oXXԀBlakelyv.Washington(2004)򀀀U.S.򀀀;124S.Ct.2531#X`Xo+#G Blakely v. Washington (2004) U.S. ; 12CASES !  _oXXBlakelyv.Washington(2004)򀀀U.S.򀀀;124S.Ct.2531#X`Xo.#IBlakely v. Washington (2004) U.S. ; 124 CASES<Rule 29.1(f)California Rules of CourtECalifornia Rules of Court;(EGMSY_ekqAutoList18A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.ESTATUTES !  _oXXU.S.v.Ameline,(9thCir.2004)376F.3d967#X`Xo.#PU.S. v. Ameline, (9th Cir. 2004) 376 F.3d 967, 973CASES u !  _oXX1170#X`Xo+#R1170Penal CodeEPenal Code { !  _oXX1170(a)(1)#X`Xo+# dU1170(a)(1)Penal Code(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (# u !  _oXX1170#X`Xo+#(3$ !  [Penal Code 1170Penal Code y !  _oXX1170(d)#X`Xo+#^Penal Code 1170 (d)Penal CodeNA. R $    13    _ԀFrankel,CriminalSentences:LawWithoutOrder(1972)atp.5.JudgeFrankels  influenceonthecreationoftheFederalSentencingGuidelineshasbeenrecognized.121Cong.  Rec.37,56237,563(1975).  $    14    _ԀThisissueisbeforetheU.S.SupremeCourtintwocompanioncases,U.S.v.Booker  andU.S.v.Fanfan,U.S.SupremeCourtNos.04104;04105.Commentatorstoonumerousto  mentionarespeculatingonthefutureoftheFederalSentencingGuidelinesasthisbriefis  written.ItappearsacertaintythattheU.S.SupremeCourtwillannouncetheextenttowhich t legislaturescandelegatesentencingrulemakingabilitytoquasilegislative,orquasijudicial ` bodies.  $    15    _ԀStatewideCaseloadTrendsarereportedat  4d %O  5  www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/csr2004.6%O  7 tԀThestatisticsjustquotedfromTable8.http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov !  _oXXApprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466#X`Xo.#eApprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466CASES  d!\ji&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK)!dxdx( $ Figure  1   | !  _oXXSixthAmendment#X`Xo+#kSixth AmendmentsUnited States ConstitutionEUnited States Constitution $    16    _ԀSeeTable8aoftheStatewideCaseloadTrendsforfiscalyear20022003,reportedin  the2004courtstatisticsreport.  $    17    _ԀThe2004CourtStatisticsReportdoesnotdifferentiatebetweencasesthathavebeen  indictedandthosewhichhaveproceededviacomplaint.Thus,theanalysisthatisofferedhere  doesnotpurporttobescientificorexact.Nonetheless,thenumbersrelieduponarethosethat  arerelieduponbytheJudicialCouncil.(eEGMSY_ekqAutoList191.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.EOther Authorities E $    3    _ԀInApprendiv.NewJersey,530U.S.466,theCourtheldthattheSixthAmendment  prohibitedenhancementofasentencebasedonafactornotsubmittedfordecisionbythejury.  Id.at744.p1. v !  _oXXGenerally#X`Xo+#xFederal Sentencing GuidelinesFederal Sentencing GuidelinesEFederal Sentencing Guidelines !  _oXX214718(b)(1)(2)#X`Xo+#Kansas Statutes Annotated, 21-4718(b)(1)(2)Kansas Statutes AnnotatedEKansas StatutesEKansas Statutes Annotated !  _oXXDeterminateSentencingLaw#X`Xo+#Determinate Sentencing LawSTATUTES | !  _oXX1170etseq#X`Xo+#Penal Code 1170 et seqPenal Code !  _oXXKansasSentencingGuidelinesAct#X`Xo+#Kansas Sentencing Guidelines ActOther Authorities !  _oXXApprendiv.NewJersey,(2000)530U.S.466#X`Xo.#Apprendi v. New Jersey, (2000) 530 U.S. 466CASES !  _oXXStatev.Gould,(Kan.,2001)23P.3d803#X`Xo.#State v. Gould, (Kan., 2001) 23 P.3d 803.CASES !  _oXXԀKansasStatutesAnnotated(2002Supplement),214718(b)(1)#X`Xo+# Kansas Statutes Annotated (2002 Supplement), 21-4718Kansas Statutes Annotated | !  _oXXSixthAmendment#X`Xo+#Sixth AmendmentUnited States Constitution !  _oXXJonesv.UnitedStates,(1999)526U.S.227,248#X`Xo.#Jones v. United States, (1999) 526 U.S. 227, 248.CASES !  _oXXMcMillanv.Pennsylvania,(1986)477U.S.79#X`Xo.#McMillan v. Pennsylvania, (1986) 477 U.S. 79CASES !  _oXXԀHarrisv.UnitedStates,(2002)536U.S.545#X`Xo+# Harris v. United States, (2002) 536 U.S. 545CASES !  _oXXԀPattersonv.U.S(1977)432U.S.197#X`Xo+# Patterson v. U.S (1977) 432 U.S. 197CASES { !  _XXԀRule4.405(d)#X`X+# Rule 4.405(d)California Rules of Court  !  _XXԀRule4.413,4.414#X`X+# Rule 4.413, 4.414California Rules of Court w !  _XXRule4.425#X`X+#Rule 4.425California Rules of Court { !  _XXRule4.406(a.)#X`X+#Rule 4.406(a.)California Rules of Court z !  _XXRule4.421(c)#X`X+#(Rule 4.421(c)California Rules of Court !  _XXInreBlaney,(1947)30Cal.2d643#X`X.#In re Blaney, (1947) 30 Cal.2d 643CASES !  _XXԀSantaBarbaraSchoolDistrictv.SuperiorCourt,(1975)13Cal.3d315#X`X+# Santa Barbara School District v. Superior Court, (CASES !  _XXHotelEmployeesandRestaurantEmployeesInternationalUnionv.Davis,(1999)21  Cal.4th585,613#X`X.#Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees InternationaCASES !  _XXRingv.Arizona,536U.S.584#X`X.#Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584CASES !  _ XX8`Xdd8   @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA      `     h      p   PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF## h   ) No.126182   ##CALIFORNIA,    h   )    0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#) 򀀀0(#(#CourtofAppeal,FifthAppellate  (#(#   PlaintiffandRespondent, h   )  District,No. F042592       `     h   )      `     h   )  _Tulare_ԀCountySuperiorCourt      v. `     h   )0  No.79557 0(#(# 0 (#(#    (# (#    `     h   )   (Hon.William_Silveira_,Jr.,Judge)    KEVINMICHAELBLACK,0 h .0h(#h(#)    (#(#    `     h )      ЀDefendantandAppellant.0 h 0h(#h(#) (#(#   0 `     h   )` (#` (# 򀀀)  #?