WPC |(c}e2de@I%̢ ΀1!w3q 9ԚC'X9ucz-n҄vÞǶt' k)8$(.8BZ2V_U9]dQEC_6FUň_y-5]夃*"+-Ħ; (z͙S^,G4J/é d$ȭ HZ"Y@P@굒[wfѨVT0I:~*how]Fʸqdn1~?*p tL|D}YGU=j u=G(*H*-z̸*]cWX'; DwA#=UMNW@ %@ 0Y@NAwA4 AA-A m/A/A 0 DFAU@AU%>A BYBqF]LusLDN 0U,O 0O 0dP 0)Q 0Q 0R 0TS 0T 0T 0IU 0V 0V 0W 0?X 0X 0Y 0"Z 0Z 0D[ 0\ 0\ 0] 0.^ 0^ 0p_ 0` 0` 0$a 0a 0b 0>Rc 0c 0d 0je 0Lf 0.g 0h 0h 0i 02~j 0j 0:k 0Yk 0_?l 0 l 0m 0*o B*0q D/Zq D+q 0q D/s 0s 06t 0t u v %v 0:=v 0^wv 0<v 1ewU6vwU*w w Rw B>x 1u[x 72x 0cybeyU>my yk}}, 2KK}*ԓԓԓ ^  b  2 0 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2 0N4hp LaserJet 1300 PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$vOXXUSUS.,Wd0:i+003|xU(#$  0  (9 Z(Times New Roman \  `&Times New RomanSDU_4 O z$חXXUSUS.,XHXח      4    _ԀBookerspotentialapplicationtootherkindsof_Blakely_claims,suchaschallengesto  consecutivesentences,maybemoreproblematic.But,todate,everyappellatepanel!including  thosewhichhavesupported_Blakely_sapplicationtouppertermfactors!hasalreadyrejected  attemptstoextendthoserightstoconsecutivesentencingdecisions.(E.g.,Peoplev.White(2004) t 124_Cal.App_.4th1417.)Asnotedinmanyofthoseopinions,thereisnosubstantivestatutory ` mandate,comparableto1170(b),statingaexpresspresumptionforconcurrenttermsorexplicitly L  conditioningtheavailabilityofconsecutivetermsuponadditionalaggravatingfactors.  z$חXXUSUS.,XHXח      5    _ԀMostcourtshaveviewedthefactorofpriorconvictionsorjuvenileadjudicationswhich  are numerousorofincreasingseriousness(rule4.421(b)(2))astheclassicexampleofa prior   convictionfactorwithintheAlmendarezTorresexception.(E.g.,Vu,supra,atp.1068[findingthis  factornotsubjectto_Blakely_,evenwhenitrestsonjuvenileadjudicationsonwhichdefendantwould  nothavehadjurytrialrightinpriorproceeding].)But,inseveralunpublishedopinions,Division  TwooftheFirstDistricthastakenthepositionthatthisfactorimplicates_Blakely_(evenwhenitis t basedonlyonadultconvictions)becausetheassessmentofwhetherthepriorsare numerousorof `  increasingseriousness requiresadditionalfindingswhicharenotonlyfactual,butsubjective. L  (See,e.g.,Peoplev._Gaitan_(Oct.4,2004;A102560)2004WL2212089atp.*11,reviewgr.Dec. 8  15,2004(S128970);Peoplev.Haynes(Oct.25,2004;A103248)2004WL2378393atp.*9.)   k z$חXXUSUS.,XHXח      7    _ԀMuchofthebriefinginboth_Towne_andBlackisavailableonthe _Blakely_pageof  _FDAP_swebsite:4 n @O  5  http://www.fdap.org/blakely4.html6@O  7 P.http://www.fdap.org/blakely4.html*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKS<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KS<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KS<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7E(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?T%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7F(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dD)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7H(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?T%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7F(X75+ ` hp x 5  D)2dxd0KS.SampleKS<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKS<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanSSearchTermSR;12096FN;B0121242Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$% 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`ArialStarPageciteas((Cite as: 11 Cal.4th 607, *661) d3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Xi)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  - -%\  `&Times New Roman  z$חXXUSUS.,XHXח      8    _ԀBookersandFanfansrespectivebriefsonthemeritsareavailableontheABAswebsite  (amongothersites):4` @O  5  http://_www.abanet.org_/_publiced_/preview/briefs/oct04.html#_usbooker_6D@OX  7 R .Though  thebriefsraisedotherobjections,bothpracticalandconstitutional(e.g.,doublejeopardy),to  conversionoftheguidelinesinto advisorystandards,neitherdefendantinvoked_Bouie_Ԁv.Cityof t Columbiaorotherdueprocess/retroactivityauthorities. a z$חXXUSUS.,XHXח      9    _ԀThisassumesthat_Blakely_itselfisdeemeda newrulebutnotthekindofrare   watershed...implicating...fundamentalfairnessandaccuracy,"whichcouldbeapplied  retroactivelytocaseswhichwerealreadyfinal.