WPC9D  ѭȆk̫-UjZ*Jp9p9 >}$ $b7!V-K'eܩŎ}Ԧ߰^#03*転7Z}r\:Sи|]d=T9lcWmf=~ST:aSvI4v+@5JtA]P}KZ"xF3ʮYoDZDWO0jJ!;QSOkLB( - Qsf7^S,^01D1wƌ$9\f!z32xvL"ʧw*hĒ*9m;6%`)dst7S~e"KH=L"WMXGǻ_S[l Pl#!)3d#xU NA % 0Y N ^ w 4  # m% UR< f a 0 1s. 72 1u 72H 0cz 0w T 0U< 0 0t 09 0 0 0d 0 0 0Y 0 0 0 0O 0 0 02 0 0T 0! 0! 0" 0># 0# 0$ 0% 0% 04& B& 0' 0' 0>( 0( 0) 0* 0y+ 0[, 0=- 0. 0.f/a/ 02/ 0/ 0C0 0:21 0Yl1 0_1 0 $2 0.3 04 B*6 D/6 D+7 0:7 D/@9 0o9 06=: 0s: 0:{; 0; 0^v< 0<< 1e=U6u=U>=U*=U@> 0S> 0> 0? 0n@ 0IA 0D8B 1|C 72DE7DCENTRAL OFFICE0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,.R6 OV.6:i+003|x U,hZ:Palatino Linotype RegularTable_C(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)1)3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(# McDONALDZWERLINGSIRACOProcunieroverbroadCardozoRubalcavaLungren opnstandardlessSeccombeenjoinable subdoverbreadthBroadrickKolender S.CtHamlingCal.RptrEnskatTobrineroffensivnessBouieCahoonVillarealWash.AppHarraharticulableZuckermanpassersbyMontoyaCal.App.SuppDeeringsAnnotHathornLovornKeebleLisenbaBashorRisleyCondeFerazzaMintzesBahenaVujosevicRaffertyBrevermanCeballosLaskoSedenoFabertBerroaPermanente suasponteCALJICCALCRIMKibbeBlakelydecisis DSLD.A.R.MosleyHerediaAlmendarez plurejusdemMautnerQuattronenonjuryCal.AppRangel L.EdApprendi*+ (_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   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5   d<AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5Table_C,*CITE,dl*CODEKW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS($    42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7K(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?Y%2A`Arial?  SX\  `&Times New RomanS7L(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dJ)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7N(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?Y%2A`Arial?  SX\  `&Times New RomanS7L(X75+ ` hp x 5  J)2dxd0KS.SampleKW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable(2q7$ !XXUSUS.,  $X  0  : 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$%&' 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(A Z(Times New Roman (xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# [\]^_yGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets Lista` !KXXUSUS.,  _8lXdd8  ZKK    PetitionforReview(filedafterU.S.SupremeCourtdecisionin   Cunningham)    a[\]^_`(y3"3"  3 23  0 `   BlakelyIssue:ImpositionofUpperTerm3 =݌ ` `  Ќ  "3"  323  0 `   MixedFactors:#KZK# KԀ(1)burglaryinvolvedatakingof great   monetaryvalue,(2)juvenilecriminalhistorywasserious,&   (3)poorperformanceonprobation.#K #ZKK3݌@ ` `  Ќ  "3"  323  0 `   BlakelyclaimraisedinCourtofAppeal,butnotinsuperiorcourt `  (postBlacksentencing)3"݌` ` `  Ќ  "3"  3"23  0 `   Guilty_Plea_3"O݌`` `  Ќ   ( ya[\]^_`A3c) xdEA `   Posted:Feb.17,2007 m Peoplev.Corona,nos.#KZK# KA113511#K P#ZKKԀand#KZK#ZKKS150057 m Author:AlanSiraco#KZK#  =   K     INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA    *?@ ddd Xdd Xdd X  ,dt@, dd@+  :333'bb C: PEOPLEOFTHESTATE  OFCALIFORNIA ,   ̀PlaintiffandRespondent,  N ̀v. >   ABRAHAMR.CORONA , ~  ̀DefendantandAppellant.    6,!0C333 C6  No.   CourtofAppealNo.A113511  J SuperiorCourtNo.066980504 :  (z C  (@  APPELLANTSPETITIONFORREVIEW  P   AfteradecisionbytheCourtofAppealfortheStateofCalifornia,  FirstAppellateDistrict,DivisionFive  L  % MATTHEWZWERLING R   ExecutiveDirector r!! ALANSIRACO "" (BarNo.168763) ## StaffAttorney $" $ FirstDistrictAppellateProject %B!