#  ## @pp MOTIONOFCALIFORNIAATTORNEYSFORCRIMINAL  @JUSTICE# #ԀFORPERMISSIONTOAPPEARASAMICUSCURIAE  @F F ONBEHALFOFAPPELLANT(RULE29.1(f))    ANDBRIEFINSUPPORTOFAPPELLANTBLACK   # #  JOHNT._PHILIPSBORN_,ESQ.0 h 0h(#h(#0(#(#CHARLESD._WEISSELBERG_(#(# StateBarNo.839440  0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#StateBarNo.105015(#(# 507PolkStreet,Suite2500  0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#UniversityofCalifornia (#(# SanFrancisco,CA941020  0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#SchoolofLaw(_Boalt_ԀHall)!(#(# Tel.:(415)77138010  0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#Berkeley,CA947207200"(#(#    `     h     Tel.:(510)6438159 #    `     h     AttorneysforAmicusCuriae &""    `     h     CALIFORNIAATTORNEYS '##    `     h     FORCRIMINALJUSTICE ($$      0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @  @  @`  @  @  @h  @  @  * &&  TABLEOFCONTENTS     M   ;Vm  ;Vm0     I.  MOTIONOF_CACJ_ԀTOAPPEARASAMICUSCURIAEINSUPPORTOF  APPELLANT#""J(#. (#(##2;Vm݌  Ќ  ;Vm  ;Vm0     A.  Identificationof_CACJ_#""J(#.%(#(##2;Vm݌   Ќ   N(83! !"X3"  X32  B  .3  0    InterestofAmicusCuriae_CACJ_ԀinthisLitigation#""J(#.@(#(##2X3݌   Ќ  ;Vm  ;Vm0     II.0(#(#_CACJ_SBRIEFONTHEMERITSSUPPORTINGAPPELLANTBLACK#""J(#. D(#(##4;Vm݌    Ќ  ;Vm  ;Vm0       THISCOURTSHOULDHOLDTHATPENALCODE1170,AND;Vm݌ (#(# Ќ    STATUTESASWELLASSENTENCINGRULESLINKEDTOITBY     THEDESIGNOFTHEDETERMINATESENTENCINGLAWMUST     BESUITABLYANDAPPROPRIATELYAMENDEDTOENSURE     THECONTINUEDCONSTITUTIONALVITALITYOFCALIFORNIAS  0  AIMTOENSURETHEELIMINATIONOFDISPARITYANDTHE  EXISTENCEOFDETERMINATESENTENCING#""J(#.2(#(##4  ;Vm  ;Vm0     1.0(#(#Introduction#""J(#.@ @ (#(##4;Vm݌  Ќ  ;Vm  ;Vm0     2.0(#(#TheSituationisSuchthatThisCourtMustStepinNow#""J(#.&&E(#(##7;Vm݌  Ќ  ;Vm  ;Vm0     3.0(#(#AppellantBlackCorrectlyArguesthatthe_Blakely_/_Apprendi_ԀRuleswill;Vm݌(#(# Ќ  0  InvalidateSentencesBeyondthePrescribedStatutoryMaximumBasedon  SentenceSignificantFactsthathavenotbeenSubmittedtoaJury,or(#(#   AgreedUponTrierofFact,andFoundbeyondReasonableDoubtL"L"I(#.jjK12  ;Vm  ;Vm0     4.0(#(#TheCaliforniaSentencingSchemeCannotbeRescuedThrough;Vm݌ (#(# Ќ    _Interlineation_L"L"I(#., , 15 ! ;Vm  ;VmS0     5.0(#(#InOrdertoMeetthe_Blakely_/_Apprendi_ԀRequirements,thisCourtMustRequire # Changesin:RulesofPleading;DefinitionofSentenceTriggeringElementswhere $  ;VmSo݌ (#(# Ќ    Necessary;TrialofRequiredSentencingFacts;JuryVerdictsand &!"   SentencingProcessesL"L"I(#.TT#17 '"#  p(e88N! !  )$% "X3"  X3g"2e  6  .3  0    TheChangesUrgedby_CACJ_ԀareSignificant,butClearlyManageable;X3g""݌(#(# Ќ    thePendencyof_Blakely_ԄRelatedCasesBeforetheU.S.SupremeCourt    MakesitImperativethatCaliforniaReformitsLawsCorrectlyatthis    Juncture..........................................................L"L"I(#19  CONCLUSIONL"L"I(#.2 2 22         @ TABLEOFAUTHORITIES      # #E   E &   %FederalCasesE &,&  Ќ̌   F;  E   E &  0  _Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,(2000)530U.S.466#RR8(#.:(#(##7,9,10,11,12,passimE &&݈  Ќ̌  E   E '    _Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,(2004)U.S.;124_S.Ct_.2531;(#.J2,3,4,5,6,passimE '(݈   Ќ̌  E   E )    Harrisv.UnitedStates,(2002)536U.S.545L"L"I(#.LL;12E )0)݈   Ќ̌  E   E )    Jonesv.UnitedStates,(1999)526U.S.227L"L"I(#.:12E ))݈   Ќ̌  E   E *    _McMillan_Ԁv.Pennsylvania,(1986)477U.S.79L"L"I(#.;12E **݈   Ќ̌  E   E +    Pattersonv._U.S_,(1977)432U.S.197L"L"I(#.  412E ++݈   Ќ̌  E   E ,    Ringv.Arizona,536U.S.584L"L"I(#.LL,18E ,,݈  Ќ̌  E   E O-  #J&#  U.S.v._Ameline_,(9thCir.2004)376F.3d967""J(#.<3E O-j-݈  Ќ̌  & StateCases   E   E .    Inre_Blaney_,(1947)30Cal.2d643L"L"I(#.116#-#E ..݈  Ќ̌    HotelEmployeesandRestaurantEmployeesInternationalUnionv.Davis,  E   E R0     ` (1999)21Cal.4th585L"L"I(#.)16#/#E R0m0݈  Ќ̌  E   E R1    _McCafferty_Ԁv.BoardofSupervisors,(1969)3_Cal.App_.3d190L"L"I(#.$$J16#0#E R1m1݈  Ќ̌  E   E 2  #X2#  SantaBarbaraSchoolDistrictv.SuperiorCourt,(1975)13Cal.3d315L"L"I(#.\\T16#3#E 22݈ ! Ќ̌  E   E 4    Statev.Gould,(_Kan_.,2001)23P.3d803:!:!F(#.710,11#3#E 494݈ # Ќ̌  UnitedStatesConstitution % !    GenerallyL"L"I(#.Z Z 17 '"# m;  E   E 5    SixthAmendment?(#.< < 5,7,11,13,18E 5 6݈ (#$ Ќ̌  E   E 6  E 66̌ +&' Ќ  E   E 7  5#4# CaliforniaConstitution E 727  Ќ̌  E   E 7    GenerallyL"L"I(#.Z Z 17E 78݈  Ќ̌  E   E 8    CaliforniaRulesofCourtE 88  Ќ̌   L;  0  Rule4.405#L"L"I(#. (#(##14     Rule4.405(d)L"L"I(#. 14     Rule4.406(a.)L"L"I(#. 14#7#Ԉ     Rule4.413L"L"I(#. 14      Rule4.414L"L"I(#. 14     Rule4.421:!:!F(#. 14,15     Rule4.421(a)L"L"I(#. 15     Rule4.421(b)L"L"I(#. 15     Rule4.421(c)L"L"I(#. 15     Rule4.425L"L"I(#. 14#\:#Ԉ  E   E <    Rule29.1(f)""J(#.4 4 1E <<݈  Ќ̌  Y9#<# STATUTES     >#=#E   E `>  CaliforniaPenalCode     E `>{>  Ќ̌  DeterminateSentencingLaw    Generally9(#.Z Z 4,5,6,10,13,passim    #@>#1054etseq.L"L"I(#. 22  E   E &@    >#?#1170` ` C(#.. . 4,5,6,18E &@A@݈  Ќ̌  E   E #A    1170(a)""J(#.  7E #A>A݈ ! Ќ̌  E   E A    1170(a)(1) D(#.  5,16,17E AA݈ # Ќ̌  E   E zB    1170(b)!!G(#., , 7,14E zBB݈ % ! Ќ̌    1170(d)""J(#.b b 6#@# >Ԉ '"#  8    1172etseq.L"L"I(#. 22#C#  )$%   +&' KansasStatutesAnnotated   ;  E   E D    KansasSentencingGuidelinesActL"L"I(#./10#:D#E DD݈  Ќ̌  ;  #E#  214704(1993#F#)L"L"I(#. 10  E   E F    #yF#214705(1993#9G#)L"L"I(#.  10 E#G#E FF݈   Ќ̌  E   E SH    21471#G#6(1993)L"L"I(#. 