(_Teague_Ԁv.Lane(1989)489U.S.288.)Thatseems  themostlikelycharacterizationof_Blakely_inlightoftheSupremeCourtsrefusal(onthesamedate t asthe_Blakely_opinion)togiveretroactiveeffecttoRingvArizonaXHXXXH(2002)536U.S.584#XHXXXHm#Ԁ(righttojury ` trialonaggravatingfactsnecessaryfordeathpenalty).(_Schiro_Ԁv._Summerlin_(2004)___U.S.___, L  124_S.Ct_.2519.)Ofcourse,if_Blakely_weretobedeemednothingmorethananapplicationof 8  _Apprendi_,then_Blakely_wouldalsoapplytocasesgoingbackto2000!asJusticeOConnorwarned $ t inher_Blakely_dissent.http://www.abanet.orgDocument1zzSDUNumber59  z$חXXUSUS.,XHXח      1    _ԀOnJanuary19,2005,asthesematerialsweregoingtopress,theCaliforniaSupremeCourt  solicitedsupplementalbriefinginPeoplevחXXH.#XHXחM#ԀBlack,concerningtheimpactofBooker.But,atleast  accordingtotheCourtsdocket,itdoesnotseemtohaveissuedasimilardirectiveinחXXHPeoplev.#XHXחC#   _Towne_.ThismaysuggestthattheCourthasdecidedtouseBlack,ratherthan_Towne_,asits lead  casetoresolvetheCalifornia_Blakely_issues!possiblybecauseBlackpresentsboththeupperterm  andconsecutivesentencingquestions,while_Towne_posesonlytheuppertermissue.  z$חXXUSUS.,XHXח      2    _ԀCompare,e.g.,חXXHPeoplev.#XHXח#Ԁ_Picado_(2004)123_Cal.App_.4th1216,reviewgr.Jan.19,2005  (S129826),inwhichadividedpanel(1stDist.,Div.5)tookthepositionthatCalifornias_DSL_  involvesonly discretionarysentencingchoicesanddoesnotcomewithin_Blakely_.(Awordof  cautionisinorderaboutalltheappellateopinionscitedinthesematerials.Asithasdonein_Picado_,  theCaliforniaSupremeCourthasbeen grantingandholdingallpublishedcaseson_Blakely_issues, t pendingitsowndeterminationofthoseissuesinBlackand/or_Towne_.Consequently,theentirefirst `  batchofCalifornia_Blakely_opinions(thosedecidedfromSeptemberthroughearlyNovember2004) L  havebeentakenoffthebooks.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule976(d).)Whilethemorerecentopinions 8  notedhereremain_citable_Ԁforthetimebeing,thoseopinionsarenotyetfinalarealmostcertainto $ t meetthesamefate.Althoughthegrantandholdopinionsarenolonger_citable_Ԁundertherules,these  `  materialsrefertoafewofthemtoillustrateappellatecourtsdifferentapproachestorecurring  L  _Blakely_issues.mailto:jboc@fdap.org ; ' 4J. Bradley O'Connell40J. Bradley O'Connell .     z$חXXUSUS.,XHXח      6    _ԀThevalidaggravatingcircumstancesmaybefactorswithinthe_Almendarez_ԄTorres  exception,factsadmittedbythedefendantorfoundunderotheraspectsofthejurysverdict,or  factors,otherwisesubjectto_Blakely_,whichweredeemedharmlessunderChapmanחXXH#XHXח,#becausethejury  wouldnecessarilyhavemadethesamefindings.SDU_55  z$חXXUSUS.,XHXח      10    _ԀIndeed,inthe_Towne_briefing,thedefendantappellantand_CACJ_Ԁhavetakenconflicting  positions!_Towne_Ԁhassuggestedjudicialextensionofjuryrightstoadjudicationofaggravating  factorsasonepossiblesolution,while_CACJ_Ԁhasarguedthatthe_DSL_Ԁisfatallydefectiveandonly  theLegislature,notthecourts,canenactasolution.