WPC Xޜ>aˈW?36;$h".hVȨ7 ׽9V9_/>%u8ms(>zb6ʮy=aq`E*xLXFl%t(3scuRbڶ!L(ǻcb}47q4_S4 J}Vvhy?`B# U<Ne % 0(w4E 0l  0DvU:QE  0CnV 0 0UJo 1C 1Q mSNjUNlUN^ UW@ 0cT 0D 1u Bp 0U<" 0" 0n# 0-$ 72$ AQ%i% 0D/& 0Ds& D/& B& 0w' 0z' 0( 0( 0W) 0 * 0* 0+ 0Z, 0DI- 1. 72/ 1H/ 1/ 1V0 001 1%3 03 1M4 04o5 05 0:D6 0~6 0I7 17 72}8 08 0V9 09 0: 1'; 72; 1; 72g< 0< 0(= 0= 0k> 0_? 0P@ 0>A 0)B 0CC 0vH 0XI 17J 0J 0K 0|L 0[M 07N 0O 1O 0_P 0 Q 0Q 0R 1!S 0S 1@T 0T 0U 1,V 0V 0W 0PX 0Y 0Y 0Z 0[ 0\ 0a] 03^ 0_ 0_ 00` 0<` 0a 0>a 0va 0`ub 0`b 0`5c 0`c 0`c 08Ud 0d 02_e 0e 0Yf 0_f 0 Eg 0jOh 0i B*=k D/gk D+k 0k D/Em 0tm 06Bn 0xn 0:o 0^o 0<pU6TpU>pU*p 0p 0~qr :uu_ ul'  V 1e2U@,V&U@ .U@mNU@@9  \<i *e++ *m5''' \,lCENTRAL OFFICE0(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($OV.63|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  <6X9`("Courier 10cpi G  $    3    _XxXXXXXxԀCounts15wereallegedtohaveoccurredonorbetweenAugust2000toJuly  27,2001;counts612wereallegedtohaveoccurredonorbetweenApril1,2001,and  September7,2001.#XxXr##XxXXXxS#XxXXXxXXx(Ibid.)###XxX#ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(2C$ !   d  $    4    _XxXXXXXxԀInthemeantime,thiscourthad,onJune20,2005,issueditsopinioninPeoplev.  Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238.#XxXr##XxXXXxS#0.footer "GaӀ  XXX_*~ 2Times New RomanBoldTT_.,toc 1   f!"  XXX_*~ 2Times New RomanBoldTT_*~ 2Times New RomanBoldTT   4 ' barzbaec0barzbaec .   (UfCEKQW]cioAutoList3I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.U`6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular\6 (9 Z(Times New Roman (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (3$ !  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) d   $    13    _XxXXXXXxԀThiscourtansweredbothofthesequestionsinthenegative.(Hoffard,supra,  10Cal.4thatp.1174[#XxXs#XXx#T# Nothinginsection1237.5indicatesthedefendantmustspecify,  andthetrialcourtcertifyasnonfrivolous,eachissuetoberaisedonappeal.Sucharuleis  unnecessarytothepurposesofthestatuteandwouldbeinefficientinoperation.];ibid.  #XxX>##XxXXXx#XxXXXxXXx[ Section1192.5...imposesontrialcourtstheburdenofinquiryintoafactualbasisfora  guiltypleaonlyfornegotiatedpleasspecifyingthepunishmenttobeimposed],emphasis   inoriginal.)#XxXG##XxXXXx(#*+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` !i)*+ ,-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ..' dxdP Pd(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#*/+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  (xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#*,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  (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(# /023567xGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List980EGMSY_ekqAutoList111.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.0}CEKQW]cioAutoList8A.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.0hCEKQW]cioAutoList91.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.*)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h    $    2    _XxXXXXXxԀ CTreferstotheClerksTranscriptonAppeal. RTwillrefertothe  ReportersTranscriptonAppeal.Thereisonlyonevolumeofeachtranscript.#XxXr##XxXXXxS#0}CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.*&+& (_19  L23  ..L  0EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.*#+# (_18   L23  .. L    *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  42Emphasis*DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  (EGMSY_ekqAutoList17A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.IA.*22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h (zEGMSY_ekqAutoList15A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.OA.(5EGMSY_ekqAutoList161.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.Q1.*&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   ARZBAECHER S.Ct L.Ed subdBlakelydecisisSchriroSummerlinApprendio]ther DSLCal.AppAlmendarezBirksLohbauerHaskinManceboRecuencoSengpadychithBetts opnSattazahnChaddfactfindingHoffard AppxBunnellBoykin T]he TahlYurkoMosbyHalbertNederBouieEsquibelFigueroarulemakingMaryanneGilliardnonincludedb]ecausekidnapping opnsGinsburg I.BN]othing i]fZerbstnonfrivolousf]ailureBookerizationCarmellrearraignmentSchuerenGuerrero II.B28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  (ʽCEKQW]cioAutoList5A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (*EGMSY_ekqAutoList10A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (EGMSY_ekqAutoList121.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(,, &_3   DL 23   DL  (EGMSY_ekqAutoList131.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (EGMSY_ekqAutoList141.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7(X7  ?%2A`Arial?  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS7(X7&  d d)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7(X7  ?%2A`Arial?  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS7(X7)2dxd0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L     $    12    _XxXXXXXxԀAnditmustberememberedthat,athissentencinghearingonJuly9,2004,  appellantexpressedthedesiretowithdrawhispleaandgototrial,andhemadearequest  foracontinuancesohecouldobtainnewcounseltohelphimwithsuchamotion.  Notwithstandingthesestatementsbyappellant,andthefactthat_Blakely_Ԁhadbeendecided  followinghischangeofplea,appellantsattorneymadenomentionof_Blakely_Ԁand   positednogroundsformovingtowithdrawappellantsplea.(RT3853.)#XxXs##XxXXXxT#Keeler v. Superior Court1 U  $    9    _XxXXXXXxԀ#S##XxXr#XXxTheprosecutordidstate,indescribingthefactualbasisofcountselevenand  twelve,thatthoseoffensesoccurredwhilethevictimwasinappellants daughterscare  atthedaycare.(RT2728.)Thiswasalsodescribedinanattachmenttoanarrest  warrant.(SeeCT39.)Whileatrieroffactcouldreasonablyinferfromthisthatappellant  tookadvantageofapositionoftrust,itcannotbedeemedtobeachargethatappellant  admittedaspartofhispleaagreementbecauseitwasneverpledinawaythatgave   appellantnoticeofitspunitivesignificance.(SeeShepard,supra,544U.S.13,2526;   Peoplev.Mancebo,supra,27Cal.4th735#XxX#XXx##;Peoplev.Holmes(2004)32Cal.4th432,441   442[showingafactualbasis"doesnotrequiremorethanestablishingaprimafacie   factualbasisforthecharges];Peoplev.Alfaro(1986)42Cal.3d627,632636[noting   theproblemwithattachingpunitivesignificanceto superfluousfacts];butseePeoplev.   Guerrero(1988)44Cal.3d343,355356.)Nor,asdiscussedinsectionII.B,post,was   thereastatutorybasisforchargingthisfactasanelementofanaggravatedversionof   PenalCodesection288,subdivision(a).Appellantcannotbedeemedtohavewaivedby   hisnocontestpleaarightthatwasnotrecognizedbythisStateatthetimeofthatplea.  (SeeHalbertv.Michigan(2005)545U.S.605,623.)#XxXt#XXx##  #XxX##XxXXXx# b_}{fs26charrsid7752582Keelerv.SuperiorCourt}{insrsid7696761(1970)2Cal.3d619 62People v. Betts (2005) 34 Cal.4th 10391 |_}{fs26charrsid7752582Peoplev._Betts_}{insrsid7696761(2005)34Cal.4th1039EGHKLMNS 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. (  $    5    _XxXXXXXxԀAlthoughBlakelyandCunninghamweredecidedafterappellantenteredhisno  contestplea,theyapplytothiscase,becausetheyapplytoallcasesnotyetfinalatthe  timetheyweredecided.