% 730HarrisonStreet,Suite201 'b"& SanFrancisco,CA94107 2(#' Telephone:(415)4953119 R)$( AttorneysforAppellant  +&*  @LL"TABLEOFCONTENTS    ? Page(s) D  TABLEOFAUTHORITIEST T D .#ii 6  APPELLANTSPETITIONFORREVIEWd d E .rr.1 v  GROUNDSANDNECESSITYFORREVIEWd d E ./1    ARGUMENTd d E .  2 F   (3 "3"  3 2  I  .3  0 `   BLACKISNOLONGERVALIDINLIGHTOF 6  CUNNINGHAMANDAPPELLANTSSENTENCEMUSTBE Z  VACATEDBECAUSEINCHOOSINGTHEUPPERTERM ~ FORTHEBASETERM,THECOURTRELIEDON  AGGRAVATINGFACTORSFOUNDTRUEBYA  PREPONDERANCEOFTHEEVIDENCEINTHEABSENCE . OFAWAIVEROFJURYTRIALANDPROOFBEYONDA N REASONABLEDOUBT#d d E .XX$` ` #23 :݌ n Ќ  ";"  ;0 ` 2  A  .3  0 ` `   FactualBackground#d d E .44+ #2;݌ ^ Ќ  ";"  ;0 ` 2  B  .3  0 ` `   TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtHasDisapproved  Black#d d E .  #4;݌  Ќ  ";"  ;0 ` 2  C  .3  0 ` `   The AggravatingCircumstancesUponWhichThe "R CourtReliedDoNotComeWithinThe_Almendarez_Ԅ "#r TorresException#d d E .) #7;>݌ F$ Ќ  ";"  ;0 ` 2  D  .3  0 ` `   Prejudice#D .66" #10;݌ &! Ќ  CONCLUSIOND . 11 ($  CERTIFICATIONOFWORDCOUNTD .PP*12   +Z&"  @ TABLEOFAUTHORITIES    ? Page(s) D  FEDERAL 6  UnitedStatesConstitution  z  AmendmentVIC . 45   AmendmentXIVC .l l 45 L   UnitedStatesSupremeCourt  <  _Almendarez_-Torresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224 ~ [140_L.Ed_.2d350,118S.Ct.1219]d d E .07  Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466 2 [147_L.Ed_.2d435,120S.Ct.2348]d d E .05 V Blakelyv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296 F [159_L.Ed_.2d403,124S.Ct.2531]C .045 j Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18  [17_L.Ed_.2d705,87S.Ct.824]D .-10  Cunninghamv.California(Jan.22,2007;056551)549U.S.___ "^ [2007U.S.LEXIS1324,2007WL135687,2007DailyJournalD.A.R. 2# 1003]@ . 2,45 R$ Shepardv.UnitedStates(2005)544U.S.13 &! [161_L.Ed_.2d205,125S.Ct.1254]d d E .08 '# Sullivanv.Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275 )F%! [124_L.Ed_.2d182,113S.Ct.2078]D .010 +j&" ЇWashingtonv._Recuenco_Ԁ(2006)򀀀U.S.򀀀  [165_L.Ed_.2d466,126S.Ct.2546]D .010 $  UnitedStatesCircuitCourtofAppeals  d UnitedStatesv.VelascoHeredia(9thCir.2003)319F.3d1080d d E .M7 V   STATE    CaliforniaSupremeCourt  ,  AutoEquitySales,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1962)57Cal.2d450d d E .M2 n  Peoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238C .ll523 b  Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331B .||33,5   CaliforniaCourtofAppeal  : Peoplev.Gordon(2001)90_Cal.App_.4th109d d E .98 ,| Peoplev.Mosley(1997)53_Cal.App_.4th489d d E .96 p Peoplev.Nguyen(January22,2007,No.H028798)򀀀_Cal.App_.4th򀀀  [2007Cal.App.LEXIS74]C .(89 ( Peopleexrel.Mautnerv.Quattrone(1989)211_Cal.App_.3d1389d d E .M8  "h  @INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA   *r  dddt@ dd@ ?@  r,dt@, dd@+  :333'bb C: PEOPLEOFTHESTATE  OFCALIFORNIA ,   ̀PlaintiffandRespondent,  N ̀v. >   ABRAHAMR.CORONA , ~  ̀DefendantandAppellant.    6,!0C333 C6  No.   (z C  (@  APPELLANTSPETITIONFORREVIEW  0  ` Appellant,AbrahamCorona,herebypetitionsthiscourtfor t reviewoftheunpublisheddecisionbyDivisionFiveoftheFirst  DistrictCourtofAppealissuedDecember28,2006.Acopyofthe D slipopinionisattached.(Cal.RulesofCt.,rule8.504(b).) 4 @) )  GROUNDSANDNECESSITYFORREVIEW  t!!  ` AppellantAbrahamCorona,whoaccompaniedafriendintoa ## jewelrystorewherethatfriendgotintoanaltercationwithanother %H!