ԓ82   z$חXXUSUS.,XHXח      3    _ԀDuetothequitedifferent meritsand remedialmajorities,JusticesStevensand_Breyer_  eachwrotebothanopinion fortheCourtandadissentingopinion.Unlessotherwiseindicated,  referencesherearetotheirrespectivemajorityopinionsfortheCourt.Allinternalpagecitationsto   Bookeraretothe_Westlaw_Ԁpagination(2005WL50108).citeas((Cite as: 122 Cal.App.4th 910, *920, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 310, **316)SDU_28Document1zzSDUNumber22(x(2z$ !ŃXXUSUS.,  XXŃ      0  Document1zzSDUNumber70(O$ !חXXUSUS.,  _XHXח[8חdd8    OYXXH_BLAKELY_ԀANDBOOKERINCALIFORNIA:  THENEXTGENERATION#XHX#חXXH  p  Preparedby  J.BradleyOConnell   StaffAttorney,FirstDistrictAppellateProject   4e @O  5  jboc@fdap.org6l@O  7 Ԁ   January2005 #XHXח#       INTRODUCTION  r    TheU.S.SupremeCourthasnowissueditsmuchanticipateddecisionon_Blakely_s J  applicationtothefederalsentencingguidelinesand,equallyimportant,the remedytobringfederal 6  sentencingintocompliancewiththeConstitution.(UnitedStatesv.Booker(Jan.12,2005)__U.S. "r  __,2005WL50108.)The_Apprendi__Blakely_majority(JusticesStevens,Scalia,_Souter_,Thomas& ^ _Ginsburg_)stucktogetherforthe meritsdecision.InanopinionbyJusticeStevens,thatmajority J agreedthattheguidelinesviolatedtheSixthAmendmentbecausethejudgemadeadditionalfactual 6 findingswhichauthorizedasentencehigherthanthemaximumallowablebasedsolelyonthe " findingsreflectedinthejurysverdict(orthedefendantsadmissionsinaplea).But,inasurprising  andunexplaineddevelopment,Justice_Ginsburg_Ԁ defectedfromthatgroupandjoinedthe_Apprendi_Ԅ  _Blakely_dissenters(Justices_Breyer_,OConnor,Rehnquist&Kennedy)toformaquitedifferent  majorityforthe remedy.    Justice_Breyer_Ԁ!oneoftheoriginalarchitectsofthefederalguidelinesandanardentcritic Z ofthe_Apprendi_and_Blakely_holdings!wrotethe remedialdecision.The remedialmajority F rejectedtheoptionofsimplyaccordingtheSixthAmendment_Blakely_rights!charginginthe 2 indictment,jurydetermination,proofbeyondareasonabledoubt!toanyadditionalfactual n allegationswhichtheGovernmentintendedtoassertasabasisforasentencehigherthanthe  Z maximumauthorizedbythejurysverdictonthesubstantivecounts.Instead,asdiscussedlaterin F thesematerials(infra,pp.89),theCourtundertooka reformationoftherelevantstatutes.The  2 Court severedand excisedthe mandatoryprovisions,whichhadstrictlyboundfederaljudges ! toconformtotheguidelines.Theremovalofthoseprovisionsconvertedtheguidelinesintoan "   advisoryregimen,leavinggreatersentencingdiscretioninthehandsoffederaljudges. #    SowhatdoesallthismeanforCalifornia?Thesematerials(writtenintheimmediatewake ~% " ofBooker)representaverypreliminaryattempttofathomBookersimplicationsforthebasic j&!# _Blakely_questions(upperterms,etc.)whichhavebeenlitigatedinCaliforniaappellatecourtsover V'"$ thepast7monthsandforthebroaderquestions(including remedy)nowpendingbeforethe B(#% CaliforniaSupremeCourtinPeoplev._Towne_,S125677,andPeoplev.Black,S126182._c  #  1      _ .)~$& Ї0  UPPERTERM_BLAKELY_ARGUMENTSAFTERBOOKER. (#(#   Theprimaryfocusof_Blakely_Ԁlitigationtodatehasbeenjudicialdeterminationofaggravating  factors(otherthantheproverbial factofapriorconviction)usedtoimposeanupperterm. t Althoughthereremainsasplitofauthority, XHXXXHTheemerging% L #XHXXXHF#%LrXHXXXHmajority% M #XHXXXH#%MXHXXXHԀviewisthatunder#XHXXXH#XHXXXH_Blakely_,#XHXXXHt#XHXXXHԀthe ` midtermisthestatutorymaximum,absentthefactofapriorconviction,thejury'sfindingofan L  aggravatingfactor,orthedefendant'sadmissionofone.Underthisview,themaximumpenaltythe 8  courtcanimposeunderCalifornialawwithoutmakingadditionalfactualfindingsisthemiddleterm.% N #XHXXXH#%Ni $ t [Fn.](XHXXXHPeoplev._Harless_(Dec.20,2004)__#XHXXXH#_Cal.App_.4th__,22_Cal.Rptr_.3d625,645.)