(SeeGriffithv.Kentucky(1987)479U.S.314,328[ anewrule  fortheconductofcriminalprosecutionsistobeappliedretroactivelytoallcases,stateor  federal,pendingondirectreviewornotyetfinal];Schrirov.Summerlin(2004)542U.S.  348,351.)#S##XxXr#(9 Z(Times New Roman  "_PenalCode,6   $    6    _XxXXXXXxԀSeealsoBlackv.California(Feb.20,2007),U.S.Sup.Ct.docketno.056793  [2007U.S.LEXIS1856],vacatingthejudgmentinPeoplev.Black,supra,and  remandingthatcasetothiscourtforfurtherconsiderationinlightofCunningham,supra.#XxXr##XxXXXxS#(9 Z(Times New Roman People v. Figueroa1   $    7    _XxXXXXXxԀCunninghamactuallyinvolvedtwoaggravatingfacts! theparticular  vulnerabilityofthevictim,andCunninghamsviolentconduct,whichindicatedaserious  dangertothecommunity.(Id.,127S.Ct.atp.865.)#XxXr##XxXXXxS#(9 Z(Times New Roman  c_}{fs26charrsid7752582Peoplev.Figueroa}{insrsid7696761(1999)68Cal.App.4th1409 {  $    8    _XxXXXXXxԀAppellantrecognizesthatsomeCaliforniacourtshavetakentheviewthatthe   priorconvictionexceptionto#S# Apprendisbrightlinerule(Cunningham,supra,127  S.Ct.atp.873)#?##XxXr#XXxisnotstrictlylimitedtopriorconvictions,butincludesotherfactsthat  evidencethedefendantsrecidivism.(See,e.g.,Peoplev.Thomas(2001)91Cal.App.4th  212,216223.)#?##XxX ##XxXXXxm#XxXXXxXXx##Howeverbroaditmaybe#3##XxX#XXx,thepriorconvictionexceptiondoesnotapply  here,becausethetrialcourtdidnotrelyonappellantscriminalhistoryasabasisfor   imposingtheupperterm,andanysuchreliancewouldhavebeenfactuallyunsupported   andanabuseofdiscretion.(SeeCT170[probationofficersreportshowsthat   appellantspriorcriminalhistoryconsistsofasinglemisdemeanorconvictionfor   resistingarrest,astowhichhesuccessfullycompletedprobation,andlists,asamitigating   circumstance,thefactthatappellanthad aninsignificantrecordofcriminalconduct].)###XxX#XXx   Appellantalsonotesthata##broadandindefinite###XxX#XXxinterpretationofthe priorconviction   exception#XxX #XXx# #Ԁ# ##XxX #XXxiscontrarytotheexpresslanguageandunderlyingreasoningofboththe   Apprendiruleanditsexception.#XxXU #XXx#t #Ԁ(SeeJonesv.U.S.(1999)526U.S.227,249[#XxX9 ##XxXXXx{ # XXxunlike   virtuallyanyotherconsiderationusedtoenlargethepossiblepenaltyforanoffense...,a  priorconvictionmustitselfhavebeenestablishedthroughproceduressatisfyingthefair  notice,reasonabledoubt,andjurytrialguarantees];Apprendi,supra,530U.S.atpp.  488496[describing#> #AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224#XxX #XXx# #asa   narrowexceptiontotheApprendirule]###XxX#XXx;#XxX#XXx##Ԁ#,#Blakely,supra,542U.S.atpp.303306#r##XxX#XXx;  Shepardv.U.S.(2005)544U.S.13[limitingthetypeofevidencethatmaybeconsidered  indeterminingthefactsofapriorconviction];#XxX&##XxXXXx#XXxCunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.874,  fn.14#j##XxXK#XXxԀ[rejectingtheapproachsuggestedinJusticeKennedysdissentingopinion].#XxX<##XxXXXx#XXx#XxX##XxXXXx#)(9 Z(Times New Roman  y  $    10    _XxXXXXXxԀAcopyoftheBlakelyJointAppendixcitedhereinisattachedtoappellants  contemporaneouslyfiledRequestforJudicialNotice.#XxXs##XxXXXxT# /  $    11    _XxXXXXXxԀThiscasedidnotonlynotinvolveapleatoaspecifiedorstipulatedsentence,it  didnoteveninvolveapleatoatruesentence lid.Notwithstandingthepartiesand  courtsuseofthattermindescribingappellantspotentialmaximumsentencetohim(RT  25,2829#XxXs##XxXXXxT#XXx),thetermwassimplyashorthandwayofdescribingappellantsmaximum  exposurefor_Bunnell_Ԁpurposes(i.e.,sincehissentencecouldnothavebeenhigherthan18  yearsbasedsolelyonthechargestowhichheplednocontest).(SeePeoplev._Shelton_   (2006)37Cal.4th759,768[ thespecificationofamaximumsentenceorlidinaplea   agreementnormallyimpliesamutualunderstandingofthedefendantandtheprosecutor   thatthespecifiedmaximumtermisonethatthetrialcourtmaylawfullyimposeandalsoa   mutualunderstandingthat,absenttheagreementforthelid,thetrialcourtmightlawfully   imposeanevenlongerterm.];andseePeoplev._Bobbit_(2006)138_Cal.App_.4th445   [dismissingappealforlackofacertificateofprobablecausewherethedefendanthad   pledtoa lideightmonthsaftertheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecided_Blakely_].)A   potentiallyrelatedquestionconcerningwhenanappealofaPenalCodesection654   determinationrequiresacertificateofprobablecauseispresentlypendinginthiscourtin  Peoplev._Cuevas_,S147510[B168269;142_Cal.App_.4th1141],rev.grantedJan.3,2007.#XxX4##XxXXXxS#People v. Cervantes (2001) 26 Cal.4th 8601 __}{fs26charrsid7752582Peoplev.Cervantes}{insrsid7696761(2001)26Cal.4th860People v. Dillon1 [_}{fs26charrsid7752582Peoplev.Dillon}{insrsid7696761(1983)34Cal.3d441People v. Wright1 c_}{ fs26charrsid7752582Peoplev.Wright}{insrsid7696761(1982)30Cal.3d705 +  $    1    _XxXXXXXxԀStatutoryreferencesaretotheCaliforniaPenalCodeunlessotherwiseindicated.#XxXr##XxXXXxS# 62 "_PenalCode,6 !  _XxXXXXXxTRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT  8 ? XXdd8    @INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  A")( \ dE( \ AA")o( tdEo( tÀ   ЀPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA, p         `     h      p   S148845      `  PlaintiffandRespondent,   p         ` v.      `    ̀WESLEYDAVIDFRENCH, h      p           `     h      p      `  DefendantandAppellant.   p     A"){ dE{ A  ThirdAppellateDistrict,No.C050785  SacramentoCountySuperiorCourtNo.02F07203  HonorableMaryanneG.Gilliard,Judge  c  APPELLANTSOPENINGBRIEFONTHEMERITS      0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#CENTRALCALIFORNIA(#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#APPELLATEPROGRAM(#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#GEORGEBOND!(#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#ExecutiveDirector"(#(#    `     h     WILLIAMJ.ARZBAECHERIII $    0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#StaffAttorney0 (#(#0x (# (#0 x(#x(#%!! (# (#    `     h     CaliforniaBarNo.137439 &""    `     h     2407JStreet,Suite301 '##    `     h     Sacramento,CA95816 ($$    `     h     (916)4413792   x   )%%    `     h        `     h     AttorneysforAppellant +''    `     h     WESLEYDAVIDFRENCH  ,((  8xXXd XXd8  @INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  A")% \ dE% \ AA")% tdE% tÀ   ЀPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA, p         `     h   0  0p(#(#S148845 p(#p(#    `  PlaintiffandRespondent,   p      0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# ` v.  (# (#    `    0 h 0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#APPELLANTSOPENING @  @  p(#p(# ЀWESLEYDAVIDFRENCH,0 h 0h(#h(#   p BRIEFONTHEMERITS  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  (#(#    `  DefendantandAppellant.       `   A"){ dE{ AISSUESPRESENTED      TheCourthasgrantedreviewofthefollowingquestions:(1)Didthetrialcourt  violatedefendant'sSixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrial,asinterpretedinCunninghamv.  California(Jan.22,2007,No.056551)549U.S.