10 @ E SHnH݈   Ќ̌  E   E PI    214718(b)""I(#.P P 9E PIkI݈   Ќ̌  E   E I    214718(b)(1)(2002Supplement)#H#L"L"I(#./11#J#E IJ݈   Ќ̌  E   E ?K    214718(b)(1)(2)L"L"I(#.L L 10#J# D  E ?KZK݈   Ќ̌  E   E NL  #K# K OtherAuthorities #L#X`XE NLiL  Ќ̌  121Cong.Rec.37,56237,563(1975)`"`"I(#19#XX`M#Ԉ  #M#q;  Berman,SentencingLawandPolicy(AspenPublishers,2004)""J(#.D7  CriminalSentences:LawWithoutOrder(1972)................................L"L"I(#19 @  @`  @ #&N#Ԉ  #O#X`XCourtStatisticsReport(2004)`"`"I(#.(21#XX`O#Ԉ  FederalSentencingGuidelines D(#.""'8,19,20 p FederalSentencingReformActL"L"I(#.zz'19 p  #rP#X`XFrankel,CriminalSentences:LawWithoutOrder(1972)`"`"I(#.bb?19 p" #XX`rQ#E   E BR  KansasCriminalLawHandbook,14.8.L"L"I(#.nn.10E BR]R݈ \$  Ќ̌  E   E R  #"R#StatewideCaseloadTrends,20022003L"L"I(#.((.20E RS݈ \&!" Ќ̌  E   E S  VeraInstituteofJustice,StateSentencingandCorrections:PolicyandPracticeReview \(#$ (August2004)""H(#. 8,9 VN#S#  E ST݈ \)$% Ќ̌  U#U# \+&' #U#@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA      `     h      p   PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF#U# h   )0  No.126182  (#(# #4W#CALIFORNIA,    h   )       0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#  )0h(#h(# CourtofAppeal,FifthAppellate  (#(#   PlaintiffandRespondent, h   )0  District,No.F042592  (#(#    `     h   )       v. `     h   )0  _Tulare_ԀCountySuperiorCourt 0 (#(# 0@!x(#x(#   (# (#    `     h   )   No.79557    KEVINMICHAELBLACK,0 h .0h(#h(#)   (Hon.William_Silveira_,Jr.,Judge)  (#(#    `     h )      ЀDefendantandAppellant.0 h 0h(#h(#)(#(#   0 `     h   )` (#` (# 򀀀)  #W#  #]# @pp MOTIONOFCALIFORNIAATTORNEYSFORCRIMINAL  @JUSTICEԀFORPERMISSIONTOAPPEARASAMICUSCURIAE  @F F ONBEHALFOFAPPELLANT(RULE29.1(f))  @  ANDBRIEFINSUPPORTOFAPPELLANTBLACK  #^##_# TO:THEHONORABLERONALDGEORGE,CHIEFJUSTICEOFTHE   SUPREMECOURTOFCALIFORNIA,ANDTOTHEHONORABLE  ASSOCIATEJUSTICESOFTHECOURT:      CaliforniaAttorneysforCriminalJustice(hereafter_CACJ_)movesthisCourtfor " permissiontoappearasanamicuscuriaeonbehalfofAppellantKevinBlackwithinthe $  meaningof K CaliforniaRulesofCourt,Rule29.1(f). &""   ($$   I.  MOTIONOF_CACJ_ԀTOAPPEARASAMICUSCURIAEINSUPPORTOF    APPELLANT  `b      A. ` Identificationof_CACJ_     1       Bc    _CACJ_ԀisanonprofitCaliforniacorporation.AccordingtoArticleIVofitsby   laws,_CACJ_Ԁwasformedtoachievecertainobjectivesincluding"todefendtherightsof   personsasguaranteedbytheUnitedStatesConstitution,theConstitutionoftheStateof   Californiaandotherapplicablelaw.(ArticleIV,ByLawsof_CACJ_.)Theorganization   hasapproximately2,000duespayingmemberswhoareprimarilycriminaldefense   lawyerspracticingbeforethestateandfederalcourtslocatedinCalifornia.These  lawyersareemployedbothinthepublicandprivatesectors,and_CACJ_smembershipis  distributedaroundthestate.    _CACJ_ԀoftenappearsasanamicuscuriaebeforethisCourtonmattersof  importancetoitsmembershipandstatedgoals.    B. ` InterestOfAmicusCuriae_CACJ_ԀInThisLitigation     ThereislittledoubtthattheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsrulingin H Ԁ J _Blakely_Ԁv.   Washington(2004)򀀀U.S.򀀀;124_S.Ct_.2531(hereafter_Blakely_)hassignificantly " changedthesubstantiveandprocedurallawsrelatedtotheadjudicationofcriminalcases, $  andespeciallythesentencingprocess.    AppellantKevinBlackarguesthatboththehistoryof_Blakely_sevolutionaswell  asthesubstanceoftherulingdemonstratethat_Blakely_profoundlyaffectsCalifornia  sentencingprocedure.(BlackOpeningBrief,hereafterBlack_AOB_Ԁ1724.)First,thisis   becauseafter_Blakely_, aggravatingfactors[must]besubmittedtothejuryandproven   beyondareasonabledoubt.(Black_AOB_Ԁatp.28.)Second,Blackarguesthat_Blakely_   alsorequiresfactssubmittedtoajuryverdict,andfoundbeyondareasonabledoubtto   triggerimpositionofaconsecutivesentence.    Appellantiscorrectonbothpoints.Heissupportedbyarecentsuccinct  observationfromtheCourtofAppealfortheNinthCircuitin Q U.S.v._Ameline_,(9thCir.  2004)376F.3d967,973: the_Blakely_courtworkeda_seachange_Ԁinthebodyof  sentencinglaw.Whetherornot_Ameline_survivesupcomingrulingsfromtheUnited  StatesSupremeCourt,thewordsjustquotedmust,atthispoint,beconsideredalegal  truism.    _CACJ_Ԁhasagreatinterestinthiscaseforseveralreasons.First,_CACJ_Ԁmembers   areinvolvedinthepracticeofcriminaldefensethroughoutCalifornia,andmustproperly " representtheirclientsbyusingtheirknowledgeandawarenessofallaspectsandnuances $  ofthelaw._Blakely_haschangedcriminalproceduredramatically,butthisCourthasyet &"" todefinehowtherulingistobeinterpretedinourState.Second,_CACJ_Ԁiscommittedto ($$ defendingthoseconstitutionalrightsatissuewhenevercriminalcasesareprosecutedand *&& adjudicated._Blakely_representsthefoundationforachangeintheinterpretationofthose  constitutionalrightsatissueincriminalcasesinCalifornia.    _CACJ_ԀrespectfullyurgestheCourttograntitsmotionforpermissiontoappearin  thiscase.ThisbriefistimelyfiledundertheCourtscurrentbriefingorder.       @}})II.   