_dT  #  2      _Ԁ  `   NothinginBookershouldalterthis emergingmajorityview.TheBooker meritsopinion  8  reiteratesthecrucialholdingof_Blakely_whichisthelynchpinofthechallengetoCaliforniaupper $  terms:   8  That[SixthAmendment]rightisimplicatedwheneverajudgeseekstoimposea   sentencethatisnotsolelybasedon"factsreflected%  inthejuryverdictoradmittedby   thedefendant."[Citation.]......[_U]nder_ԀWashingtonlaw,thejudgewasrequiredto p findadditionalfactsinordertoimposethegreater90-monthsentence.Our \ precedents,weexplained,makeclear"thatthe'statutorymaximum'for_Apprendi_ H purposesisthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimposesolelyonthebasisofthe 4 factsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant."[Citation.](Booker,  p Stevens_opn_.,2005WL50108at*8,emphasisinoriginal.)_y@  #  3      _ \   Їe  Thesamecharacteristicofthefederalguidelineswas_dispositive_ԀinBooker:  8  Toreach[Bookers]sentence,thejudgefoundfactsbeyondthosefoundbythejury:  namely,thatBookerpossessed566gramsofcrackinadditiontothe92.5gramsinhis t duffelbag.Thejuryneverheardanyevidenceoftheadditionaldrugquantity,andthe ` judgefoundittruebyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Thus,justasin_Blakely_,"the L  jury'sverdictalonedoesnotauthorizethesentence.Thejudgeacquiresthatauthority 8  onlyuponfindingsomeadditionalfact."[Citation.](Id.at*10,emphasisadded.)$ t     Thatholding,restingdirectlyonthelanguageof_Blakely_,shouldleavetheCalifornia_Blakely_  L  challengeexactlywhereitwasbeforeBooker.Ifanything,thewillingnessofthe_Apprendi_Ԅ_Blakely_  8  majoritytotakethepoliticallysensitivestepofinvalidatingthefederalguidelinesunderscoresthat $  thosejusticesmeantwhattheysaidin_Blakely_.Nonetheless,Californiaprosecutors,aswellassome   lawprofessors,havebeenquotedinpressreportsassuggestingthatBookermayassistinthestates   defenseofCalifornias_DSL_Ԁasa discretionarysentencingsystemnotimplicatingtheSixth   Amendment.Itstruethat,throughoutthe meritsopinion,JusticeStevensemphasizesthe    mandatorycharacterofthefederalguidelines!inparticular,thatitisdifficultandinsomecases p impossibleforajudgeto departfromtheguidelinesrangeestablishedbytheadditionalfindings. \ Also,theopiniondoesexpanduponthesomewhatelusiveconceptofpermissible_factfinding_Ԁaspart H ofa discretionarysentencingregimen: 4 8  IftheGuidelinesascurrentlywrittencouldbereadasmerelyadvisoryprovisionsthat  \ recommended,ratherthanrequired,theselectionofparticularsentencesinresponse H todifferingsetsoffacts,theirusewouldnotimplicatetheSixthAmendment.Wehave 4 neverdoubtedtheauthorityofajudgetoexercisebroaddiscretioninimposinga   sentencewithinastatutoryrange.[Citations.]Indeed,everyonea_grees_Ԁthatthe   constitutionalissuespresentedbythesecaseswouldhavebeenavoidedentirelyif  Congresshadomittedfromthe_SRA_ԀtheprovisionsthatmaketheGuidelinesbinding  ondistrictjudges;itisthatcircumstancethatmakestheCourt'sanswertothesecond  questionpresentedpossible.Forwhenatrialjudgeexerciseshisdiscretiontoselect l aspecificsentencewithinadefinedrange,thedefendanthasnorighttoajury X  determinationofthefactsthatthejudgedeemsrelevant.(Booker,Stevens_opn_.at*8, D! emphasisadded.)0"      Presumably,thestateintendstoarguethatCalifornias_DSL_Ԁisabenign discretionarysystem $X" becauseafindingofanaggravatingfactordoesnotmandateanuppertermandthetrialcourts $D # balancingofaggravatingandmitigatingfactorsandultimateselectionofthetermareconsidered %0!