__[127S.Ct.856,166L.Ed.2d856],by  imposinganuppertermsentencebasedonaggravatingfactorsnotfoundtruebythejury?   (2)Ifso,whatistheproperremedy?  "   STATEMENTOFFACTSANDPROCEDURALHISTORY  K  AcriminalcomplaintfiledonAugust16,2002,inSacramentoCountySuperiorCourt  (caseno.02F07203),chargeddefendantandappellant,WesleyDavidFrench(hereafter   appellant),withtwelvecountsoflewdconductonachildundertheageof14(Pen.Code  #  1         288,subd.(a)).(SeeCT?  #  2      ׀1928.)Thecomplaintstatedthatthechargedoffensesinvolved   threevictims!BrandonB.(counts15),BrittanyP.(counts610),andZacharyL.(counts   1112)!andthuscamewithinthemeaningofsection667.61,subdivisions(b)and(e).   (Ibid.) X  #  3          OnOctober16,2002,appellantwaivedhisrighttoapreliminaryhearing,andthe  complaintwasdeemedaninformation.Appellantwasarraignedandplednotguiltytothe  charges.(CT2,2937.)    Afteranumberofcontinuances,thecasewassetforjurytrialcommencingonJune  1,2004.(CT414,17.)However,appellant,whowasincustodyandhadundergoneseveral  brainsurgeries(RT67),wasunabletoappearincourtuntilJune3,2004,becausehehad  beenhospitalizedaftersufferingaseizure,hadjustbeenprescribedantiseizuremedication,   andthedoctorsdidnotthinkitwouldbewisetotransporthim.(CT17,9091,121,134;RT " 67,1415.)    OnJune8,2004,appellantenteredintoapleaagreementwiththeprosecution,  pursuanttowhichheplednocontesttosixoftheinformationstwelvecounts(nos.1,2,9  12),theremainingcountsandallegationsweretobedismissed,andappellantwastoldthat   hecouldreceiveasentenceofnomorethan18yearsinprison(whichwasthemaximum   allowedbylawforthechargessubjecttothepleaagreement).(CT136;RT2237.)The   factualbasisforappellantspleawasprovidedbytheprosecutor,asfollows:   ` OnoraboutAugust2000toJuly27,2001,intheCountyof  Sacramento,theDefendantdidviolatePenalCodesection288(a)[as  allegedincounts1and2]inthathedidwillfullyandunlawfullyand  lewdlycommitlewdandlasciviousactsoractuponthebodyof  BrandonB.,whowasachildundertheageof14.Hewassevenand  eightatthetime.Hedidsowiththeintentofarousing,appealingto,  andgratifyingthelust,passions,anddesiresofhimself.Hedidthisby  takingBrandontoaparkbathroomandtouchingBrandonspenison  repeatedoccasions.   AstothecountsinvolvingBrittanyP.[counts9and10],onor  aboutApril1st,2001,andSeptember7,2001,atandintheCountyof  Sacramento,theDefendantdidcommitafelony,namely,aviolationof  288(a)ofthePenalCodeinthathedidwillfullyandunlawfullyand  lewdlycommitalewdandlasciviousactonthebodyandcertainbody  partsthereofofBrittanyP.,achildwhowasagesevenatthetime.He   didsowiththeintentofarousing,appealingto,andgratifyinghislusts, ! passions,anddesires.HedidthisbytouchingBrittany!skintoskin " inhervaginalareaaswellasherbreastsonseparate!twoseparate # occasions. $   AstoZacharyinCountsElevenandTwelve,onoraboutApril %!! 1st,2001,throughSeptember7,2001,atandintheCountyof &"" Sacramento,theDefendantdidcommitafelony,namely,aviolationof '## 288(a)ofthePenalCode,inthathedidwillfullyandunlawfullyand ($$ lewdlycommitalewdandlasciviousactonthebodyandcertainbody )%% partsthereofofZacharyL.,achildundertheageof14,whowasfive *&& andsixatthetime.Hedid!theDefendantdidsowiththeintentof +'' arousing,appealingtoandgratifyinghislusts,passions,anddesires.  Hedidthisby!ontwoseparateanddistinctoccasionstouching  ZacharyonhispenisskintoskinwhileZacharywasinhisdaughters  careatthedaycare.(RT2628.)  ` m!_!{!  Appellantsnocontestpleawasentered16daysbeforetheUnitedStatesSupreme   Court(onJune24,2004)issueditsopinioninBlakelyv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296.   Hewassentenced16daysafterBlakelywasdecided.     AthissentencinghearingonJuly9,2004,appellantaskedforacontinuance,sohe   couldretaincounseltoassisthimwithamotiontowithdrawhisplea.Thetrialcourtdenied   thisrequestasuntimely.(RT3940.)Thecourtimposedthemaximumsentenceallowedby  law!18yearsinstateprison.(RT5051.)Thecourtselectedcountoneastheprincipal  termandimposedtheuppertermofeightyearsonthatcount,findingtheaggravatedterm  tobesupportedbythefactthatappellant tookadvantageofapositionoftrustand  confidencetocommitthecrimepursuantto[former]Rule4.421(a)(11).(RT50.)Thecourt  imposedconsecutivetermsoftwoyearseach(onethirdthemiddleterm)fortheremaining  fivecounts,findingthemtohavebeen committedatdifferenttimesand/ordifferentplaces  pursuantto[former]Rule4.425(a)(3).(RT5051.)Pursuanttothepleaagreement,the ! remainingchargesweredismissed.(RT53.) #   Appellantsubmittedanoticeofappealandrequestforcertificateofprobablecause, %!! withanaccompanyingrequestforrelieffromdefaultandrequestforconstructivefiling,on '## oraboutSeptember16,2004.(CT198212.)Morethanayearlater,onSeptember30,2005, )%% theCourtofAppealgrantedappellantsrequestforconstructivefilingandgrantedhimuntil +'' October20,2005,tofileanoticeofappeal.  #  4      ׀(CT215.)Appellantsubmittedanewnotice  ofappealandrequestforcertificateofprobablecausethatweretimelyfiledonOctober20,  2005.(CT213214.)Thenoticeofappealstatedthattheappeal isbasedonthesentence  orothermattersoccurringaftertheplea.(CT213.)Therequestforacertificateofprobable   causewasneverruledonbythetrialcourt.(CT214.)     Onappeal,appellantarguedthatthetrialcourtsimpositionoftheuppertermoncount   oneviolatedappellantsrightstoajurytrialandtodueprocess,because,undertheUnited   StatesSupremeCourtsholdinginBlakely,supra,themidtermsentencewasthemaximum  sentencethatcouldbeimposedinthiscaseforcountone.(AppellantsOpeningBrief,dated  May8,2006,pp.511.)OnOctober30,2006,theCourtofAppealrejectedthisargument  andaffirmedthejudgment.TheCourtofAppealrejectedappellantsargumentfortwo  reasons:(1)becauseithadbeenrejectedbythiscourtinBlack,supra,whichtheCourtof  Appealwasboundtofollow;and(2)because Blakelydoesnotapplywhereadefendant  stipulatestorelevantfactsthatsupportaparticulartermofimprisonment[,]andappellant  shouldbedeemedbyhisnocontestpleatohaveadmittedthathisconductallowedthetrial   courttoimposetheupperterm.(CourtofAppealOpinion,pp.23,citingBlakely,supra, " 542U.S.atp.310.) $    Appellantfiledapetitionforreview,whichthiscourtacceptedforfilingonDecember &"" 20,2006,andgrantedonFebruary7,2007.   8xXXdXXd8DOY   DISCUSSION  < (Uf83!  I.  THETRIALCOURTSIMPOSITIONOFTHEUPPERTERMVIOLATED   APPELLANTSRIGHTSTOAJURYTRIALANDTODUEPROCESSOFLAW   UNDERTHESIXTHANDFOURTEENTHAMENDMENTSTOTHEUNITED   STATESCONSTITUTION,BECAUSETHATTERMISBASEDONAFACT,   LEGALLYESSENTIALTOAPPELLANTSSENTENCE,THATAPPELLANTDID   NOTADMIT,THATISNOTTHEFACTOFAPRIORCONVICTION,ANDASTO   WHICHAPPELLANTWASNOTAFFORDEDNOTICEORTHERIGHTTOAJURY   TRIALUNDERTHEBEYONDAREASONABLEDOUBTSTANDARD   < (88"3"  31@2  A  .3  0    UndertheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsOpinioninBlakely,AllFacts(OtherThan  PriorConvictions)ThatAreLegallyEssentialtoaDefendantsSentenceMustBe  SubmittedtoaJuryandFoundTrueBeyondaReasonableDoubt.31@^@݌(#(# Ќ  <  Asnotedearlier,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtissueditsopinioninBlakelyv.  Washington,supra,onJune24,2004!sixteendaysafterappellantenteredhisnocontest  pleainthiscase.  #  5      ׀InBlakely,theHighCourtmadeacrucialclarificationofitslandmark  decisioninApprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,490,inwhichtheCourthadheld  that, [o]therthanthefactofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrime  beyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury,andprovedbeyond ! areasonabledoubt.Blakelyheldthat therelevantstatutorymaximum[referredtoin # Apprendi]isnotthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,  butthemaximumhemayimposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.(Blakely,supra,542U.S.  atpp.303304,emphasisinoriginal.) [T]hestatutorymaximumforApprendipurposes  isthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimposesolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthe   juryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant.(Id.atp.303,emphasisinoriginal;andseeid.   atp.313[ AsApprendiheld,everydefendanthastherighttoinsistthattheprosecutorprove   toajuryallfactslegallyessentialtothepunishment.]Emphasisinoriginal.)   _<"3"  3,I2  B  .3  0    BlakelyAppliestoCaliforniasDSL:TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsOpinionin  CunninghamOverrulesandSupersedesthisCourtsOpinioninBlack.I3,IYI݌(#(# Ќ    TheCourtofAppealsfirststatedgroundforrejectingappellantsclaimthattheupper  termhereviolatesBlakely!viz.,thattheclaimwasrejectedbythiscourtinBlack,supra!  hasbeeninvalidatedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsrecentopinioninCunningham  v.California,supra.InCunningham,theUnitedStateSupremeCourtheldthatCalifornias  determinatesentencinglaw(DSL)violatestheSixthAmendmentjurytrialguaranteeandthe  FourteenthAmendmentsDueProcessClauseinsofarasitallowsjudgestoimposeanupper  termsentenceonthebasisoffacts(otherthanpriorconvictions)thatwerenotfoundbythe ! jurybeyondareasonabledoubt.(Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.864873.)Indoing # so,theCourtrejectedthiscourtsopinioninPeoplev.Black,supra,andheldthat themiddle %!! termprescribedinCaliforniasstatutes,nottheupperterm,istherelevantstatutory '##  maximumforpurposesofApprendiandBlakely.(Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp. )%% 873876.)  #  6           ThiscaseissimilartoCunninghaminthatitinvolvesanuppertermsentenceimposed  onthebasisofanaggravatingfact  #  7      ׀!violationofapositionoftrust(seeRT50)!thatwas  notfoundtruebyajurybeyondareasonabledoubtandthatisnotapriorconviction.X  #  8      ׀And,   contrarytotheCourtofAppealsopinionbelow,theaggravatingfactlegallyessentialtothe   trialcourtsimpositionoftheuppertermwasnotchargedandnotadmittedbyappellantas  partofhispleaagreement.TheimproprietyofthisaspectoftheCourtofAppealsopinion  isdiscussedinthenextsection.  C.0  TheCourtofAppealErredinHoldingThat,byVirtueofHisPreBlakelyPlea,   AppellantShouldBeDeemedtoHaveAdmittedtheFactUponWhichtheTrialCourt   BasedtheUpperTerm;AppellantCanBeDeemedtoHaveAdmittedOnlythe   ElementsoftheOffenseCharged,andThoseElementsDidNotIncludetheFactUsed   toImposetheUpperTerm. (#(# ̀DT  TheCourtofAppealwascorrectinnotinginitsopinionbelowthatadefendantmay   waivehis Blakelyrightsastoafactlegallyessentialtohissentence,bystipulatingtothe  fact.(CourtofAppealOpinion,p.3,citingBlakely,supra,542U.S.atp.310.)However,  theCourtofAppealerredinconcluding(onthesamepage)thatappellantheremaybe   deemed,byvirtueofhisnocontestplea,tohavestipulatedtothefactusedtoimposethe  upperterm.Thelawhaslongbeenclearthat,absenthisconsent,adefendantmaynotbe  convictedorsentencedforacrimeforwhichhehasnotbeencharged.UnderBlakelyand  Cunningham,thatiswhatoccurredinthiscase.Therefore,theuppertermsentenceimposed  oncountoneisunauthorized.     1.0 ` ADefendantMayOnlyBeSentencedforCrimesWithWhichHe"` (#` (#    ` HasBeenChargedorforLesserOffensesWhollyIncludedTherein. # 0Z  Itiswellestablishedthat,intheabsenceofhisconsent,adefendantmaynotbe %!! convictedofacrimethatisneitherchargednornecessarilyincludedinachargedoffense. '## (SeeColev.Arkansas(1948)333U.S.196,201[ Itisasmuchaviolationofdueprocess )%% tosendanaccusedtoprisonfollowingconvictionofachargeonwhichhewasnevertried +'' asitwouldbetoconvicthimuponachargethatwasnevermade.];Peoplev.Birks(1998)  19Cal.4th108,128[ Unlessthedefendantagrees,theprosecutioncannotobtaina  convictionforanyuncharged,nonincludedoffense.];Peoplev.Lohbauer(1981)29Cal.3d  364,368.)Normayadefendantbesentencedforsuchanoffense.(Peoplev.Hernandez   (1988)46Cal.3d194,197.)EvenbeforetheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecidedApprendi,   Californiacourtsappliedthisdueprocessruletoenhancementallegations,aswellascrimes.   (Peoplev.Hernandez,supra;Peoplev.Haskin(1992)4Cal.App.4th1434,1438.)     Hernandez,supra,andHaskin,supra,bothofwhichwererecentlycitedwithapproval  (andsummarizedassetforthbelow)bythiscourtinPeoplev.Mancebo(2002)27Cal.4th  735,arenoteworthyforpurposesofthiscase.    InHaskin,thedefendantadmittedanallegationofapriorprisontermundersection  667.5,subdivision(b),foraprior1979burglaryconviction.Theinformationdidnotallege  theburglarywasofaninhabiteddwelling.Afterthedefendantadmittedtheenhancement  allegation,thecourtmadeafactualfinding,basedonthePeople'sexhibitcontaining  proceedingsofthe1979burglaryconviction,thattheburglarywasofaresidence.At   sentencing,thecourtimposedanenhancementtermoffiveyearsfortheprior1979burglary " undersection667.Itdidsoinsteadofimposingaoneyeartermasprovidedbysection667.5, $  subdivision(b),whichwaswhattheinformationhadallegedandthedefendanthadadmitted. &"" (Haskin,4Cal.4thatpp.14371438.)TheCourtofAppealheldthat"[b]ecauseappellant ($$ wasneitherstatutorilynorfactuallychargedwith,norconsentedto,asubstitutedsection667 *&& enhancementinconjunctionwiththe1979offense,thetrialcourtwaswithoutauthorityto  imposeasentencegreaterthanthatauthorizedbysection667.5,subdivision(b),thecharging  statutewhichappellantadmitted."(Id.atp.1440.)    InHernandez,supra,46Cal.3d194,criticizedonothergroundsinPeoplev.King   (1993)5Cal.4th59,78,fn.5,thiscourtaddressedtheissueofwhetherajudgecouldimpose   anadditionalthreeyearsentenceunderformersection667.8(kidnappingforpurposeof   rape)whenthedefendant'sviolationofthatsectionwasneitherpleadednorproven,andwas   onlymentionedforthefirsttimeinaprobationreport.(Hernandez,supra,46Cal.3datp.  197.)Thiscourtconcluded"suchadditionaltermmaynotbeimposed,sinceapleadingand  proofrequirementshouldbeimpliedasamatterofstatutoryinterpretationandmustbe  impliedasamatterofdueprocess."(Ibid.)    HereasinHaskinandHernandez,thebasicproblemwiththeimpositionoftheupper  termoncountoneisthat,inthewakeofBlakely,itpunishesappellantforasentence  aggravatingfactthatheneitherwaschargedwithviolatingnoradmittedbyvirtueofhisno  contestpleatothenonaggravatedversionoftheoffensewithwhichhewascharged.This   isexplainedfurtherinthenextsection(I.C.2,post). "   2.0 ` UnderBlakelyandCunningham,theCrimeforWhichAppellantWas $  SentencedtotheUpperTermonCountOneIsNottheCrimewithWhichHe %!! WasChargedandtoWhichHePledNoContest.l&""` (#` (#   UndertheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsApprendijurisprudence,factsthatare ($$ legallyessentialtoadefendantssentenceare,forpurposesoftheUnitedStatesConstitution, *&& indistinctfromtheelementsofcrime.