% acquaintance,pledtoonecountofburglaryandonecountof 8(#' participationingangactivity.Hewassentencedtotheupperterm x*%) fortheburglarybasedonconductrelated aggravating  circumstancesandappellantsjuvenileoffensehistory. @  ` TheCourtofAppealheldtherewasnoBlakelyerrorunder 0  compulsionofstaredecisis,AutoEquitySales,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt x  (1962)57Cal.2d450,455andPeoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238.    (Opinionatp.2.)Reviewisnecessarytoaddressthecontinued X  validityofBlackinlightoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecision H  inCunninghamv.California(Jan.22,2007;056551)549U.S.___[2007  U.S.LEXIS1324,2007WL135687,2007DailyJournalD.A.R.1003]. ( (Cal.RulesofCt.,rule8.500(b)(1).) h  @NN&ARGUMENT X 0 (33"3"  312  I  .3  0 `   BLACKISNOLONGERVALIDINLIGHTOF  CUNNINGHAMANDAPPELLANTSSENTENCEMUST  BEVACATEDBECAUSEINCHOOSINGTHEUPPER 0 TERMFORTHEBASETERM,THECOURTRELIEDON !R AGGRAVATINGFACTORSFOUNDTRUEBYA $"t PREPONDERANCEOFTHEEVIDENCEINTHEABSENCE F# OFAWAIVEROFJURYTRIALANDPROOFBEYONDA h$ REASONABLEDOUBT. 312݌% ` `  Ќ  1 ";"  ;40 ` 2  A  .3  0 ` `   FactualBackground ;44݌'#  Ќ   ` Withoutstatingthestandardofproofthecourtwas *`%! employing,itimposedtheaggravatedtermonCount2(3years),  baseditsfindingthattheburglaryinvolvedatakingof great @ monetaryvalueandwasextraordinarilyserious.Thecourtalso 0  basedtheaggravatedtermonitsfindingthatappellantsjuvenile p  criminalhistorywasseriousandhehadahistoryofpoor   performanceonprobation.(RTIII,pp.5354.)Thoughcounseldid @  notobjecttothesentenceonSixthAmendmentgrounds,her 0  omissionwasexcused,becausethelawofthisstatecurrentlydoes p notrecognizesuchanobjection.(Peoplev.Black,supra,35Cal.4th  1238.)Inaddition,counseldidargueforalowormiddletermunder H Californialaw,andonlywhereadefendantstandsilentinthefaceof 8 thecourtsexerciseofsentencingdiscretionhashebeenheldto x implicitlywaiveorotherwiseforfeitreviewofsentencingerror.  (Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331,351[ lackofatimelyand !H meaningfulobjectionforfeitsorwaivestheclaiminacasewhere @$ thedefendantorhiscounselfailedtopresentanyargumentor &! sentencingrequest].)  ($   ";"  ;;0 ` 2  B  .3  0 ` `   TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtHasDisapproved  Black. ;;;݌"  Ќ  ; ` TheaggravatedterminthiscaseviolatedtheSixthand d FourteenthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitution.(Blakely T  v.Washington(2004)542U.S.296[159_L.Ed_.2d403,124S.Ct.2531].)   AsthisCourtisaware,theUniteStatesSupremeCourtstruckdown 4  CaliforniasDeterminateSentenceLaw( DSL)onpreciselythe $t  groundsurgedinthisappeal.(Cunninghamv.California,supra,2007 d  U.S.LEXIS1324,2007WL135687,2007DailyJournalD.A.R.1003.)   ` CunninghamestablishedthatbecauseaDSLupperterm < requiresfindingsofadditionalaggravatingcircumstancesbeyond 4 theminimumelementsoftheoffense, themiddletermprescribed t inCaliforniasstatutes,nottheupperterm,istherelevantstatutory  maximumfor_Apprendi_ԄBlakelypurposes.(Cunningham,supra,slip  D opn.atpp.1516,2007U.S.LEXIS1324,*35.) Becausecircumstances <# inaggravationarefoundbythejudge,notthejury,andneedonlybe |%  establishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence,notbeyonda ' # reasonabledoubt[citation],theDSLviolates_Apprendi_'sbrightline )L%! rule.(Ibid.)   ` SpecificallyrejectingthereasoninginBlack,theCourtheld, H  BecausetheDSLauthorizesthejudge,notthejury,tofindthefacts @  permittinganuppertermsentence,thesystemcannotwithstand   measurementagainstourSixthAmendmentprecedent.