$ discretionary.However,thatreadingofBookerwouldtreatthefederalguidelinesroleincuttingoff &"% ajudgesabilitytoimposeatermlowerthantheguidelinesrangeasthekeytothedecision.Yet,that '#& cannotbethecasebecause the_Apprendi_rightsapplyonlytofindingswhichincreasethe (#' maximumauthorizedpunishment;_Apprendi_doesnotapplyto mandatoryminimums. (Harris )$( v.UnitedStates(2002)536U.S.545.)Thefederalsentencingguidelinesfunctioninbothways:  Particularfactualfindingsincreasethemaximumsentencebeyondthatauthorizedbytheminimum  elementsofthestatutoryoffense(aswiththeWashingtonguidelinesin_Blakely_),andthosefindings  canalso raisethefloorbyprecludingajudgefromimposingasentenceatthelowerrangeofthat t otherwiseauthorizedforthatoffense.ButHarrisshouldleavenodoubtthatitisonlytheguidelines ` formercharacteristic!theadditionalfindingsauthorizationofahighermaximumterm!which L  implicatestheSixthAmendmentunder_Apprendi_and_Blakely_. 8    Inthatrespect,Californias_DSL_Ԁiseverybitas mandatoryasthefederalguidelines.The  ` statusofCaliforniauppertermdeterminationsunder_Blakely_andBookercontinuestocomedownto  L  thefirstsentenceofPen.Code1170(b): XHXXXHWhenajudgmentofimprisonmentistobeimposedand  8  thestatutespecifies%  #XHXXXH6#%7threepossibleterms,thecourtshallorderimpositionofthemiddleterm,unless $  therearecircumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime.(Emphasisadded.)Asseveral   post_Blakely_appellateopinionshaveheld,undertheplainlanguageofthatstatute,thesentencing   courtcannotimposeanuppertermunlessitfindsatleastoneaggravatingcircumstance.Unlessthere   issuchanadditionalfactualfinding(beyondtheminimumstatutoryelementsoftheoffense),the   courtlacksdiscretiontoselectanupperterm,andthemiddletermisthetrue statutorymaximum p for_Apprendi_Ԅ_Blakely_purposes.(See,e.g.,Peoplev.White(2004)124_Cal.App_.4th1417{andprior \ casesdiscussedthere}.) H   Indeed,BookerappearstorebutatleastoneofthedefensesofCalifornias_DSL_.Themajority  p opinioninPeoplev._Picado_,supra,123_Cal.App_.4th1216,laysoutinsomedepththecasefor  \ exemptinguppertermaggravatingfactorsfrom_Blakely_.The_Picado_majorityassertsthattheentire H triadoftermsofaCaliforniastatutoryoffenseestablishesthe rangeinwhichaCaliforniacourt 4 exercises discretioninchoosingtheterm.Accordingtothatview,theupperterm,notthemidterm,   isthestatutorymaximumfor_Apprendi_Ԅ_Blakely_purposes.The_Picado_majorityrepeatedlyemphasizes   thatthestatuteestablishingthechargedoffense(inthatcase,Pen.Code245(a))statesthethree  availableterms. Lookingfirstatsection245,subdivision(a)(1),theLegislaturehasprescribedan  uppertermoffouryears,andnothinginthatstatuterequiresthefindingofanadditionalfactto  imposethisfouryearterm._Blakely_isnotinvokedonthebasisofthechargingstatuteitself. l (_Picado_,supra,atpp.12371238.)Underthatview,themoregeneralsentencingstatute,requiring X  amiddletermunlessthereareaggravatingormitigatingcircumstances(1170(b)), isintendedto D! donothingmorethanguidethesentencingjudgeinexercisingthediscretionauthorizedbythe 0"  chargingstatuteitself.(Id.atp.1238.)Totheextentthat_Picado_reliesonthegroundsthatthe #l! uppertermiswithintherangeauthorizedbythe chargingstatuteandthattherequirementofan $X" aggravatingfindingisfoundinaseparatestatuteprovidingsentencingguidance,thoseputative $D # distinctionsareofnomoment. Thesamewastrueofthefederalsentencingschemestruckdown %0!$ inBooker .ThesentenceinBookerwaswellwithintheverybroadrangeestablishedbythe charging & "% statute!i.e.,thestatuteestablishingtheconvictionoffense!andtherulesrequiringadditional '#& findingsforimpositionofhighersentenceswithinthatrangewerefoundinseparatesentencing (#' statutes(provisionsoftheSentenceReformAct)andintheguidelinesthemselves(promulgatedby )$( theU.S.SentencingCommission).Hence,under_Blakely_andBooker,itisnotessentialthatthe *%) prerequisiteofadditionalfindingsbefoundinthestatuteestablishingtheoffense.Itisenoughthat p+&* therelevantstatutesandrules,takentogether,establisharequirementofsuchfindingsinorderfor  acourttoimposeahigherterm.    