Ѐ@cc_CACJ_SBRIEFONTHEMERITSSUPPORTINGAPPELLANTBLACK  v     (h88p     THISCOURTSHOULDHOLDTHATPENALCODE1170,ANDSTATUTES   ASWELLASSENTENCINGRULESLINKEDTOITBYTHEDESIGN   OFTHEDETERMINATESENTENCINGLAWMUSTBE   SUITABLYANDAPPROPRIATELYAMENDEDTO  ENSURETHECONTINUED @h CONSTITUTIONAL  VITALITYOFCALIFORNIASAIMTOENSURE  THEELIMINATIONOFDISPARITYANDTHE  EXISTENCEOFDETERMINATESENTENCING   3x  HxUx  "(}08# #  1.0  Introduction  S{ (#(#   _CACJ_ԀsupportsAppellantKevinBlacksarguments,which,brieflystated,areas  follows:_Blakely_appliesinCalifornia(a)insuchawayastoinvalidatethewaythetrial  courtimposedtheUpperTermsentenceinBlackscase;and(b)insofarasthetrialcourt   followedpre_Blakely_procedureinimposingaconcurrentsentencewhichBlackarguesis " amatterthatrequiresajuryverdictasaconditionprecedent. $    Appellantsargumentsareclearandcomplete,andstandwithouttheneedfor &!" furtherexplanation.ButtheonematterAppellantBlackleavesforthisCourttoresolve (#$ isafundamentalquestion:CanCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLawsurviveinits *%& currentformafter_Blakely_?Thequestionrequiresanassessmentofwhetherthe  architectureofstatutesandrulesassociatedwiththeDeterminateSentencingLaw,  beginningwith S PenalCode1170,canbesavedthroughtherulesofseverability,or  throughsomeothermethodofreconciliation.Theycannot.Californiassentencinglaws   arenotfullyconstitutional,asCaliforniasprocedureisnot_Blakely_compliant.Partsof   oursystem,discussedhere,mustbedeclaredunconstitutional.     _CACJ_ԀrespectfullysubmitsthatthisCourthasanopportunitywithAppellant   Blackscase,aswellaswiththeotherleadcaseinthelitigationintotheimplicationsof  _Blakely_,toofferneededclarityandguidanceforthenecessaryprofoundchangesneeded  inCaliforniassubstantiveandprocedurallawstobringusintocompliancewiththeir  monumentalruling.WhileCaliforniaclearlycancontinuetouseadeterminate  sentencingstructure,ourrulesofpleading,trialandsentencingmustbechangedsoasto  enablesentencingdecisionstobemadeonthebasisoffactsadjudicatedthroughthe  SixthAmendmentsjurytrialrequirements.    _CACJ_ԀurgestheCourttosetforthitsviewofapost_Blakely_statutory,andrule   related,architecturewhichcanappropriatelydignifyadeterminatesentencingscheme " intendedtoensure ...termsproportionatetotheseriousnessoftheoffensewith $  provisionforuniformityinthesentenceofoffenderscommittingthesameoffenseunder &"" similarcircumstances. W (PenalCode1170(a)(1).)_CACJ_Ԁhassupportedandcontinues ($$ tosupportthelegislativefindinganddeclarationsetforthinPenalCode1170(a)(1) *&& whichstates:    8 ` TheLegislaturefurtherfindsanddeclaresthattheelimination  ofdisparityandtheprovisionofuniformityofsentencescan  bestbeachievedbydeterminatesentencesfixedbystatutein  proportiontotheseriousnessoftheoffenseasdeterminedby   theLegislaturetobeimposedbythecourtswithspecified   discretion. ` x` x    `   _CACJ_ԀrecognizesthatapossibleoutcomeofurgingthisCourttofindthecurrent   DeterminateSentencingLawunconstitutionalaswritten,andimplemented,maybe,in   effect,areturntothedaysofindeterminatesentencing.Butthatoutcomeisneither   necessary,norinkeepingwithCaliforniasadoptionofdeterminatesentencingasarule  ofcriminalprocedure,andasameansofdeterminingjustpunishmentsforcrimes.    _CACJ_Ԁdoesnotsupporttheenactmentofasentencingschemebydefault.  However,itdoessupportarulingfromthisCourtthatwillsetthedirectionforthe  orderlyresolutionoftheconstitutionalandlegalissuespresentedtoourStatebythe  UnitedStatesSupremeCourtrulingin_Blakely_.Itisclearthattheletterof ] PenalCode  1170issimplynotcompliantwith_Blakely_,andthatdelayininvalidatingthestatutewill  promptmorequestionsthanitwillanswer.Moreover,thecurrentRulesofCourt ! adoptedunder _ PenalCode1170(d) soastoeliminatedisparityofsentenceandto # promoteuniformityofsentencingareinconsistentwiththeconstitutionalrequirementof %!!  ajurydecisiononfactualfindingsthatarenow,bystatute,definedasdiscretionary '## decisionstobemadebyasentencingcourt.    2      ׀     _Blakely_and f _Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,(2000)530U.S.466havechangedthe  requirementsofacriminalcasejurytrialunderthe l SixthAmendmenttotheUnitedStates  Constitution.rT    3      ׀_CACJ_ԀurgesthisCourttoannouncetheimplicationsof_Blakely_andthe   requiredchangesnowsothattheLegislature,andrulemakingbodies,areappropriately   andimmediatelyguided.    (գ80"! !  "X3"    X3 2գ  2  .3  0 `   TheSituationisSuchthatThisCourtMustStepinNow 0 X3 F݌ ` (#` (# Ќ    Intheaftermathof_Blakely_,Californiacourtshaveactivelyaddressed_Blakely_   issues,withoutthebenefitofguidancefromthisCourt.Onescholarwhopurportstobe  followingtheprogressof_Blakely_litigationnationwideindicatesthatCaliforniacourts  morethananyothersthroughouttheUnitedStates(withthepossibleexceptionofthe  federalcourts),haveapplied_Blakely_tocurrentsentencingissues.(    4      ׀Thisstateofaffairsis  creatingproblems.First,someofthecurrentrulingsarecontradictory.Second,and  moreimportantly,itiscompletelyunclearthattheserulings(whicharemultiplying  weekly)will(a)beapprovedofbythisCourt,and(b)arethemselves_Blakely_compliant.   Areviewoftheserulingsdemonstratesongoingjudicialspeculationastowhatviews  willpassmusterinthisCourt.    5          Commentatorsontheimplicationsof_Blakely_havedescribedthisStates  sentencingsystemas fundamentallyaffectedby_Blakely_.3P    6      ׀Viewingsentencingissues   fromanationalperspective,thesecommentatorshavecomparedandcontrastedthe   impactof_Blakely_ontwotypesofdeterminatesentencing.Thefirstischaracterizedby   presumptivesentencingpursuanttospecific,formal,sentencingguidelines.Formal   guidelinesmeansaschemeliketheFederalSentencingGuidelines.Thesecondtypeof  determinatesentencingsystemusespresumptivesentencesbutwithoutmandatory  sentencingguidelines. y OurStatehasbeendescribedvariablyasfallinginthesecond  category,orfittingbetweentwocategories.    