WPC Y/xh fb#pr Uh`?kC1;m|1?bn[frƜcf;`Lӭ֧ˇІK! 5s:${ː/ԌM^L3գ⋷fԨ6_on앭شLl?pyHxɣ=%s[Z"o(14 Y 6qY"DEhBClQOt1yHFI}ѻHU~.aQC˭U F3 ef|Ե7y}ʩ4ɷext.9ϜX]ߩy9>Vh5Q DvJ?8(Iisb2id7^" -->ƨ=s>8 HDYVأi_;}~yƴt!7#٘܅<5 0NNU8PHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,0 J00;Backup3|xU*+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L  \  ` Book Antiqua !XXUSUS.,  _  8Xdd8TYPESOFPOSSIBLE_BLAKELY_ԀCASESandPROCEDURESFORRAISING  _BLAKELY_ԀISSUESINPENDINGAPPEALS  \ @$July1,2004    Issuesunder_Blakely_ԀvWashington<( 4 <DLX<':(no.021632,June24,2004)____U.S.____,   2004WL1402697,2004_DJDAR_Ԁ758#':D#willbearisinginnumerouscontexts,andthis   memodoesnotattempttocoverthemall.Rather,wearesuggestingsomeprioritizingof   potential_Blakely_casesamongyourappeals,andarediscussingsomepossibletypesof   pleadingsthatwouldbeappropriatedependinguponthestageoftheappeal._FDAP_,    alongwiththeotherprojects,willcontinuetomonitorthe_Blakely_Ԁlandscape,andwillbe   postingarticlesandsamplesofbriefinginthecomingweeks.Wewontbeabletocover   everything,butwehopetoprovidemuchusefulguidanceandsamplebriefingas_caselaw_   beginstodeveloptherangeof_Blakely_cases.(Formoreinformationonthegeneral   projectplansforhelpingthepanelon_Blakely_casesseethe ProjectPlanmemoofJune  30,2004postedaboveonthiswebsite.)    ThisMemocoversthefollowingtopics:     ` I.Typesof_Blakely_ԀCases.................................................................2     `  A.Pendingappealsvs.closedcases......................................2     `    `  B.Guiltypleas.......................................................................3     `     `  C.Probationrevocation........................................................3     `  D.Categoriesofsentencesinwhich_Blakely_Ԁarguably     `    applies...........................................................................4      `    1._DSL_Ԁupperterm.......................................................4 "    `    2.Consecutivesentences.............................................4 $     `    3.Prop36....................................................................4 &"" 0  0` (#(#II.Three[PossiblyFour]BasicComponentstoa_Blakely_Ԁ($$` (#` (#    `  Argument................................................................................4 )%%    `  A.Core_Blakely_Ԁargument.....................................................5 +'' Ї   `  B.Waiver...............................................................................5     `  C.Harmlesserror..................................................................5     `  D.Remedyonremand.............................................................6       ` III.TypesofPleadingsforDifferentStagesofPendingAppeals.....6      `  A.Where_AOB_Ԁnotyetfiled....................................................6      `  B.Where_AOB_Ԁfiledbutnoopinion.......................................6      `    1._Wende_Ԁcases..............................................................6      `  C.Whereopinionfiledbutwithinrehearingtime....................6     `  D.Whereopinionfiled,rehearingtimepassed,butwithin     `    Reviewtime...................................................................7     `  E.Reviewdenied,but90daysnotyetpassed..........................7     `  H!! *    I.Typesof_Blakely_ԀCases      ` A.Pendingappealsvsclosedcases .     `  Webelieveyoushouldprioritizependingappeals.Thereisan   argumentthatcanbemade,that_Blakely_isretroactivetothetimeoftheseminalcaseof ! _Apprendi_ԀvNewJersey(2000)530U.S.466(June26,2000).However,raising_Blakely_ " issuesinthosecaseswillrequirewritsofhabeascorpus,andtherearequestionsabout # whetheryoucanbecompensatedforsuchworkinclosedcases.Also,thereislesstime $  pressureinthosecasesthaninpendingappeals.Infutureweekswehopetoprovidesome %!! samplewritsthateithercanbeusedbyyouwithveryminimaltimetocompleteandsend &"" totheclienttosubmitproper,orwhichmightbeusedbytrialcounselifthepublic '## defendersarewillingandabletohelptheirformerclientsfilesuchwrits.Inanyevent, ($$ thismemodealswithcasesstillpendingondirectappeal. )%%   Thedefinitionof pendingforpurposesofstillbeingondirectappealand +'' thereforecoveredby_Blakely_Ԁmeansthat,asofJune24,2004(thedateof_Blakely_)the  casehasnotpassedoneofthefollowingtwostages:     `    (1)Apetitionforreviewhasbeenfiledanddenied,andmore  than90dayshaselapsedfromthedenial(the90daysreferstothetimeinwhichapetition  forcertioraricanbefiledintheU.S.SupremeCourt);      `    (2)Nopetitionforreviewhasbeenfiledandthetimefor   filingthepetitionhasexpired(i.e.,morethan40dayshaselapsedfromthedateofthe   opinion).XX[Note:itmaybearguablethatifmorethan40dayshaselapsedbutnotmorethan60!   whichistheperiodduringwhichtheSupremeCourtcangrantreviewonitsownmotion!the   casemaystillbeconsidered pending.Ifyouhavesuchacase,pleasecontactyour_FDAP_   buddy.]     XXIfyourcasehasnotyetreachedeitherofthosestages,itisstillpending.We `  discusslaterinthismemovarioustypesofpleadingswhichmightbefileddependingon ` whatspecificpendingstageyourappealisin. `    ` B.Guiltypleas  `    `  _Blakely_Ԁitselfinvolvedaguiltyplea,andthecourtmadeclearthat ^ unlessthedefendantadmittedtheparticularaggravatingfactorsthefactofthepleadid ^ notnecessarilywaivetheissue.Itshouldatleastbearguablefrom_Blakely_itselfthatthe ^ pleashouldnotwaivetheissue.SeealsothegeneraldiscussionofwaiverinBrad ^ OConnellsmemo( AmazingStoriesJune28,2004,postedaboveonthiswebsite). ^ However,webelievethatwhereadefendantpleadstoaspecificsentence(whichincluded ^ anaggravatedterm)hewouldbeviewedashavingwaivedtheissuebyimpliedly ^ admittingtothefactorsthatformtheaggravatedterm. ^     `    ` C.Probationrevocation  ^#    `  ForESSprobation,wheretheoriginalsentencewasimposedpriorto \% ! _Blakely_,itseemslikelythattheoriginalsentencingwouldbeconsiderednotwithin \&!" _Blakely_(unlessthecourtsrulethat_Blakely_isretroactivetoJune26,2000when_Apprendi_ \'"# wasdecided.)Thus,webelieve_Blakely_argumentswouldonlyapplyto_ISS_Ԁcases,where \(#$ sentenceisimposedandthecaseiscurrentlypending.Also,ifyouhaveacurrentappeal \)$% wheresentencewasimposedbutexecutionsuspended,andthereisa_Blakely_issuewith \*%& regardtothesentence,thecurrentappealwouldbethetimetoraisetheissuesincethe \+&' courtsusuallyholdthatuponsubsequentrevocationofanESSsentence,issuesattacking  thesentencecannotberaisedonthelaterrevocationproceeding.     ` D.Categoriesofsentencesinwhich_Blakely_Ԁarguablyapplies      `  Thereareprobablyanumberofareasinwhich_Blakely_mayarguably   apply.Wewillmentionafewareashere,butthismemowillthengoontofocusonthe   arealikelytobethemostcommonandthemostclearlywithin_Blakely_:adefendant   sentencedtotheuppertermwithcasespecific(notrecidivism)aggravatingreasonsfound    bythejudge.      `  1.Theclearestsituationinwhich_Blakely_arguablyappliesiswhena   personwassentencedundertheDeterminateSentencingLawtothe upper term,andthe   judgestatedasaggravatingfactorscasespecificfactors(notjustrecidivistfactors)under  rule4.421(e.g.,crimeinvolvedgreatviolence,victimwasparticularlyvulnerable,etc.).  Suchuppertermsentencesarethemainsubjectofthismemo.Thecleanestcaseswould  bethosewheretheonlyaggravatingfactorsfoundbythejudgearecasespecific(i.e.,not  _recividsim_Ԅrelated).Inthosecases,itwouldbealmostcertainthatif_Blakely_errorwas  founditcouldnotberuledharmless,andfurther,onremandfor_resentencing_Ԁthetrial  judgewouldnothaveabasisforfindingaggravatingfactorsandthustheclientislikelyto  endupwithalowersentence.XX[ThequestionwhethertheDAcouldimpanelanewjuryandtry  the sentencingfactorsisnotedbelowinthismemo.]XX     `  2.Itmaybearguablethatforsentencingonmorethanoneoffense,  thepresumptivesentenceisconcurrentterms,andthatconsecutivesentencingislike  aggravatingasentenceandcanonlybebasedonjuryfoundfactors.(Theargumentmay  flowfromthefactthatifajudgefailstostatewhetheranoffenseisconsecutiveor  concurrentitisdeemedconcurrent.)Thismemodoesnotcoversuchcases.      `  3.IfmaybearguablethatunderProp36,grantingprobationisthe " presumptivesentenceandthatwhenajudgefindscasespecificfactorsasareasonfor # denyingprobation(intheinitialsentencing,notatalaterprobationrevocationwhere $  thereisnojurytrialright)thatislikeaggravatingthesentenceandcanonlybebasedon % ! juryfoundfactors.Thismemodoesnotcoversuchcases. &!"   II.Three[PossiblyFour]BasicComponentstoa_Blakely_ԀArgument  )$%    ` Wehopetosoonbeabletopostsamplesofactualorgenericbriefingon +&' variousaspectsof_Blakely_Ԁarguments.(See ProjectPlanmemoofJune30,2004posted  aboveonthiswebsite.)Untilwehavesamplebriefing,thegeneralcontentofthethree  basicargumentsdiscussedherecanbefoundinthe AmazingStoriesPreliminaryMemo  writtenby_FDAP_ԀstaffattorneyBradOConnellonJune28,2004,andpostedaboveon  thiswebsite.Wewilljustbrieflynotethethree(four)areaswhichwouldneedtobe  addressedinraisingany_Blakely_issueand,asnoted,wewillhopefullyhavesample   argumentsavailablesoon.      ` A.Core_Blakely_Ԁargument.      `  Thisissimplytheargumentthatthe_DSL_Ԁcomeswithin_Blakely_.As   seenfromBradOConnellsmemo,thisshouldbeastraightforwardargumenttomake.   Note:InadditiontothelineofargumentoutlinesinBradOConnellsmemo,thereisan   additionallineofauthoritythatshouldbehelpful.Anumberofcasesholdthatafact   whichisanelementofanoffenseorinherentintheoffensecannotbeanaggravating  factor(PeoplevSmith(1984)155_Cal.App_.3d539;PeoplevYoung(1983)146  _Cal.App_.3d729;PeoplevFernandez(1990)226_Cal.App_.3d669).Itfollowsthatunder  Californialawafactorusedbythejudgetoaggravateasentenceisanadditionalfactor  notalreadyfoundbythejurywhichonlyconvictedthedefendantoftheoffense.     ` B.Waiver.     `  Yourpendingcaseswillalmostcertainlynothavehadanobjection  intrialcourttothedenialoftherighttoajurytrialontheaggravatingfactors,butthereis  aseeminglyverystrongargumentthatwaiverdoesnotapplyinthissituation.(SeeBrad  OConnellsmemoforgeneralauthorities.)     ` C.Harmlesserror.     `  Youwouldneedtoaddressthis,probablybyarguingpersereversal ! andChapmanasafallback.SeeBradOConnellsmemo.Inthecleanestcases(where " thejudgegavetheuppertermwithjustcasespecificaggravatingfactors)thereshouldbe # averystrongprejudiceargument.Wherethejudgealsocitedrecidivistreasons,the $  argumentwouldbemoredifficultifsomeharmlesserrortest(Chapman)isapplied.Asa %!! practicalmatter,theselattercasesarenotverylikelytoresultinarealbenefittotheclient &"" sincethejudgeonremandisverylikelytosimplyrelyontherecidivismfactorsalone, '## andimposethesamesentence.Wherethejudgeclearlyreliedstronglyonrecidivism,it ($$ mightnotbeacasewarrantingraisingthe_Blakely_issue,oratleastalowerprioritythan )%% othercases,sinceevenifyougetaremand(e.g.onpersereversalgrounds)thereisno *&& reallikelihoodofadifferentsentence. +'' Ї   ` D.Remedyonremand.     `  Thereisafourthissuewhichwilllogicallycomeup,butwhichwe  recommendyounotraise!whathappensonremand?Wesuggestwaitinguntileitherthe  AGraisesit,oryougetyourremandandthecasegoesbacktothetrialcourtwiththe  publicdefenderhandlingit.Thequestionwillthenarise!incaseswherethejudgehad   norecidivismfactorstorelyonandthustherearenoaggravatingfactors!cantheDA   impanelanewjuryjusttotrytheaggravatingfactors?Asnoted,thisisanareabestleft   aloneuntilitactuallyarisesbelow,oruntiltheAGraisesit(e.g.triestogetthecourtof   appealtonotetheremedyaspossible).Wedonotdiscussthisissuehere.       ` III.TypesofPleadingsforDifferentStagesofPendingAppeals      `  A.Where_AOB_Ԁnotyetfiled.      `    Thisisofcoursethemoststraightforward.The_Blakely_Ԁissue  wouldbepresentedinthe_AOB_.     `     `  B.Where_AOB_Ԁfiledbutnoopinion.      `    Inthissituation,youwouldapplyforpermissiontofilea  supplementalopeningbrief.     `    1._Wende_Ԁcases      `     h Inacasewhereyouhavefileda_Wende_Ԁbrief,you  wouldmakeamotiontostrikethebriefandreplaceitwithanewbriefraisingthe_Blakely_   issue. !    `  C.Whereopinionfiledbutwithinrehearingtime.  #    `    Inthissituationyoucanfileapetitionforrehearing. % ! Althoughthegeneralruleisthatsuchapetitioncannotraiseanissueforthefirsttime, &!" thatiswithinthediscretionofthecourtandcasesholdthatwherethereisanew '"# developmentinthelawthatoccurredaftertheopinionthecourthasdiscretiontopermit (#$ raisingtheissueforthefirsttimeinapetitionforrehearing.(PeoplevPayne(1977)75 )$% _Cal.App_.3d601,605;_Hittle_ԀvSantaBarbaraCountyEmployeesRetirementAssn.(1985) *%& 39Cal.3d374,391n.10.SeealsoHuntv.CountyofShasta(1990)225_Cal.App_.3d432, +&' 436[althoughcourtnormallywillnotconsiderpointsnewlyraisedonpetitionfor  rehearing,courtcandosoifgoodcauseisshown.])      `  D.Whereopinionfiled,rehearingtimepassed,butwithin   reviewtime.    