Inshort,thecaseforapplicationof_Blakely_toaggravatingfindingsusedtosupportanupper t baseterm(underPen.Code1170(b))oranuppertermofanenhancementtriad(Cal.RulesofCourt, ` rule4.428(b))isthesameasitwasbeforeBooker.BecauseBookerdoesnotappeartocurtailorlimit L  _Blakely_,thatargumentshouldbeatleastasstrongasbefore._  #  4      _ 8  0  THE_ALMENDAREZ_ԄTORRESEXCEPTION,HARMLESSERROR,ANDOTHER  ` RECURRINGISSUES. L (#(#    Bookerdidnotexpresslyaddresssomeoftheissueswhichhaveprovenmostcontentiousin $  Californiaappeals.MostCalifornia_Blakely_appealsseemtohaveinvolvedquestionsonthe[_recose_   scopeof the_Almendarez_ԄTorresexception.(_Almendarez_ԄTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.   224.)Thatis,assumingthat_Blakely_appliestoCaliforniauppertermdecisionsingeneral,which   specificaggravatingfactorsaresubjecttoSixthAmendmentrightsandwhichcomewithinthe   exceptionforthe factofapriorconviction. p    Factofapriorconviction.AnumberofopinionshaverejectedtheAttorneyGeneralsbids H toexemptallsocalled recidivistfactors(i.e.,alltheoffenderrelatedfactorslistedinRule4.421(b)) 4 fromthe_Apprendi__Blakely_rights.XHXXXH [_W]#XHXXXH)Q#XHXXXHe_Ԁdonotperceivethephrasethefactofapriorconviction  p tohaveabroadmeaningincludingallrecidivistcircumstances.#XHXXXHQ#(Peoplev.XHXXXHԀJaffe(2004)122  \ _Cal.App_.4th1559,1586#XHXXXH~R#XHXXXH.)#XHXXXHS#ԀButtheexactparametersofthatexceptionremainunsettled,andcourts H havedrawnveryfinedistinctionsamongtheaggravatingfactors.Forexample,opinionshaveheld 4 thatserviceofapriorprisonterm(_subd_.(b)(3))andprobationstatusatthetimeofthecurrentoffense   (_subd_.(b)(4))arewithintheexceptionbecausethosefactsareordinarilyestablishedbythesame   judicialrecordsastheexistenceofthepriorconvictionjudgmentitself.(Peoplev.Vu(2004)124  _Cal.App_.4th1060,10681069.)Butsomeofthosesamepanelshaveheldthatsuchfactorsas  unsatisfactoryprobationorparoleperformance(_subd_.(b)(5))anddangerousnesstothecommunity  (_subd_.(b)(1))donotcomewithintheexceptionbecausetheyrequireextraneousfactualfindings l beyondthebare factofapriorconviction.(E.g.,Vu,supra,atp.1069;Peoplev.George(2004) X  122_Cal.App_.4th419,reviewgr.Dec.15,2004(S128582).)_  #  5      _ԀTheBookeropinioncastsnolighton D! _anyofthosequestionsbecausebothBookeritselfanditscompanioncase,UnitedStatesv.Fanfan,  turnedonfindingsregardingaspectsofthecurrentoffense,suchasdrugquantity.    Theproperframeworkforharmlesserroranalysis.Theotherrecurringcontroversyin t CaliforniaBlakelyappealshasbeentheapplicabilityandtheproperframeworkforharmlesserror ` analysis.Bookertouchesonthatsubjectonlyindirectly!andinaveryconfusingfashion.InBooker L  itself,theSeventhCircuithadfoundaSixthAmendmentviolationunderBlakelyandhadremanded 8  thecaseforresentencingproceedings.(UnitedStatesv.Booker(7thCir.2004)375F.3d505.)The $ t SupremeCourtaffirmedthatdisposition!includingtheremandforresentencing!withoutdiscussing  ` whethertheviolationtherecouldbeexcusedorcuredbysomeformofharmlesserroranalysis.But  L  itwouldbedangeroustoreadtoomuchintothataspectofBooker.TheBookercaseitselfdoesnot  8  appeartohavebeensusceptibletoanyChapmananalysisbecausetheevidenceestablishingthehigher $  drugquantitywasneverevenpresentedtothejury;thejudgemadethosefindingsinaseparatepost   trialproceeding.Additionally,thecasedidnotinvolveanythingcomparabletothecommonsituation   whichhasprovenmostvexinginCaliforniaappeals!asentencingcourtsrelianceonacombination   ofinvalidaggravatingfactors(i.e.,factorstowhichthejuryrightattached)andvalidcircumstances   (factorswithintheAlmendarezTorresexceptionorfactsadmittedbythedefendantorestablishedby p thejurysverdicts).Consequently,theBookeropinionprovidesnoguidanceontheproperframework \ forreviewing mixedfactorcasessuchasthese. H   ThefinalparagraphofJusticeBreyersopiniondoesofferthefollowingDelphicadvice:  p 8  Asthesedispositionsindicate,wemustapplytoday'sholdings--boththeSixth H %  AmendmentholdingandourremedialinterpretationoftheSentencingAct--toall 4 casesondirectreview.