[Fn.](Id.,    slipopn.atp.21,2007U.S.LEXIS1324,*44.)Cunninghamconfirms X  thatthesentencingjudgesdeterminationofaggravatingfactorsand P  hisrelianceonthosefactorstoimposethemiddletermviolated  appellantsconstitutionalrightstoajurytrialanddueprocess.    ` UnderCunningham,BlakelyandApprendi, Otherthanthefact ` ofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrime X beyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoa  jury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Cunninghamv. ( California,supra,slipopn.atp.1,2007U.S.LEXIS1324,*11;Apprendi  "p v.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,490[147_L.Ed_.2d435,120S.Ct. h$ 2348];Blakelyv.Washington,supra,542U.S.atp.301.)The &" sentencingcourthereviolatedtheSixthandFourteenth (H$  Amendmentsbyimposinganuppertermbasedonitsownfindings 8+&" ofaggravatingfactsnotadmittedintheplea.Appellantsplea  admittedonlythathecommittedacommercialburglaryforthe @ benefitofagangandthatheparticipatedingangactivityin 0  committingtheburglary.Hedidnotadmitthatanypropertywas p  taken,noritsvalue.Nordidheadmittheburglarywasparticularly   seriousorthathehadanyjuvenilecriminalhistory.Further,though @  hewaivedhisrighttoajuryontheunderlyingoffensesascharged, 0  hedidnotwaivehisrighttofactfindingofadditionalsentencing p circumstancesnotchargedinthecomplaint.Evenifhistrialwaiver  canbeextendedtothesentencingfacts,heneitheradmittedthose @ factsnorwaivedhisrighttotheirproofbeyondareasonabledoubt. 0  ` Thoughthesentencingcourtdidnotexpresslystatewhat p standardofproofitwasapplyinginmakingthefindingsof  aggravatingcircumstances,fromitssilencethiscourtmustpresume !@ thatthejudgefoundtheaggravatingfactorstruebyamere 0$ preponderanceoftheevidenceinaccordancewithrule4.420(b)of p&! theCaliforniaRulesofCourt.(Peoplev.Scott,supra,9Cal.4thatp. ($  349[preponderancestandardapplies];Peoplev.Mosley(1997)53 *H&" _Cal.App_.4th489,496[presumptiononasilentrecordisthatthecourt  followedsettledlaw].)Inviewofthesentencingcourtsfindingof @ aggravatingfactorsbyalowerstandardofproof,thecourts 0  selectionoftheuppertermwastaintedbyBlakelyerrorandrenders p  appellantssentenceunconstitutional.(See,UnitedStatesv.Velasco    Heredia(9thCir.2003)319F.3d1080,1085[Apprendierroroccurred P  whentrialcourtusedthepreponderancestandardatsentencingto H  determinedrugquantity].)   ";"  ;zR0 ` 2  C  .3  0 ` `   The AggravatingCircumstancesUponWhichThe  CourtReliedDoNotComeWithinThe_Almendarez_Ԅ : TorresException. ;zRR݌ \  Ќ  hR ` Itistruethatsomeoftheaggravatingfactorsfoundpresent N werearguablyrelatedtorecidivism:thatappellantsjuvenilehistory  wasseriousandthathehadarecordofpoorperformanceon  probation.Thesocalled exceptiontotherighttoajurytrialon "^ thefactofapriorconviction(_Almendarez_-Torresv.UnitedStates N$ (1998)523U.S.224[140_L.Ed_.2d350,118S.Ct.1219]),however,does &! notapplytothem.Thatexceptionisreadverynarrowlyandapplies (&$  onlytothemerefactofapriorconviction.(Shepardv.UnitedStates +f&" (2005)544U.S.13,25[161_L.Ed_.2d205,125S.Ct.1254],plur.opinion.)   ` Thearguablyrecidivismrelatedfactorspresentinthiscasefall @ outsideofthe_Almendarez_ԄTorresexceptionbecausetheygobeyond 0  themerefactofapriorconviction.First,theyareamongthe x  enumerated aggravatingcircumstancesinrule4.421 relatingto    thedefendant.Suchfactorsconsistentirelyofconductrelatedfacts H  thatgobeyondthemerefactofstatus.Therulemustbeconstrued 8  accordingly.