Indiscussingsystemsthatwillpassmusterunder_Blakely_and_Apprendi_,the  UnitedStatesSupremeCourt,andscholarshavefocusedontheStateofKansasas  havingadjustedinsuchawayas ...toretainpresumptiveguidelinesbyincorporating  juryfactfindingasthebasisofanenhancedsentence.[footnoteomitted]4    7      ׀TheStateof   Kansascurrentlyusesasystemthatdefinesaseriesofpresumptivesentencesforcrimes,   butalsoallowsthepresumedpunishmenttobeenhanced.Thus,Kansasprocedure   requiresspecificformsofaccusatorypleadingsandproofwhereenhancedpunishmentis   beingsought.Kansasprovidesasfollowswhere anupward_durational_Ԁdeparture  sentenceisatissue:     ` Uponmotionofthecountyordistrictattorneytoseek     ` anupward_durational_Ԁdeparturesentence,theCourtshall     ` considerimpositionofsuchupward_durational_Ԁsentence     ` inthemannerprovidedinsubsection(b)(2).Thecountyor     ` districtattorneyshallfilesuchmotiontoseekupward     ` _durational_Ԁsentencenotlessthan30dayspriortothedate     ` oftrialorifthetrialdateistotakeplaceinlessthan     ` 30daysthenwithin5daysfromthedateofarraignment.     ` (2)Thecourtshalldetermineifthepresentationofany     ` evidenceregardingtheallegedfactorsmayincreasethe      ` penaltyforacrimebeyondthestatutorymaximum,other !    ` thanapriorconviction,shallbepresentedtoajuryand "    ` provedbeyondareasonabledoubtduringthetrialofthe #    ` matterorfollowingthedeterminationofthedefendants $     ` innocenceorguilt. %!!   &""   KansasStatutesAnnotated,214718(b)(1)(2).    8         `   `   Admittedly,theKansassentencingschemeasoriginallyrevampedintheearly  1990'sdidnotcompletelymirrorCalifornias  DeterminateSentencingLawasembodied  in  PenalCode1170etseq.Buttherewerebothconceptualandlegalsimilarities.In   1993,theKansasLegislatureenactedthe  KansasSentencingGuidelinesActwhich   providedforsentencingaccordingtotwosentencinggrids.Onewasfordrugfelonies,   andtheotherfornondrugfelonies.Thesentencingrangetobeappliedinagivencase   wasbasedontwofactors:First,thestatutorydefinitionofasecuritylevelofthecrime  admitted,orfoundtruethroughjuryorcourtverdict;second,theoffenderspriorhistory.  Asentencingcourtwouldreviewarelativelynarrowrangeofsentencesatthe  intersectionoftheseveritylevelandpriorcriminalhistorytodeterminetheindicated  authorizedsentenceforthegivenoffense.Theschemealsopermittedaggravatingor  mitigatingfactorstobeproventodepartfromtheindicatedsentence.|    9      ׀    ThetwomattersthatcausedreformofsentencingprocessesintheStateofKansas  weretherulingin  _Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.466andtheKansasSupreme   Courtsrulingin  Statev.Gould,(_Kan_.,2001)23P.3d803.InGould,whichpreceded " thedecisionin_Blakely_,theKansasSupremeCourtexpressedconcernover_Apprendi_s $  commandasfollows(quotingfrom_Apprendi_): Therelevantinquiryisnotoneofform, &"" butofeffect...doestherequiredfindingexposethedefendanttoagreaterpunishment  thanthatauthorizedbythejurysguiltyverdict.Comparingthefindingmadebythe  trialcourtinitssentencinganalysistothepunishmentauthorizedbyjuryverdict,and  relyingon_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.at494,theKansasSupremeCourt   foundthetrialcourtssentenceinGouldtobeillegal.     TheKansasLegislaturereactedtothedecisioninStatev.Gould,supra,by   codifyingthe_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,supra,requirements.(See  ԀKansasStatutes   Annotated(2002Supplement),214718(b)(1),quotedabove.)Theserequirements  provideaprocedurethatincorporatesnoticepleadingwiththemandateofacourtorjury  adjudication,basedonthereasonabledoubtstandard,ofwhatareessentiallysentencing  facts.Atthisjuncture,becauseofitsendorsementofthe  SixthAmendmentrootfor  sentencingdecisions,itisassumedthattheKansassentencingschemepassesmuster  under_Blakely_.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsmentionoftheKansasschemein  _Blakely_certainlyprovidesabasisfortheassumption.Moresignificantly,forthe  purposesoftheargumentnowofferedtothisCourt,thereisnoindicationthatthe   decisionbytheStateofKansastobringitsdeterminatesentencinglawintocompliance " withthe_Apprendi_/_Blakely_lineofcaseshasbeensignificantlyproblematictothe $  administrationofjusticeinKansas.  &""  +(88! !  "X3"  X3Z2  3  .3  0    AppellantBlackCorrectlyArguesthatthe_Blakely_/_Apprendi_ԀRuleswill  InvalidateSentencesBeyondthePrescribedStatutoryMaximumBasedon  SentenceSignificantFactsthathavenotbeenSubmittedtoaJury,orAgreed  UponTrierofFact,andFoundbeyondReasonableDoubt eMX3Z݌(#(# Ќ     ThemajorityopinionbyJudgeScaliain_Blakely_Ԁv.Washingtonisquiteclear.   First: Otherthanthefactofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyfora   crimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury,andproved    beyondareasonabledoubt._Apprendi_,supra,530U.S.466at744.Further,acourtmay   notexceedthestatutorilymaximumsentence,orthesocalled maximumsentence   withoutthefindingsofthejury._Blakely_,supra,124_S.Ct_.2531,2537.    Priorto_Blakely_,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthadalsostatedthat: [_i]t_Ԁisnot,  ofcourse,thatanyonetodaywouldclaimthateveryfactwithabearingonsentencing  mustbefoundbyajury,wehaveresolvedthatgeneralissueandhavenointentionof  questioningitsresolution.  Jonesv.UnitedStates,(1999)526U.S.227,248.In  litigating_Blakely_,theStateofWashingtonreliedondecisionslikeJones,  ԀHarrisv.  