[Citations.]....Thatfactdoesnotmeanthatwebelievethat   everysentencegivesrisetoaSixthAmendmentviolation.Nordowebelievethat   everyappealwillleadtoanewsentencinghearing.Thatisbecauseweexpect  reviewingcourtstoapplyordinaryprudentialdoctrines,determining,forexample,  whethertheissuewasraisedbelowandwhetheritfailsthe"plain-error"test.Itisalso  because,incasesnotinvolvingaSixthAmendmentviolation,whetherresentencing l iswarrantedorwhetheritwillinsteadbesufficienttoreviewasentencefor X  reasonablenessmaydependuponapplicationoftheharmless-errordoctrine. D! (Booker,Breyeropn.at*29,emphasisadded.)0"     #l! OY      Itistemptingtoparsethislastsentenceasadeclarationthatharmlesserroranalysisshould  applyonlywhentherehasbeennoSixthAmendmentviolation.Thatseemsunlikelyinlightofthe  suggestionsthroughoutApprendi,BlakelyandBookerthatsentencingenhancingfactorsarethe  functionalequivalentofadditional elementsofoffenses.(SeeBooker,Stevensopn.at*7.)Butthe t SupremeCourthasfirmlyheldthatremovalofanelementofanoffense(suchasthroughdefective ` juryinstructions)issubjecttoChapmanreview,albeitarigorousformofsuchreview.(Nederv. L  UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1.)AliteralreadingofthefinalsentenceoftheBreyeropinionwould 8  alsoleadtotheparadoxicalresultthat harmlesserrorreviewwouldapplyonlytosentencingsin $ t whichtherewasnoerrorinthefirstplace,oratleastnoerrorofconstitutionalmagnitude.Itis  ` probablymoresensibletoreadBookerassimplynotaddressingtheapplicabilityorproperframework  L  forharmlesserroranalysisofBlakelyerrorandleavingthatissuetoresolutioninfuturecases.  8    Assumingthatsomeformofharmlesserrorreviewdoesapply,thatstillbegsthequestionof   theproperframeworkforconductingthatassessment.ManyCaliforniareviewingcourtshave   fashionedanapproachwhichisacurioushybridoffederalChapmanreviewandthestateWatsontest:   ThereviewingcourtinitiallyappliesChapmanindeterminingwhethertheparticularaggravating   factor(s)canbesalvaged!thatis,whethertheappellatecourtcandeterminebeyondareasonable p doubtthat ajurywouldhavemadefindingstosupporttheaggravatingfactorscitedbythe \ sentencingcourt.(E.g.,Peoplev.Butler(2004)122Cal.App.4th910,reviewgranted,Dec.15,2004 H (S129000).)OftenattheendofthatChapmanreview,theappellatecourtisleftwithacombination 4 ofvalidandinvalidfactors.g  #  6      ׀ThecruciallessonofButler(andtheseveralsubsequentappellate  p opinionswhichhaveadoptedthesameapproach)is thatthepresenceofoneormore valid  \ factors doesnotendouranalysis. (Peoplev.XHXXXHԀVu(2004)124#XHXXXH!r#XHXXXHCal.App.4th#XHXXXHur#XHXXXHԀ1060,1070.)#XHXXXHr#ԀThe L reviewingcourtmuststillassesstheeffectoftheinclusionofinvalidfactorsonthesentencingcourts < ultimateselectionoftheterm.Forthatpartoftheanalysis,theappellatecourtshaveappliedWatson: (  XHXXXHAlthough#XHXXXH6t#XHXXXHBlakely#XHXXXHt#XHXXXHԀerrorisevaluatedunderthe#XHXXXHt#XHXXXHChapman#XHXXXH3u#XHXXXHԀtest,underCalifornialaw,[w]henatrial  courthasgivenbothproperandimproperreasonsforasentencechoice,areviewingcourtwillset  asidethesentenceonlyifitis#XHXXXHu#% z %zvXHXXXHreasonablyprobablethatthetrialcourtwouldhavechosenthelesser  sentencehaditknownthatsomeofits% { #XHXXXHv#%{[wXHXXXHreasonswereimproper.[Citations.](Butler,supra,atpp.  919920;accord,e.g.,Vu,supra,atp.1070#XHXXXHw#XHXXXH.)