(SeeApprendi,supra,530U.S.atpp.476478,483,  fn.10;id.atpp.490495&fn.19;Washingtonv.Recuenco(2006)548U.S.__[126S.Ct.  2546,2552];Peoplev.Sengpadychith(2001)26Cal.4th316,326;Peoplev.Betts(2005)34  Cal.4th1039  ,1054[ Afactthatincreasesthemaximumpermissiblepunishmentforacrime   isthefunctionalequivalentofanelementofthecrime,regardlesswhetherthatfactisdefined   bystatelawasanelementofthecrimeorasasentencingfactor.])     Thus,theconstitutionalrighttoajurytrial,andallofthedueprocessrightsthatgo   withit,applytosuchfacts.(SeeApprendi,supra,530U.S.atp.476477;id.atpp.499500,  conc.opn.ofThomas,J.;andseeSattazahnv.Pennsylvania(2003)537U.S.101,111,  pluralityopn.ofScalia,J.;#s#Peoplev.Seel(2004)34Cal.4th535,540548[recognizingthat  ApprendidefinestheparametersofthefederalDoubleJeopardyClause].)    Theserightsincludetherighttopretrialnotice.(Jonesv.U.S.,supra,526U.S.227,  232[ Muchturnsonthedeterminationthatafactisanelementofanoffenseratherthana  sentencingconsideration,giventhatelementsmustbechargedintheindictment...];  Apprendi,supra,530U.S.466,476477;id.atpp.499500(conc.opn.ofThomas,J.);   Blakely,supra,542U.S.296,301302["anaccusationwhichlacksanyparticularfactwhich " thelawmakesessentialtothepunishmentis...noaccusationwithintherequirementsofthe $  commonlaw,anditisnoaccusationinreason"],quoting1J.Bishop,CriminalProcedure &"" 87,p55(2ded.1872);andseeWashingtonv.Recuenco(2006)548U.S.__[126S.Ct.2546, ($$ 25532557(dis.opns.of,Stevens,J.,andGinsburg,J.).) *&&   Forthisreason,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtandthiscourthavedescribeda  sentencingfactorlegallyessentialtothedefendantssentenceas thefunctionalequivalent  ofanelementofagreateroffensethantheonecoveredbythejurysguiltyverdict.#"y#Ԁ  (Apprendi,530U.S.atp.495,fn.19,emphasisadded;Ringv.Arizona(2002)536U.S.584,   605;Cunninghamv.California,supra,127S.Ct.atp.869;Peoplev.Seel,supra,34Cal.4th   atp.548#z#.)#e{#     Inthiscase,theelementsoftheoffensechargedagainstappellantincountonedidnot   includethefactusedtoimposetheupperterm,i.e.,thefactthat,incommittingtheoffense,  appellanttookadvantageofapositionoftrust.(See288,subd.(a);Peoplev.Martinez  (1995)434,444.)Indeed,iftheydid,undertheDSL,thatfactcouldnothavebeenusedto  imposetheupperterm.(Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.866868,873;1170,subd.  (b);Cal.RulesofCt.,rule4.420(d);seediscussioninsectionI.B,ante.)Thus,forpurposes  oftheApprendiBlakelyrule,thefactusedtoimposetheuppertermconstitutedanelement  ofagreaterversionofsection288,subdivision(a),thandescribedbythebareelementsset  forthinthestatute.(Apprendi,supra,atp.495,fn.19;Ringv.Arizona,supra,536U.S.at   p.605.)## "   Undertheauthoritiesdiscussedintheprecedingsection(I.C.1,ante),appellantcould $  notbeconvictedoforsentencedforthisaggravatedversionofsection288(a)unlesshewas &"" chargedwithit.Sothisbegsthequestion:wasappellantchargedwithanaggravatedversion ($$ ofsection288(a)thatincludedasanecessaryelementthefactthathetookadvantageofa *&& positionoftrust?    Theanswertothisquestionisno!hewasnot.Thefactusedtoimposetheupper  term(i.e.,thathetookadvantageofapositionofatrust)wasnotpledinthecomplaintor  informationinthiscase.(SeeCT1937.)Norwasitprovenupatapreliminaryhearing(i.e.,   becausetherewasnopreliminaryhearinginthiscase).(SeeCT2.)Therecorddoesnot   showthatappellantwasgivendueprocessnoticethatthisfactwassomethingtowhich   punitiveconsequencesattachedorthathewouldbedeemedtobeadmittingforsentencing   purposesaspartofhisnocontestplea.(SeeCT1937.)Norwasthisfactcitedbythe  prosecutorinsettingforththefactualbasisforappellantsnocontestplea.(SeeRT2628.)  #  9      ׀  Appellantsattorney discussedwith[appellant]theelementsofthechargedoffensesandthe  possibledefenseswhichhemayhave[.](RT26;andseePeoplev.Chadd(1981)28Cal.3d  739,748[aguiltypleais ajudicialadmissionofeveryelementoftheoffensecharged].)  However,aspreviouslyexplained,theseelementsdidnotincludethefactusedtoimposethe  upperterm.(Seep.13,ante.)Inshort,theoffensechargedagainstappellantincountone  atthetimeofhisnocontestpleawasanonaggravatedversionofsection288(a),nota   greateroffensethatincludedthefactusedtoimposetheupperterm.Thus,appellantwasnot   sentencedforthecrimewithwhichhewaschargedoralesseroffensewhollyincluded   therein.     3.0 ` AppellantDidNotConsenttoaModificationofCountOne` (#` (#   0 ` toIncludetheFactUsedtoImposetheUpperTerm.    x ` (#` (#   Theloneexceptiontothe Lohbauerrulethatadefendantmayonlybesentencedfor  crimeschargedorlesserincludedoffenseisconsent,i.e., iftheaccusedexpresslyor  impliedlyconsentsoracquiescesinhavingthetrieroffactconsiderasubstituted,uncharged  offense.(Peoplev.Haskin,supra,atp.1438;andseeLohbauer,supra,29Cal.3datp.367;  InreRobertG.(1982)31Cal.3d437,444[ consentwastheoneexceptiontotherulewhich  weadoptedinLohbauer.])ThisexceptionissimilartotheonerecognizedinBlakelyfor  theApprendiBlakelyrule. ! ` [N]othingpreventsadefendantfromwaivinghisApprendirights. # Whenadefendantpleadsguilty,theStateisfreetoseekjudicial $  sentenceenhancementssolongasthedefendanteitherstipulatestothe %!! relevantfactsorconsentstojudicialfactfinding.Ifappropriatewaivers &"" areprocured,Statesmaycontinuetoofferjudicialfactfindingasa '## matterofcoursetoalldefendantswhopleadguilty.(Blakely,supra, ($$ 542U.S.atp.310.) )%% ` \Nj  Thus,thequestionremainingiswhether,forpurposesofApprendiandBlakely, +'' appellantstipulatedtothefactusedtoimposetheuppertermorconsentedtothetrialcourts  findingofthatfact.Initsopinionbelow,theCourtofAppealapparentlyheldthatappellant  shouldbedeemedtohaveconsentedtothejudicialfactfindingnecessarytoimposeupper  term,because,atthetimeheenteredhisplea,heacknowledgedthatthetrialcourtwas   legallyauthorized,underthestatutesapplicabletothecrimestowhichheplednocontest,   toimposeanuppertermsentence.(CourtofAppealOpn.,p.3[ Where,ashere,adefendant   agreesthatthecourthastheauthoritytosentencethatdefendanttoanupperterm,heis   deemedtohaveadmittedthathisconduct,asamatteroffact,cansupportthatterm.],citing  generallyPeoplev.Hester(2000)22Cal.4th290,295;Peoplev.Hoffard(1995)10Cal.4th  1170,11811182;andPeoplev.Thomas(1986)41Cal.3d837,842843.)Asexplained  below,thisholdingdoesnotfollowfromtheauthoritiesitcitesforsupport,anditis  inconsistentwiththeproceduralhistoryofBlakelyitselfandwiththeexpresslanguageof  BlakelyandCunningham.    0 ` a.0 ` (#` (#TheproceduralhistoryofBlakelymakesclearthat (# (#    `  theCourtofAppealsanalysisinincorrect.    PerhapstheclearestreasonthattheCourtofAppealerredinholdingthatadefendant ! maybedeemedtohaveadmittedaBlakelyviolatingfactusedtoimposetheupperterm,by # pleadingguiltyornocontestundercircumstancessimilartothoseinthiscase,isthatBlakely %!! involvedaguiltypleasituationthatisessentiallyindistinguishablefromthiscase. '##   TherecordbeforetheSupremeCourtinBlakelyshowsthat,likeappellantinthiscase, )%% Blakelyacknowledgedhisunderstandingofthemaximumpotentialsentenceforhisoffenses. +'' Aspartofhiswrittenpleaagreement,Blakelyacknowledgedthatthe maximumtermfor  histwooffenseswas10years.