UnitedStates,(2002)536U.S.545[wherethecourtheldthatjudgesmayfindfactsthat  compelamandatoryminimumsentencewhichwouldnecessarilyincreasethesentenceof ! some_accuseds_],and  _McMillan_Ԁv.Pennsylvania,(1986)477U.S.79,assupportingthe # viewthatlegislatureshavewidelatitudeindefiningtheelementsofthecrimethatmust % ! beprovedtoajury.See_McMillan_,744U.S.at84relyinginparton  ԀPattersonv.U.S. '"# (1977)432U.S.197,210.Butin_Blakely_theCourtansweredthoseargumentsby )$% distancingitselffromtheallegedimplicationsofitspriorrulings.(Id.at2531,253738.) +&'   The_Blakely_courtfoundthattheSixthAmendmentcannotsupport ...asentence  greaterthanwhatstatelawauthorizedonthebasisoftheverdictalone._Blakely_,124  _S.Ct_.at238.Indeedtheanalysisofferedin_Blakely_demonstratesthatrelianceon   SupremeCourtprecedentestablishedpriorto_Blakely_asthefoundationfordefendinga   sentencingschemeisriskybusinessindeed.And,inpassing,theCourtdignifiedthe   currentargumentmadetothisCourtby_CACJ_ԀtotheeffecttheKansasLegislatures   responseto_Apprendi_wasthecorrectone.See_Blakely_,supra,at2541.    The_Blakely_courtspecificallydiscussedthesortofresultsthatwillnolongerbe  constitutionallyvalidabsentasupportingjuryestablishingthefactsthathavesentencing  significance.Itprovidedexamplesofdefectivesentencingpracticesincluding:  1)enhancingasentencebasedonajudicialfindingofaspecifiedfactnotbeenfound  truebyajury;2)theapplicationofseveralspecifiedfactsbyasentencingcourtthatwere  notfoundbythejury;and3)theuseofanyaggravatingfactthatwasnotfoundbythe  jury.Indiscussingthefutureofsentencingprocedures,the_Blakely_majorityreferredto   an_Apprendi_brightlinethatrequiresfactssignificanttojudicialimpositionofsentence " tobedeterminedbyajury._Blakely_at2538,2540. $    BecauseoftheclarityofthestatutesandrulesthatembodyCalifornias &"" DeterminateSentencingLaw,itcanbesaidthatthe_DSL_Ԁincludesanumberoffeatures ($$ thatcannotsurvivetherulingin_Blakely_.Thestatutecentraltothedefinitionsofthe *&& _DSL_Ԁexplainsthatwhereverthelawprovidesadeterminatesentencedefinedbythree  sentencingoutcomes, ...thecourtshallorderimpositionofthemiddleterm,unless  therearecircumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime.PenalCode1170(b).  ЀPursuanttoitsrulemakingability,theJudicialCouncilhaspublishedrulesthatdescribe   howcourtsaretofindtheaggravatingfactsthatjustifytheimpositionoftheupperterm.   SeeCaliforniaRulesofCourt(hereafterRule)  ԀRule4.405(d).Significantly,however,   thereisnorequirementofatriggeringjuryfinding,orofproofbeyondareasonable   doubt.    Inaddition,sentencingcourtsinCaliforniahavediscretiontodecidewhetheran  additionaltermofimprisonmentforacharged enhancementcanbeapplied.    10      ׀These  courtsalsodecidewhetherprobationislimited,orcanbegranted.(See  ԀRule4.413,  4.414.)Theydecidewhatcriteriaaffectconcurrentconsecutivesentences.(  Rule4.425.)  Thereisnorequirementofajuryverdicttoestablishthesesentencingacts.Unlessa  Californiasentencingjudgeislimitedbyoperationoflawintheexerciseofdiscretion,a  simplerecitationontherecordoffactorsthatsupporttheexerciseofsentencing   discretionwillsufficetojustifyasentence.(See  Rule4.406(a.).)Insum,underour "  system,manyofthecrimeanddefendantcharacteristicsthatwilltriggeragiventypeof $  sentencearelefttothecourtsdiscretionarydecisionmaking&    11      ׀inviolationof_Blakely_and   _Apprendi_.    FurtherevidenceofourStatesinvestmentinasentencingschemethatplaces  widerangingdiscretionwiththecourtattimeofsentencingisthefactthatmuchofthe   detailofthe_DSL_ԀisfoundintheRules--notinstatutesdefiningcrimesandpunishments.   TheCaliforniaLegislaturedidnot,byandlarge,definethecircumstancesthatcantrigger   ajudicialfindingthattheaggravatedtermisthecorrect,oratleastlegallypermissible,   termtobeappliedinagivencase.Rule4.421whichdefinesthecircumstancesin  aggravationisaruleadoptedpursuanttothelegislativedelegationofpower.Indeed,  noneofthe11factorsinaggravationwhicharesocalledcrimefactsunderRule  4.421(a),andnoneofthedefendantfactsfoundinRule4.421(b)orthediscretionary  otherfactsdeterminedtobeaggravatinginaparticularcase  (Rule4.421(c))is:foundin  statutes;requiredtobefoundbythejury;orrequiredtobeestablishedbeyonda  reasonabledoubt.    Insum,whileourstatessentencingschemeisconstitutionalingeneralterms--a   statesurelycanenactandmaintainaDeterminateSentencingLaw,butthedetailsof " oursentencingproceduresmustbereplaced. $   5(88+! !    "X3"  X32  4  .3  0    TheCaliforniaSentencingSchemeCannotbeRescuedThrough '"# _Interlineation_ _X3݌(#$(#(# Ќ    o  OurDeterminateSentencingLawisbroad,anditsdefiningstatutescovera  multitudeofsubjectsanddelegaterulemakingpowerinsuchawayastorequirethis  CourttotendernoticethatPenalCode1170etseq.andtheassociatedRulesofCourt   aspublishedandappliedmustberuledinvalid.Ourcurrentschememustbereplacedby   _Blakely_compliantlegislation.     Clearly,Californiacanreiteratethedecisiontousedeterminatesentencesforall   butafewcrimes.SeePenalCode1170(a)(1).However,_CACJ_Ԁrespectfullysubmits   thatundertherulesthatapplytotheanalysisofseverability,theDeterminateSentencing  LawasitappearsinPenalCode1170etseq.cannotberescuedthroughasurgical  procedure.In  Inre_Blaney_,(1947)30Cal.2d643,655,thisCourtnotedthatwhilethere  isageneralpresumptionofconstitutionalityofallstatutes,theanalysisofwhethera  statuteisseverablehingesnotonlyonwhether(1)thelanguageofthestatuteis  mechanicallyseverable,butalso(2)whether ...thelanguageissobroadastocover  subjectswithinandwithoutthelegislativepower,andthedefectcannotbecuredby  excisinganywordorgroupofwords...Id.at655.Seealso  SantaBarbaraSchool ! Districtv.SuperiorCourt,(1975)13Cal.3d315at330331discussingtherulesof # severabilityinanalyzingtheconstitutionalviabilityofthecontentsofaballotinitiative.'    