#XHXXXHyx#ԀMuchlikereviewofotherkindsofdefectsinsentencing t reasons(e.g.,dualuseviolations),thatassessmentrequiresconsiderationofmitigatingcircumstances, `  aswellasaggravatingfactors,toevaluatewhetherthesentencingcourtwouldhavestruckthesame L! balanceifsomeoftheaggravatingfactorsweretoberemoved. 8"    ContrarytotheButlerapproach,theAttorneyGeneralhasinsistedthat,regardlessofhow $`" manyaggravatingfactorsweretaintedbyBlakelyerror,thepresenceofasinglevalidfactorendsthe $L # inquiry,becauseasinglefactoristheoreticallysufficienttosupportanupperterm.Whileafewcases %8!$ appeartohaveadoptedthatapproach(withlittleanalysis)(e.g.,XHXXXHPeoplev.Jaffe_(2004)#XHXXXH!|#XHXXXH122 &$"% _Cal.App_.4th1559,15871588),mosthavenotandhaveproceededtoconsidertheeffectoftheerror  onthechoiceoftheupperterm,asinButlerandVu.Asexplainedinanotherrecentopinion: #XHXXXH|#XHXXXHThe  relevantquestionisnotwhetherwecanconceiveofalegitimate% j #XHXXXH}#%je~XHXXXHwayforthetrialcourttohavearrived  atthe[upperterm].Thequestioniswhetherthetrialcourtwouldhaveexerciseditsdiscretionto t imposetheupperterm...ifitknewthatoneormoreofthefactorsreliedonwereinvalid.Thisisa ` questionthatcanonlybeansweredonacasebycasebasis.[Citations.](Peoplev.White(2004)122 L  #XHXXXH~#_Cal.App_.4thXHXXXHԀ1417[22_Cal.Rptr_.3d586,604].)#XHXXXHŀ# 8    POSSIBLEIMPLICATIONSOFTHEBOOKER REMEDYFORCALIFORNIA.   `   Asmostobserversanticipated(andasJustice_Breyer_Ԁandtheother_Blakely_dissentershad  <  predicted),_Blakely_madethedemiseofthefederalsentencingguidelines(atleastintheirexisting (  form)allbutcertain.Consequently,mostofthesuspensesurroundingBookerconcernedwhatthe   Courtwoulddowiththeguidelinesandhowfederalsentencingwouldproceedinthefuture.Indeed,   theSupremeCourttooktheunusualstepofallottingtwohours,ratherthantheconventionalonehour,   fortheBooker_Fanfan_oralarguments,withthesecondhourtobedevotedtotheproper remedyin   theeventtheguidelineswerefoundunconstitutional. t   Assummarizedearlier,theBooker remedialmajority(ledbyJustice_Breyer_) performedan L unusualjudicialsurgeryonthefederalstatutesunderpinningtheguidelines!theSentencingReform < Act(_SRA_)of1984andsubsequentamendments.Theremedialmajorityviewedjury_factfinding_Ԁon (x whatitdeemedastraditionalsentencingconsiderations assoinimicaltoCongressionalintentions, d thatitdivinedthatCongresswouldhavepreferredtorelaxtheguidelinesbindingeffectonjudges T ratherthanturnthosedeterminationsovertojuries.Applyingfederalprinciplesof severabilityand @  reformationofconstitutionallydefectivestatutes,theCourt excisedthesp_ecific_Ԁstatuteswhich , madeconformitytotheguidelinesmandatoryandinsteadconvertedtheminto advisory  recommendations. [_T]hrough_Ԁseveranceandexcisionoftwoprovisions,theCourtssolution   makestheGuidelinessystemadvisorywhilemaintainingastrongconnectionbetweenthesentence  imposedantheoffendersrealconduct.(Booker,_Breyer_Ԁ_opn_.,at*16.) Withoutthemandatory  provision,theActnonethelessrequiresjudgestotakeaccountoftheGuidelinestogetherwithother x sentencinggoals.[Citation.]TheActnonethelessrequiresjudges% a toconsidertheGuidelines d  sentencingrangeestablishedfor...theapplicablecategoryofoffensecommittedbytheapplicable P! categoryofdefendant,[citation],butfederaljudgeswillhavegreaterflexibility.(Id.at*24.)As <"  inthepre_Blakely_days,therewillstillbenojury_factfinding_Ԁonguidelinesfactorsbeyondthe (#x! elementsofthesubstantivecounts,andjudgeswillcontinuetomakefindingsregardingdrug $d" quantities, leadershiprolesandotherguidelinesfactorsinsettingthesentence!butaspartofa %P #  discretionaryprocesslessrigidlyboundtotheelaboratematrixestablishedbytheguidelines. %