(Blakelyv.Washington,U.S.SupremeCourtNo.021632,  JointAppx.,2003WL23310880,p.*63,6(a).)  #  10      ׀ThepleaagreementalsorecitedBlakelys  understandingthat,whilethe standardrangewas4953months,Washingtonlawwould   allowasentencegreaterthanthe standardrangeifthejudgefound substantialand   compellingreasons.(Id.atp.*66,6(h).)Blakelyssentenceof90months(7years)   waswellwithinthe10yearmaximumacknowledgedinthepleaagreement.TheSupreme   Court,nonetheless,foundconstitutionalerrorbecauseBlakelyhadneveradmittedthe  specificaggravatingfactslatercitedbythesentencingcourt(actingwith deliberate  cruelty).(Blakely,supra,542U.S.atpp.303304.)    Inthiscase,asinBlakely,appellantwasadvisedwhenheenteredhisnocontestplea  ofthemaximumsentencehecouldreceiveforallofthecountstowhichheplednocontest  (i.e.,18years).(RT2529.)And,asinBlakely,appellantsacknowledgmentofthis  maximumsentencewasnotanagreementtoasentenceabovethesentencingrangetowhich  hecouldotherwisebeconstitutionallysentenced.Itwassimplyanacknowledgmentofthe   maximumexposurehefacedunderthesentencingprovisionsapplicabletotheoffensesto " whichheplednocontest.(See288,subd.(a),1170.1,subd.(a).)Thisisthesortof $  acknowledgmentthatmustbeobtainedineverycaseinvolvingaguiltyornocontestplea. &""  Inallguiltypleaandsubmissioncasesthedefendantshallbeadvisedofthedirect  consequencesofconvictionsuchasthepermissiblerangeofpunishmentprovidedby  statute....(Bunnellv.SuperiorCourt(1975)13Cal.3d592,605;seealsoBradyv.United  States(1970)397U.S.742,755[knowledgeof directconsequencesessentialto   voluntarinessofplea].)  #  11      ׀     Thus,acourtsstandardBunnell/Bradyadvisement,whichisrequiredwhenevera   defendantpleadsguiltyornocontest,cannotbethesortof stipulationoradmission   envisionedinBlakely.And,ifBlakelyitselfwerenotproofenoughthatthisisso,anydoubt  isresolvedbyCunningham,wheretheCourtheldthatthefactslegallyessentialtoanupper  termsentenceimposedunderCaliforniasDSL areneitherinherentinthejurysverdictnor  embracedbythedefendantsplea....(Id.,127S.Ct.atp.864,emphasisadded.)    0 ` b.0 ` (#` (#Therecorddoesnotaffirmativelydemonstratethatappellant (# (#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#knowingly,intelligentlyandvoluntarilywaivedhisconstitutionalrights  astothefactusedtoimposetheupperterm. (# (# o  TheSupremeCourtinBlakelymadeclearthat,whilejudicialfactfindingmaybe  allowedastofactslegallyessentialtoadefendantssentencewherethedefendantpleads   guilty(seeBlakely,supra,542U.S.atp.310[ nothingpreventsadefendantfromwaiving   hisApprendirights]),suchfactfindingisallowedonly [i]fappropriatewaiversare   procured....(Blakely,atp.310,emphasisadded.)By appropriatewaivers,theCourtwas   apparentlyreferringtothewaiversconstitutionallyrequiredwhenadefendantpleadsguilty  ornocontest.  ` Adefendantwhoenters...a[guilty]pleasimultaneouslywaivesseveral  constitutionalrights,includinghisprivilegeagainstcompulsoryself  incrimination,hisrighttotrialbyjury,andhisrighttoconfronthis  accusers.ForthiswaivertobevalidundertheDueProcessClause,it  mustbe anintentionalrelinquishmentorabandonmentofaknown  rightorprivilege.Johnsonv.Zerbst,304U.S.458,464(1938).  Consequently,ifadefendant'sguiltypleaisnotequallyvoluntaryand  knowing,ithasbeenobtainedinviolationofdueprocessandis  thereforevoid.Moreover,becauseaguiltypleaisanadmissionofall  theelementsofaformalcriminalcharge,itcannotbetrulyvoluntary  unlessthedefendantpossessesanunderstandingofthelawinrelation   tothefacts.(McCarthyv.UnitedStates(1969)394U.S.459,466.) ! ` F8T  Thedefendantswaiverofhisconstitutionalrightscannotbeinferredfromthemere # factthathehaspledguiltyandisrepresentedbycounsel. Presumingwaiverfromasilent %!! recordisimpermissible.(Boykinv.Alabama(1969)395U.S.238,243.) [T]herecord '## mustcontainonitsfacedirectevidencethattheaccusedwasaware,ormadeaware,ofhis )%% righttoconfrontation,toajurytrial,andagainstselfincrimination,aswellasthenatureof +'' thechargeandtheconsequencesofhisplea.(InreTahl(1969)1Cal.3d122,132,  emphasisinoriginal;andseeInreYurko(1974)10Cal.3d857,863864[ BoykinandTahl  require,beforeacourtacceptsanaccused'sadmissionthathehassufferedpriorfelony  convictions,expressandspecificadmonitionsastotheconstitutionalrightswaivedbyan   admission.];Peoplev.Howard(1992)1Cal.4th1132,1175[failuretoadvisedefendantof   BoykinTahlrightsdoesnotrequirereversalwheretherecordaffirmativelyshowsthatthe   admissionofasentenceenhancementallegationwasknowing,intelligentandvoluntary   underthetotalityofcircumstances];Peoplev.Mosby(2004)33Cal.4th353,361365  [same].)    Astheaboveauthoritiesmakeclear,theCourtofAppealerredinholdingthat,from  therecordinthiscase,appellantmaybe deemedtohaveadmittedthathisconductin  committingtheoffensestowhichheplednocontestallowedthetrialcourttoimposethe  upperterm.Tothecontrary,thecurrentrecorddoesnotshowthatappellantwasevertold  hewouldbeadmitting,aspartofhisplea,thathetookadvantageofapositionoftrust.And  itquiteclearlydoesnotaffirmativelydemonstratethatappellantwasawareofand   knowingly,intelligentlyandvoluntarilywaivedhisconstitutionalrightsastothatfact.(See " RT2237.) $    Althoughappellantwasadvisedofandwaived(albeitsomewhatreluctantly)hisrights &"" toajurytrial,topresentadefense,toconfrontandcrossexaminewitnessesandagainstself ($$ incrimination(RT3032),thoseadvisementsandwaiverscannotbedeemedtohaveincluded *&& appellantsconstitutionalrightsastothefactusedtoimposetheupperterm,forthesimple  reasonthat,underCalifornialawatthattime,hehadnosuchrightsastothatfact.    AstheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtexplainedinCunningham,CaliforniasDSL  assignstothetrialcourttheresponsibilityoffindingaggravatingfactslegallyessentialtoan   uppertermsentence.(Id.,127S.Ct.atpp.866868,873;1170,subd.(b);Cal.RulesofCt.,   rule4.420(d).)AlthoughBlakelysclarificationofApprendigavenoticethatthisaspectof   theDSLmightbeunconstitutional,thiscourt,inPeoplev.Black,supra,didnotinterpret   BlakelyasgivingCaliforniadefendantstherighttoajurytrialandtoacquittalintheabsence  ofproofbeyondareasonabledoubtastoaggravatingfactsusedtoimposeanupperterm  sentence.(SeeBlack,supra,35Cal.4thatpp.12551256.)Thus,itwouldbeunreasonable  toinferfromtherecordofthiscasethatappellantmusthavebeenadvisedbyhisattorneyof  his Blakelyrightsastothefactslegallyessentialtoanuppertermsentence,atatimewhen  Blakelyhadnotyetbeendecided.(SeeHalbertv.Michigan,supra,545U.S.605,623  [disagreeingwithstatescontentionthatdefendanthadwaivedhisrighttoappointed  appellatecounselbyenteringanocontestplea,because,atthetimeheenteredthatplea,the   defendant hadnorecognizedrighttoappointedappellatecounselhecouldelecttoforgo].) " And,again,waiverinthiscontextmaynotbeinferredfromasilentrecord.  #  12       $    Insum,sinceappellantwasnotchargedwithanaggravatedversionofsection288,  subdivision(a),thatincludedthesentencingfactorusedtoimposetheupperterm,hemay  notbedeemedtohaveadmitteditsolelybyvirtueofhavingpleadedguiltytothelesser,  chargedversionofthatcrime.(SeeCunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.864[factslegally   essentialtoanuppertermDSLsentencearenot embracedbythedefendantsplea].)Thus,   therecordbeliesanycontentionthatappellantadmittedthefactusedtoimposetheupper   term,muchlessthathedidsoknowingly,intelligentlyandvoluntarily,after appropriate   waivers[were]procured.(Blakely,542U.S.atp.310.)XxX  #XxXXXx$##XXxC#  0 ` c.0 ` (#` (#ThecasescitedbytheCourtofAppealareinapposite. (# (#   TheCourtofAppealcitedthreeopinionsofthiscourtinsupportofitsholdingthat  appellantshouldbedeemed,byvirtueofthe Bunnelladvisementhereceivedpriorto  enteringhisnocontestplea,tohaveadmittedfactssufficienttoauthorizetheimpositionof  theupperterm:Peoplev.Hester,supra,22Cal.4th290,295;Peoplev.Hoffard,supra,10  Cal.4th1170,11811182;andPeoplev.Thomas,supra,41Cal.3d837,842843.These  casesarefundamentallydistinguishablefromthiscase,andnonesupportstheCourtof   Appealsconclusionthatappellantmaybedeemedtohaveadmittedthefactusedtoimpose " theupperterm. $    Hesterconcernedadefendantsagreementtopleadguiltyinreturnforaspecified &"" prisonsentence.Thiscourtheldthat,byagreeingtosucha stipulatedsentence,the ($$ defendantabandonedhisstatutoryright,underPenalCodesection654,nottobepunished  twiceforthesameact.(Hester,supra,22Cal.4thatpp.294296[findingnoconflict  betweenPenalCodesection654andrule[4.]412(b)].)Thiscaseisdistinguishablefrom  Hesterfortworeasons:(1)appellantdidnotstipulatetotheuppertermsentencehereceived   inthiscase!hemerelyacknowledgedthatthatsentencewasthemaximumallowedunder   thesentencingprovisionsapplicabletothecrimestowhichheplednocontest(seediscussion   atpp.1618,ante);and(2)therightstheCourtofAppealheredeemedappellanttohave   abandonedbypleadingnocontestarefundamentalconstitutionalrights,notmerelytheright  toreceivethebenefitofastatutoryprovisionwhoseapplicationwould(undercourtrules)  beatoddswiththeexpresstermsofhispleaagreement.(SeePeoplev.Walker(1991)54  Cal.3d1013,10221023[notingthedistinctionbetween Bunnellerror,astowhichitis  incumbentuponthedefendanttoobjectandshowprejudice,and BoykinTahlerror,asto  whichnoobjectionisrequired].)    Peoplev.Hoffard,supra,alsodoesnotsupporttheCourtofAppealsholdinginthis  case.InHoffard,theissueswere(1)whetheradefendantwhohasobtainedacertificateof   probablecauseononegroundmayappealadifferentissuethatrequiresacertificateof " probablecauseandthatwasnotidentifiedinthedefendantscertificateofprobablecause $  request;and(2)whetherPenalCodesection1192.5requiresastatementofthefactualbasis &"" foradefendantsguiltyplea,whenthedefendanthaspledguiltyascharged,withoutany ($$ negotiatedpromiseforaspecifiedtermofimprisonment.(Hoffard,supra,10Cal.4th1170, *&& 11731174.)#  #  13      ׀Inansweringthesecondofthesetwoquestionsinthenegative,thiscourt  notedthatoneofthereasonsafactualbasisstatementneednotberequiredinnonnegotiated  guiltypleacasesisthatthedefendantisalreadyprotectedbytherule(discussedinsection  I.C.3.b,ante)thattherecordinsuchcasesaffirmativelydemonstratethatthedefendants   waiverofhisconstitutionalrightsinpleadingguiltyismadeknowingly,intelligentlyand   voluntarily.(Id.atpp.11821183.)But,again,thisdidnotoccurhere.(SeesectionI.C.3.b,   ante.)SoHoffarddoesnotsupporttheCourtofAppealsopinioninthiscase.     NordoesPeoplev.Thomas,supra.InThomas,theissueswere: (1)Whentheserious  felony[chargedundersection667]isresidentialburglary,isanadmissionofconvictionof  aburglarywithinthemeaningofsection667'withoutanexpressadmissionofits  residentialcharactersufficienttopermitimpositionoftheseriousfelonyenhancement?(2)  Issuchanadmissionsufficientwhenitisnottheresultofapleabargain?(Id.,41Cal.3d  atp.839.)Thiscourtansweredbothofthesequestionsaffirmatively,explainingthatitwas  reasonabletoinferthatadefendantwhoexpresslyadmittedthathehadsufferedaprior  conviction withinthemeaningofsection667"andwhohadbeenadvisedofhis   constitutionalrightsastothatadmissionasrequiredbyInreYurko,supra,understoodthe " factualelementsofaseriousfelony(e.g.,thattheburglaryberesidential)atthetimeofthe  admission,andthatanyclaimthathisattorneyhadnotmadethoseelementscleartohimat  thetimeoftheadmissionwouldhavetoberaisedinapetitionforwritofhabeascorpus.  (Thomas,supra,41Ca.3datpp.839844.)     ThiscaseisfundamentallydistinguishablefromThomasfortworeasons.First,unlike   Thomas,appellantherewasnotadvisedofhisconstitutionalrightsastothesentencingfactor   usedtoimposetheupperterm.(SeediscussioninsectionI.C.3.b,ante.)Second,appellant   doesnotdisputethelongrecognizedrule(appliedinThomas)thata pleaofguiltyadmits  everyelementofthecrimecharged.(Seeid.atp.844,fn.7;Peoplev.Hoffard,supra,at  pp.11771178;Peoplev.Chadd,supra,28Cal.3d739,748.)But,aspreviouslyexplained,  hevigorouslydisputestheCourtofAppealsconclusionthat,byvirtueofaguilty(orno  contest)plea,adefendantshouldbe deemedtoadmitfactsbeyondthoseelements,i.e.,a  particularfactlegallyessentialtoimposeasentencegreaterthanthemiddleterm.(See  Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.864[factslegallyessentialtoanuppertermDSL  sentencearenot embracedbythedefendantsplea];andseediscussionatpp.1118,ante.)   Thomasprovidesnosupportforthisconclusion. " D.0  Conclusion.$ (#(#   UnderCunningham,thetrialcourtsfindingthatappellanttookadvantageofa &"" positionoftrustwaslegallyessentialtotheimpositionoftheupperterm.Thus,under ($$ Blakely,thatfactcouldnotbeusedtoimposetheupperterm,unlessitwaspledasa *&& sentenceenhancementallegationintheoperativechargingdocumentandeitherfoundtrue  byajurybeyondareasonabledoubtoradmittedbyappellantafterknowingly,intelligently  andvoluntarilywaivinghisconstitutionalrightsastothatfact,asaffirmativelydemonstrated  ontherecord.Sincenoneofthesethingsoccurred(or,asexplainedbelow,couldhave   occurred)inthiscase,theuppertermsentenceimposedoncountoneisunconstitutional   undertheSixthandFourteenthAmendments.     II.   THEERRORREQUIRESREVERSAL,ANDTHEAPPROPRIATEREMEDY  ISTOREDUCETHEUPPERTERMONCOUNTONETOTHEMIDDLETERM[  O  Thequestionsofprejudiceandremedyareintertwined,fortworeasons.First,ifthe  errorisstructural(asappellantdemonstrates,post),theissueofprejudicemaybedispensed  with,andthequestionofremedyisallthatremains.Second,astheUnitedStatesSupreme  CourtnotedinWashingtonv.Recuenco,supra,126S.Ct.2546,2550,thelackofanadequate  remedycancompelafindingthattheerrorisnotharmless.  A.0  TheErrorRequiresReversaloftheUpperTermonCountOne.(#(#   InRecuenco,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatthefailuretosubmittoajury ! afactthatislegallyessentialtothedefendantssentenceissubjecttoharmlesserroranalysis # underthe Chapmanstandardofreversibility(Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18, %!! 24,underwhichreversalisrequiredunlessitappears beyondareasonabledoubtthatthe '## errorcomplainedofdidnotcontributetotheverdictobtained.