12      ׀ %!!   Itisaxiomaticthatastatutethatisconstitutionallyvalidisnotrenderedineffective  bylanguagewhichisinvalidbutcanbeseveredfromthevalidportionofthestatute.  See,generally,thediscussionin  HotelEmployeesandRestaurantEmployees  InternationalUnionv.Davis,(1999)21Cal.4th585,613.Buttheinvalidpartofa   statutecanbeseveredonlyifitisgrammatically,functionally,andvolitionally   separable.Id.at613.     SomuchofourDeterminateSentencingLawdrawsforcefromanarchitecture   thatprovidesawiderangeofjudicialsentencingdecisionsabsentpleadings,juryverdicts  andburdensrequiredby_Apprendi_and_Blakely_thatin_CACJ_sestimationitissimplynot  possibletoconsidertheDeterminateSentencingLawseverable.Whilethebackboneof  theDeterminateSentencingLawcertainlycanremaininplace,thatboneisreally  providedbythestatementoflegislativeintent,andpreamble,containedinPenalCode  1170(a)(1).Clearly,Californiacanconstitutionally,accordingtotheCaliforniaand  UnitedStatesConstitutions,bothfindanddeclarethatthepurposeofimprisonmentis  punishment,andprovideaschemetoachieveuniformityinsentencing.Buttheinner   workingsoftheschemeasitnowexists,theinteriorandfinishworkoftheDeterminate " SentencingLaw,asitwere,cannotberescued. $   7(885! !  "X3"    X3-2  5  .3  0 `   InOrdertoMeetthe_Blakely_/_Apprendi_ԀRequirements,thisCourtMust &"" RequireChangesin:RulesofPleading;DefinitionofSentence '"# TriggeringElementswhereNecessary;TrialofRequiredSentencing (#$ Facts;JuryVerdictsandSentencingProcessesX3-x݌)$%` (#` (# Ќ      Z  Californiacanclearlyretaindeterminatesentencing.TheSupremeCourt +&' specificallysostatedin_Blakely_,notingthattheStateofWashingtonsadoptionof  determinatesentencing,andattentionto ...proportionalitytothegravityoftheoffense  andparityamongdefendantswereappropriateand salutaryobjectives.Id.at2540.  However,inordertobringCaliforniaintolinewiththecombinationof_Apprendi_Ԁv.New   Jersey,supra,and_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,supra,thisCourtshouldinstructthe   Legislature,andthepertinentrulemakingbodies,tobeattentivetothefollowing   requiredchanges.     First,itisapparentthatthe_Blakely_majorityviewstheSixthAmendmentas  requiringthateveryfactlegallyessentialtopunishmentmustbechargedinthe  Indictment.Id.at2536,n.5.Totheextentanddegreethat  Ringv.Arizona,536U.S.  584,592602(2002)islinkedtotherulingin_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,supra,124_S.Ct_.at  2537,thedefendantmusthavenoticeofthefactand/orlegallysignificantfactorsthatare  essentialasabasisforagivenpunishment,particularlyanenhancedoraggravated  punishment.    Second,after_Blakely_,ourStatemustestablishthelegalrequirementthatevery   factthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimemustbesubmittedtoajury,andprovedbeyond " areasonabledoubt,or,thatwheretheaccusedpleadsguilty,nocontest,orotherwise $  admitsfactscriticaltotheenhancementoraggravationofasentence,theaccusedmust &"" eitherstipulatetotherelevantfacts,orknowingly,voluntarily,andintelligentlymust ($$ consenttojudicialfactfinding.See_Blakely_at2541. *&&   Third,thelegalarchitecturethatdefinesfactsthatincreaseapenaltyforacrime  mustbechangedsothatthesefactsaresubjecttotrial--eitherthroughacommandthat  thedefinitionsofindividualcrimesbechangedaccordingtothe_Blakely_formula,or,  throughtheexpansionofthePenalCodetoincludesucharequirement,perhapsina   restatementofPenalCode1170.     Fourth,itappearsto_CACJ_Ԁthatthedefinitionofaverdictmayneedtobechanged   soastoprovidejudgeswiththeconfidencethat,onoccasion,andcontrarytothecurrent   fabricofCalifornialaw,specialverdictsdealingwithsentencingfactsmayberequired,  andwillbeauthorized.    Finally,thestatutoryandassociatedruleintensiveframeworkofCalifornias  sentencinglawswillneedtobechangedinordertoincorporatetheseveral_Blakely_  compliantelementsjustdescribed._CACJ_ԀrespectfullysubmitsthattheKansasstatutory  schemediscussedaboveisinstructive,anduseful,asaguide.  "X3"    X32  6  .3  0 `   TheChangesUrgedby_CACJ_ԀareSignificant,butClearlyManageable;  thePendencyof_Blakely_ԄRelatedCasesBeforetheU.S.SupremeCourt  MakesItImperativethatCaliforniaReformitsLawsCorrectlyatthis   JunctureX3:݌!` (#` (# Ќ   0  JudgeMarvinFrankelhasbeencreditedwithprovidingtheimpetusforthe#(#(# CongressoftheUnitedStatestomovetowardsreformingthefederalsentencingsystem % ! which,accordingtoJudgeFrankel,allowed almostwhollyuncheckedandsweeping '"#  discretionofsentencingjudgestocreateasituationthatwas terrifyingandintolerable )$% forasocietythatprofessesdevotiontotheruleoflaw.a    13      ׀Today,theUnitedStates   SupremeCourtisconsideringwhethertheproductofthereformeffort,theFederal  SentencingReformActof1984(whichgaverisetotheFederalSentencingGuidelines),  isstillconstitutionalintheaftermathoftherulingin_Blakely_.bT    14           _CACJ_ԀrespectfullysubmitsthatiftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinvalidatesthe   FederalSentencingGuidelines,Californiascurrentsentencingschemewillbemade   furthersuspectbytheextenttowhichtheLegislaturedeferredimportantaspectsof   sentencingrulemakingtotheJudicialCouncil.    _CACJ_ԀmakestheabovepointtonotethatthisCourtshouldprovidethe  Legislaturewithacomprehensiveanalysisofthestepsnecessarytoachievevalidlaw  reformofCaliforniassentencingprocess.    TheimportanceofthisCourtsaddressingtheglobalissuespresentedbythisand  similarcasesisfurtheremphasizedbythesheernumberofcasesthataredealtwithin  Californiacourts.Thatsaid,theavailablestatisticsclearlyindicatethatthepaceoftrial  levelcaseadjudicationsinCaliforniawillallow_Blakely_compliantpleading,negotiation,   andadjudicationthroughtrial,totakeplaceafterpreliminaryexaminations--yetanother  reasontousetheKansasstatutediscussedaboveasaguide.Thestatisticsindicatethat  neededreformscanoccurwithoutprecipitatingchaosinourcourtsystem.    AccordingtotheStatewideCaseloadTrendsreportedinfiscalyear20022003,of   atotalof188,311casesdisposedofinourcourts,120,011resultedinfelony   convictions.c    15      ׀Thevastmajorityofcasesaredisposedofpriortotrial--61percent.Of   theoveralldispositionsofcasesintheStateofCalifornia(here,presumably,including   bothfeloniesandcaseschargedasfeloniesthatwereeitherreducedorbargaineddown  tomisdemeanors),123,198weredisposedofafterthepreliminaryhearing.nh    16          Thus,itappearsthatapproximatelytwothirdsofthefelony,ormixed  felony/misdemeanor,caseschargedintheStateofCaliforniaareresolvedafterthe  preliminaryhearing.o    17      ׀Usingarelativelyroughassessmentoftheinformationprovided  bycasetrendsinthelastfiscalyear,itisclearthatthemajorityoffelonylevelcasesare  disposedofatapointatwhichthecourts,andparties,haveacquiredanenhanced  knowledgeofcasefactsthroughthepreliminaryexamination.Resolutionafterthe   preliminaryhearingalsomeansthatthepartieshavebeenabletoreviewavailablecase  discovery,andwherenecessary,boththeprosecutionanddefensehavealsobeenableto  conductnecessaryfurtherinvestigation.Theflowofcasesindicatesthatthemajority  offelonyfilingscanbebroughtinto_Blakely_Ԁshapeafterthepreliminaryhearing.     ReviewoftheCaliforniasystemasitnowstandsindicatesthatareformofthe   Californiasystemisnotonlylegallynecessarybecauseof_Blakely_,butisalsoachievable   withouttheneedforreformthatmightoverwhelmcurrentpracticesinourcourts,   familiartoboththeprosecutionanddefensebars.Thestatisticssupportthenotionthat  exceptwhereearlynegotiationsrequirethefilingofa_Blakely_compliantcharging  documentpriortothepreliminaryexamination,inthevastmajorityofcases,itisthe  periodoftimebetweenthepreliminaryexamination,andthecutoffforpretrialdiscovery  compliancemandatedunderPenalCode1054etseq.thatprovidesthemostfertile  groundforthefilingof_Blakely_compliantchargingdocumentsinthosecasesheadedto  trialontheonehand,orlikelytoresolvethroughanegotiateddisposition,ontheother.  Whilethenecessaryrevisionofstatutesmaybeextensive,thepracticalchangescan   easilybeaccommodatedgiventhewaythatcasestendtobehandledinourState. "   However,whilethestatisticsrelieduponheredescribeawindowofopportunity, $  reportofthesheernumberofcaseshandledinCaliforniacourtsclearlyprovides &"" emphasisfortheneedforthisCourttoactdecisivelynow. ($$   *&&    ` @%  CONCLUSION r#     _CACJ_ԀsupportsAppellantBlackinhisarguments.Theissuespresentedtothis  Courtby_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,supra,andespeciallyby_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,supra,  gowellbeyondthoseraisedbyMr.Black._CACJ_ԀrespectfullysubmitsthatthisCourt   issuearulinginthiscasethatwillenableCaliforniatoredesignitssentencingschemeto   ЀcomplywiththecurrentinterpretationoftheUnitedStatesConstitutiondiscussedin   _Blakely_.   Dated:October__,20040  0h(#(#0h(#h(#Respectfullysubmitted, (#(#    `     h   JOHNT._PHILIPSBORN_,ESQ.     `     h   CHARLESD._WEISSELBERG_,ESQ.     `     h   򀀀     `     h   JOHNT._PHILIPSBORN_     `     h   StateBarNo.83944     `     h   AttorneyandCoChair,     `     h   AmicusCommittee     `     h   CALIFORNIAATTORNEYS     `     h   FORCRIMINALJUSTICE   _ @ PROOFOFSERVICEBYMAIL     I,TheresaJacobson,declare:    ThatIamovertheageof18,employedintheCountyofSanFrancisco,  California,andnotapartytothewithinaction;mybusinessaddressis507PolkStreet,   Suite250,SanFrancisco,California.   ,  OnOctober,2004,Iservedthewithin    8  0`      ` MOTIONOFCALIFORNIAATTORNEYSFORCRIMINAL   JUSTICEԀFORPERMISSIONTOAPPEARASAMICUS   CURIAEONBEHALFOFAPPELLANTS(RULE29.1(f)AND   BRIEFINSUPPORTOFAPPELLANTBLACK#.#Ԁ#/#  ` `  onthepartiesinthisactionbyplacingatrueandcorrectcopythereofinasealed   envelopewithpostagethereonfullyprepaidintheUnitedStatesmailatSanFrancisco,   California,addressedasfollows:   (X(#(#(EileenS.Kotler0 0  0h0@hh(#h(#0@h(#(#hh Balin&Kotler  1750FranciscoBlvd.  Pacifica,CA94044  Hon.WilliamSilveira,Jr.  c/oOfficeoftheClerk  TulareCountySuperiorCourt  221S.MooneyBlvd.  Visalia,CA932391  #@2##]3#OfficeoftheClerk   FifthDistrictCourtofAppeal ! 2525CapitolStreet " Fresno,CA93721#3# # BradBristow,Esq.  CentralCaliforniaAppellateProgram   2407JStreet,Suite301 ! Sacramento,CA95816 " OfficeoftheDistrictAttorney $ 2350BurrelAvenue % Courthouse#224 & Visalia,CA93291#A5# ' KevinM.BlackT81134 ) #)6#CalipatriaStatePrison * P.O.Box5001  + Calipatria,CA922335001#6# !, OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral #. P.O.Box944255 $/ Sacramento,CA94244 % 0 5(#(#X15/  Ideclareunderpenaltyofperjurythattheforegoingistrueandcorrect.Executed '"0  #(8#onOctober,2004atSanFrancisco,California. (#1 G8   `     h      p _________________________ )$2    `     h      p TheresaJacobson#8# *%3 q9