󀀀     NOTE:Thefollowingparagraphsarenew(July15,2004)inlightoftheSupreme   Court'sgrantofreviewinPeoplev_Towne_ԀS125677.WesentthefollowingEmailtothe    panelonJuly15:   DearPanelAttorneys:   YesterdayIemailedtoletyouknowtheSupremeCourthadgrantedreviewonthe   _Blakeley_ԀissueinthecaseofPeoplev_Towne_ԀS125677.Imistakenlythoughtthe  Supreme_Corut_Ԁhaddonesoonitsownmotion,buttheattorneyin_Towne_Ԁ(_Suzan_Ԁ_Hier_,  CAP-LAstaffattorney)hadwrittenasupplementalletterrequestingreviewofthe  additionalissue.Wehavepostedacopyofherletteronourwebsite:  http://_www.fdap.org_/downloads/_blakely_/towneshawnltrpetitionsupp1._pdf_  Inlightofthegrantofreviewin_Towne_,weareamendingtheearlieradvicewegave  aboutcaseswherethereisstilltimetopetitionforreview,orcasesinwhichareview  petition(onotherissues)ispending.Theearlieradvice(inthearticle"TypesofPotential  _Blakely_ԀCases..."postedonourwebsite)hadsuggestedthatfilingapetitionforreview  andraisingthisissueforthefirsttimewasapossiblechoice,butwewereskepticalabout  itandthoughtabetteroptionwouldbetofileahabeaspetitioninthecourtofappeal.  We'renowamendingthatadviceinlightof_Towne_,andinsteadaresuggesting:     1.NOTE:Weareonlytalkinghereaboutcaseswhicharestillpendingonappeal, " inthatthereisstilltimeforpetitioningforreview,orapetitionwastimelyfiledandis # stillpending.Wearenotdealingwithcasesinwhichthetimeforpetitioningisover,or $  inwhichapetition(onotherissues)wasfiledanddenied. % !   2.Ifthereisstilltimetofileanoriginal_Petititon_ԀforReview,doso.Besureto '"# mentiontheJuly14,2004grantofreviewonthe_Blakely_Ԁissuein_Towne_ԀS125677.A (#$ samplePetitionispostedonourwebsitehere: )$% http://www.fdap.org/downloads/blakely/PetRevSmithFinal.pdf +&' Ї  3.IftherewasaPetitionforReviewfiledanditisstillpending,filea  supplementalletteraddingthe_Blakely_Ԁissue.    4.ThenwaittoseewhattheSupremeCourtdoes.Ifitgrantsreview,fine.Ifnot,  thentheCourtofAppealhabeasrouteisthenextstep.(Wearehopingtohaveasample  Habeaspetitionpostedonourwebsitebynextweek).   Asalways,we'llcontinuetokeepyouinformed,andwilltrytoupdateourwebsiteas   rapidlyaspossible.     RegardingfilingapetitionforwritofhabeascorpusintheCourtofAppeal,the   _caselaw_Ԁholdsthatahabeaswritispermissiblewhereanewissueoflawhasarisentoo   lateintheappealprocesstohaveameaningfulopportunitytoraisetheissueinthedirect   appeal.(See,e.g.,Peoplev_Treloar_(1966)64Cal.2d141,143;Inre_Varnum_(1966)63   Cal.2d629,631.)Thus,thewritwouldsetoutthefacts,makethecore_Blakely_Ԁarguments,  andusethesecasestoarguethatthewritisthepropermeansofraisingtheissue.(As  noted,wehopetopostasamplehabeaspetitionveryshortly.)     ` E.Reviewdenied,but90daysnotyetpassed.     `  Forcasesinthisperiod(oftencalledthe certwindow),thebest  methodistofileawritofhabeascorpusintheCourtofAppeal.Thecasescitedinthe  immediatesectionaboveholdthatwheretherewasnomeaningfulopportunitytoraisethe  issueinthedirectappealhabeasisapropermethod.Thishasbeenspecificallyappliedto  caseswherethenewlawaroseduringthecertwindow.(InreSpencer(1965)63Cal.2d  400,404.)    Thismemoisanearlyefforttohelpsteeryoutothebesttypesofcasesand # proceduresforraising_Blakely_Ԁissues.Itisnotmeanttobecomprehensive,andasnoted $  inourwebsitewewillcontinuetoprovidememosandtopostsamplebriefswhenthey % ! becomeavailable.Itseemsclearthat_Blakely_willberaisedinagreatvarietyofcontexts, &!" andnosimpleguidelinewillcoverallofthem. '"#    `