(Recuenco,supra,126S.Ct. )%% 2546,25512553.)TheCourtexplainedthat,sinceanaggravatingfactlegallyessentialto +'' thedefendantssentenceisconstitutionallyanalogoustoanelementofafelonyoffense,and  since,undertheHighCourtsopinioninNederv.U.S.(1999)527U.S.1,8,theremovalof  asingleelementofanoffensefromthejuryissubjecttoharmlesserroranalysisunder  Chapman,thatstandardofreversibilityshouldalsoapplytothefailuretoobtainaverdict   fromthejuryonasentencingfactorthatislegallyessentialtothedefendantssentence.   (Recuenco,126S.Ct.atpp.2551!2553.)     Ofcourse,thiscasedidnotinvolveajurytrial.Unlikethejurytrialsituationsin   ###NederandRecuenco,thereisnotrialevidenceheretosubjecttoChapmanharmlesserror  analysis.Thus,although [f]ailuretosubmitasentencingfactortothejury,likefailureto  submitanelementtothejury,isnotstructuralerror(Recuenco,p.2553),thesamecannot  besaidforthefailuretosecurethedefendantsadmissiontoasentencingfactor,wherethe  defendanthasplednocontest,withoutconstitutionallyrequirednoticeofthesentence  enhancingfactanditssentenceenhancingeffect.Rather,insuchcases,theerrorisstructural  andrequiresautomaticreversal.(Peoplev.Hernandez,supra,46Cal.3datpp.208209;  Peoplev.Mancebo,supra,27Cal.4th735,747;InreRobertG.,supra,31Cal.3datpp.442   445;andseeRecuenco,supra,126S.Ct.atp.2552,fn.3[decliningtoreachtheissueof " whetherachargingerror,asopposedtoajudicialfactfindingerror,wouldbestructural];id. $  atpp.2554,diss.opn.ofStevens,J.[findingthisavoidedargumentthestrongestone &"" supportingRecuencosclaimthattheBlakelyerrorinthatcasewasstructural].)  ($$ DOY D D  B.0  TheUpperTermonCountOneMustBeReducedtotheMidterm;theErrorCannot  BeRemediedbyRetroactiveModificationoftheDSLorByTryingAppellantonthe  AggravatingFactUsedtoImposetheUpperTerm.(#(#   Respondentmaypositthattherearetwopossibleremediesthatdonotrequire  (automatic)reductionofappellantssentenceoncountonefromtheuppertermtothemiddle   term:(1)revisingtheDSLsoastorenderitcompliantwithBlakelyandCunningham,by   grantingtrialcourtsbroaderdiscretiontoimposeanuppertermsentence(seeUnitedStates   v.Booker(2005)543U.S.220,245);or(2)remandingthecasetothetrialcourtwith   directionsthatthefactusedtoimposetheuppertermbetriedtoajury.Neitherofthese  remediesisconstitutionallyviable.    Thefirst(i.e.,aretroactive BookerizationoftheDSL)wouldviolatethe  proscriptionofexpostfactolaws(U.S.Const.,Art.I,10,cl.1),byremovingthe  aggravatingelementofthegreateroffenseonwhichtheprosecutionisseekingconviction.  (SeeCarmellv.Texas(2000)529U.S.513,532[ Alawreducingthequantumofevidence  requiredtoconvictanoffenderisasgrosslyunfairas,say,retrospectivelyeliminatingan  elementoftheoffense,increasingthepunishmentforanexistingoffense,orloweringthe   burdenofproof.];Bouiev.CityofColumbia(1964)378U.S.347,354[ Ifajudicial " constructionofacriminalstatuteis'unexpectedandindefensiblebyreferencetothelaw $  whichhadbeenexpressedpriortotheconductinissue,'itmustnotbegivenretroactive &"" effect.];Peoplev.Escobar(1992)3Cal.4th740,752[ astateSupremeCourt,nolessthan ($$ astateLegislature,isbarredfrommakingconductcriminalwhichwasinnocentwhenit *&& occurred,throughtheprocessofjudicialinterpretation.];andseediscussioninsectionI.C.2,  ante[explainingthatfactslegallyessentialtoadefendantssentenceareconstitutionally  indistinctfromtheelementsofcrime].)    Thesecondoftheseremedies(i.e.,remandforajurytrialoftheaggravatingfact)is   notviablefortworeasons.First,suchpiecemeallitigationofcountonewouldbecontrary   tothedueprocessanddouble!jeopardyconcernsthatunderpinthiscourtsLohbauer   jurisprudence.(Seeid.,29Cal.3datpp.372373;Peoplev.Haskin,supra,4Cal.App.4th   atp.1441[rejectingpositedremedyofremandandrearraignment,where,ashere, theissue  iswhetherappellantcanbesentencedonachargeotherthanthatwithwhichhewascharged,  admittedandconvicted];Peoplev.Esquibel(1992)3Cal.App.4th850,859[ fundamental  fairnessforbids[such]piecemealjurylitigation]#$#;andseeSattazahnv.Pennsylvania(2003)  537U.S.101,111,pluralityopn.ofScalia,J.;#D#Peoplev.Seel,supra,34Cal.4th535,540548  [recognizingthatApprendidefinestheparametersofthefederalDoubleJeopardyClause].)    Second,thereisnolegislativelycreatedvehiclefortryingappellantontheupperterm  allegation,sothereisnowaythatitcouldbetriedtoajuryandprovenbeyondareasonable   doubt,withoutviolatingtheseparationofpowersdoctrine.Ԁ(# #Cal.Const.,art.III,3.)Only " theLegislaturemaycreatecrimesandtheelementsonwhichajurymaybeinstructed. $  (Keelerv.SuperiorCourt(1970)2Cal.3d619  ,631[ thepowertodefinecrimesandfix &"" penaltiesisvestedexclusivelyinthelegislativebranch];seealsoPen.Code,6  .)The ($$ Legislaturecannotdelegatetothejudiciarypowertomanufacturesuchelementsandsubmit *&& themtoajury.(Peoplev.Figueroa(1999)68Cal.App.4th1409  ,1414[ Althoughthe  Legislaturemaydelegaterulemakingpowertoanadministrativebody,itmaynotallowthe  agencytodeclaretheviolationofitsrulesacrime.OnlytheLegislature,notan  administrativebody,maydeterminewhatconductisunlawfulandthepenaltyforthe   unlawfulconduct][citationsomitted];seealsoPeoplev.Cervantes(2001)26Cal.4th860  ,   867,fn.10[ajudicialruleordoctrine doesnotitselfdefineacrime,asthatisalegislative   function.];# #Peoplev.Dillon(1983)34Cal.3d441  ,461[# #absent legislativeproscriptionof   conduct,thereisnocrime]##.)    Since,aspreviouslyexplained,#'#factslegallyessentialtoadefendantssentenceare  constitutionallyindistinctfromtheelementsofcrimeԀ(#/#seediscussioninsectionI.C.2,ante),  itisnotpossiblefortheLegislaturetodelegatetothecourtsthepowertodefinethose  elements.(See##Peoplev.Wright(1982)30Cal.3d705  ,712[ Anunconstitutionaldelegation  oflegislativepoweroccurswhentheLegislatureconfersuponanadministrativeagency  unrestrictedauthoritytomakefundamentalpolicydecisions.];Keelerv.SuperiorCourt,  supra;##Cal.Const.,art.III,3;Pen.Code,6  .#@#)   ##  Thus,theappropriateremedyistomodifythesentenceoncountonefromtheupper " termtothemiddleterm(i.e.,andreduceappellantsaggregatesentencefrom18yearsto16 $  yearsinstateprison).(SeePen.Code1260;Peoplev.Schueren(1973)10Cal.3d553, &"" 561562.)  ($$ ##  CONCLUSION    Wherefore,appellantrespectfullyrequestshattheopinionoftheCourtofAppealbe  reversed,andthattheuppertermsentenceoncountonebereducedtothemidterm.  Dated:February27,2007     0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#Respectfullysubmitted, x   @  @  (#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#CENTRALCALIFORNIA (#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#APPELLATEPROGRAM (#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#GEORGEBOND (#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#ExecutiveDirector(#(#    `     h       0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#WILLIAMJ.ARZBAECHERIII(#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#StaffAttorney(#(#    `     h     CaliforniaBarNo.137439     `     h     2407JStreet,Suite301     `     h     Sacramento,CA95816     `     h     (916)4413792   x       `     h      `     h     AttorneysforAppellant     `     h   0  WESLEYDAVIDFRENCH(#(#