(See,Peoplev.Gordon(2001)90_Cal.App_.4th109,1412 x [underthedoctrineofejusdemgeneris,specifiedtermslimitthe  constructionofthestatutetoothersimilaritems];Peopleexrel. X Mautnerv.Quattrone(1989)211_Cal.App_.3d1389,1395[listofknives P prohibitedundersection653k,thoughnotexhaustive,contemplates  inclusionofotherkniveswithsimilarcharacteristics].) (  ` Further,onepaneloftheCaliforniaCourtofAppealhas "h recentlyheldthat usingajuvenileadjudicationtoenhancethe X$ sentenceinacriminalcaseisaconstitutionallyimpermissibleuseof &! anonjuryjudgmenttoprovethefactofrecidivismunderApprendi. (($  (Peoplev.Nguyen(January22,2007,No.H028798)򀀀_Cal.App_.4th򀀀  +p&" ,slipopinionatp.33,2007Cal.App.LEXIS74,*59.)Inanyevent,  despiteanindicationthattheCourtisunlikelytotakeupthe @ _Almendarez_ԄTorresissuesooninlightofotherissuesontheCourts 0  docket(see,_Rangel_ԄReyesv.UnitedStates(2006)򀀀U.S.򀀀,165 x  _L.Ed_.2d910,126S.Ct.2873,StatementofStevens,J.regardingdenial    ofcertiorari),thereappeartobeenoughvotesontheUnitedStates P  SupremeCourttooverrule_Almendarez_ԄTorres.(See,Id.,dissent. @  opinionofThomas,J.;Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.atpp.  520-521,concur.opinionofThomas,J.;Shepardv.UnitedStates,   supra,161_L.Ed_.2datpp.218219,concur.opinionofThomas,J.) h WhetherbasedonarecognitionthatamajorityoftheUnitedStates ` SupremeCourtseesnodistinctionbetweenthemerefactofaprior  convictionorotherconductrelatedfactorssupportingtheupper 0 termsentenceorontherecognitionthatsuchfactsasthecharacterof  "p priorcriminalhistoryorperformanceonprobationgobeyondthe `$ merefactofthepriorconviction,suchfactorsaswerecitedbythe &! sentencingcourtherefallwithinthetypeoffactfinding (0$  disapprovedinCunningham.  +p&"  ";"  ;ke0 ` 2  D  .3  0 ` `   Prejudice ;kee݌  Ќ   ` TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasheldinasimilar D situationthatthedeprivationofajurytrialonasentencingfactor 4  proofofthetruthofasentencingfactbeyondareasonableisnot t  structuralerrorreversibleperse.(Washingtonv._Recuenco_Ԁ(2006)򀀀    U.S.򀀀[165_L.Ed_.2d466,477,126S.Ct.2546,2553].)Rather,the L  errorwillrequirereversalunlesstheAttorneyGeneralcanshowit <  washarmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Id.,165_L.Ed_.2datp.475; | Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,24[17_L.Ed_.2d705,87S.Ct.  824].)Here,sincethefactorsuponwhichthecourtreliedwere  \ neitheradmittedbyappellant,noraretheyimplicitinanyfact L necessarilyfoundbythecourtbasedonappellantsplea,itwillbe  impossiblefortheAttorneyGeneraltodemonstratethesentencewas   surelyunattributable(Sullivanv.Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275,279  "\ [124_L.Ed_.2d182,113S.Ct.2078])totheerroneous_factfinding_.Nor T$ isthereanystatutoryorconstitutionalmechanismbywhichretrial &! canbehad,becauseappellantsjudgmentofconvictionbasedona ($$  guiltypleacannotbesetaside.Therefore,appellants sentencebased +d&" onaggravatingfactorsfoundtruebyastandardofprooflessthan  beyondareasonabledoubt,mustbereversed. @ @% CONCLUSION  0   ` Fortheforegoingreasons,appellantsubmitsreviewis t  warrantedinthiscase.    DATED:0 February5,20070 Respectfullysubmitted,D     `     h   By:  򀀀 T   `     h     ALANSIRACO t  `     h     StaffAttorney,   `     h     FirstDistrictAppellateProject  n `     h     AttorneyforAppellant  $ @~ ~  CERTIFICATIONOFWORDCOUNT  @ (Cal.RulesofCt.,rule8.504(d)) yqӈ "  ` I,AlanSiraco,appellatecounselofrecordforAbraham f Coronainthismatter,doherebycertifythatIusedtheword V  processingprogramWordPerfecttogeneratethispetition,and   accordingtothatsoftwareprogramthewordcountofthisbriefis &  1,599. f  DATED:0 February5,20070 By:0  򀀀    `     h     ALANSIRACO