WPC Gv@s{׺ݤ S%]v8y/;_n[_S?ƃ?LsrD0itMx:\U;Th8 ZU`k(vߛaX nuḟ{%":/a r_5]fk :ǁ̺GwP!o! eӟao\of4$Vgez<#ߥK؞R#3(Z)3O cEC~4t}T_ MtJ%4ތ*TZη0bzOE? #+k@?PP#]qqUW=9ުoTV_[~xJ=s7m,NKrL«pS"$ }mzPP/aeّngM~Cv]}fYJ: ?(ݺF97G%/ ,$/ckaȐJ例?W#UN % 0(w4 E. 0 l0 0 DU:j 0Cr 0 0UJ_ b 1 18!! m!N!UN!("^ >"sJ"U0@$ 0c$ 0D`% 1u% B&6& 0U) 0Z) 07* 0* 72+ AQ+2, 0D, 0D<- D/- B- 0w- 0C. 0. 0/ 0 0 00 01 0H2 0#3 0D4 1V5 725 16 16 17 07M8 1^< 0< 1= 0 >E> 0A 0:B 0B 0C 1^D 72D 0E 0E 0_F 0F 1G 72H 1HH 72H 0I 0I 0J 0J 0K 0L 0M 0N 0yO4^P 0V 0tW 1SX 0X 0Y 0Z 0w[ 0S\ 0,] 1] 0{^ 0%_ 0_ 0` 1=a 0a 1\b 0b 0c 1Hd 0d 0e 0lf 06g 0h 0h 0i 0j 0}k 0Ol 0m 0m 00n 0<n 0o 0>o 0vp 0`p 0`p 0`Qq 0`q 0`r 08qr 0r 02{s 0s 0Yt 0_u 0 au 0jkv 0w B*Yy D/y D+y 0y D/a{ 0{ 06^| 0| 0:} 0^} 0<4~U6p~U>~U*~ 0 0UNl 0Nlo.eZ 1eX z+CENTRAL OFFICE0(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($OV.63|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  <6X9`("Courier 10cpi   4 ' barzbaec0barzbaec .   Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(2C$ !     $    1    _XsXXXHXXsԀThecourtalsorejectedColesclaimthattheimpositionofaconcurrentsentence  violatedsection654,onthegroundthat_that_Ԁclaimwasbarredbyrule4.412(b).(Cole,88  Cal.App.4that#XsXHr##XsXXXsS#pp.872873.)0.footer "GaӀ  XXX_*~ 2Times New RomanBoldTT_.,toc 1   f!"  XXX_*~ 2Times New RomanBoldTT_*~ 2Times New RomanBoldTT- -(UfCEKQW]cioAutoList3I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.U`6Times New Roman Regular  ~6  i  $    3    _XsXXXHXXsԀThisbriefcanalsobeobtainedbygoingtotheUnitedStatesSupremeCourts  onlinedocket(http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/docket.html)andthenclicking  sequentiallyon MeritsBriefs,the ArgumentDatemenu, 20032004Term,   Blakely,Jr.v.StateofWashington,and Respondentsbrief.#XsXHr##XsXXXsS#(9 Z(Times New Roman (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (3$ !  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) d   $    4    _XsXXXHXXsԀAppellantalsonotesthat,inarecent,postCunninghamcaseinwhichtheThird  DistrictCourtofAppealdiscussedthelawregardingcertificatesofprobablecauseat  length,thatcourtdidnotfollowBobbit,butaddressedthemeritsofadefendantsBlakely  claimeventhoughhehadnotobtainedacertificateofprobablecause.(Peoplev.Perez  (2007)148Cal.App.4th353,372373.)#XsXHr##XsXXXsS#*+ (_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    _XsXXXHXXsԀAsnotedinthe_ABOM_Ԁ(p.18,fn.11),thiscaseisalsodistinguishablefrom  _Shelton_Ԁbecauseitdoesnotinvolveatruesentence lidasdefinedin_Shelton_.(Seeid.,  37Cal.4thatp.768[ thespecificationofamaximumsentenceorlidinapleaagreement  normallyimpliesamutualunderstandingofthedefendantandtheprosecutorthatthe  specifiedmaximumtermisonethatthetrialcourtmaylawfullyimposeandalsoamutual  understandingthat,absenttheagreementforthelid,thetrialcourtmightlawfullyimpose   anevenlongerterm.].)#XsXHr##XsXXXsS#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   ;  $    5    _XsXXXHXXsԀ Asageneralrule,intheabsenceofaspecificstatutoryprovisionanappellate  courtmayconsiderapetitionforextraordinarywritatanytime,subjecttoits  discretionarypowertodenyreliefonthegroundsoflaches.(Sturm,Ruger&Co.v.  SuperiorCourt(1985)164Cal.App.3d579,581,quotingPopelka,Allard,McCowan&  Jonesv.SuperiorCourt(1980)107Cal.App.3d496,499;andciting5Witkin,Cal.  Procedure(2ded.1971)ExtraordinaryWrits,118,pp.38953896.)#HHS##XsXHr#*>> (_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.B RBOM uncontroverted ABOMSheltonBobbitPanizzonButtramthat thatw]hereBelmaresMenchacaWinshipMongeIsaacksMcGinityIII.C. a]n Kopp ArpVitekTowneMvuembaSandoval28+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  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular   $    6    _XsXXXHXXsԀAdifferentrule,requiringadefendanttoobtainarulingfromthetrialcourt  withinthe20dayperiodofrule8.304(b)wouldnotmakesense,becauseitisthetrial  courtsdutytoruleonatimelyfiledrequestwithinthatperiod,andapetitionforwritof  mandatedirectingthetrialcourttoruleonacertificaterequestwouldbeprematurebefore  thatperiodhasexpired.#XsXHr##XsXXXsS#(O$   $    7    _XsXXXHXXsԀAlthoughthatcertificateofprobablecauserequestdidnotlistasagroundfor  theappealtheBlakelyissuethatisthesubjectoftheappeal,itdidnothavetodoso,as  longastherequestcontainedotherreasonablegroundswarrantingtheissuanceofa  certificateofprobablecause.(Peoplev.Hoffard(1995)10Cal.4th1170,1174#XsXHr#HXXs#HHS#HH.)#XsXHP##XsXXXs#   $    8    _XsXXXHXXsԀTheproceduralhistoryofthismatterintheCourtofAppeal,asreflectedinthe  CourtofAppealsonlinedocket,isavailableathttp://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/  search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=3&doc_id=50765&doc_no=C050785#XsXHr##XsXXXsS#. $  $    9    _XsXXXHXXsԀOfcourse,themostobviousdistinctionbetweenthiscaseandHillisthatthe  CourtofAppealhere,unliketheappellatecourtinHill,didnotfindthatappellanthad  forfeitedhisclaimofBlakelyerrorbyfailingtoobject.(SeediscussioninIII.B,ante.)#XsXHr##XsXXXsS#   $    10    _XsXXXHXXsԀRespondentsuseoftheterm necessaryinitsargument(RBOM,p.71)is  misleading,becauseAdamsisnotconcernedwithwhetherpunishmentisnecessitatedby  adefendantsadmissions,butbywhetherallofthefactslegallynecessarytopunishment  areavailable.(Id.atpp.579583.)ThisisalsotheconcernofBlakely.(Seeid.,542U.S.  atp.313;andseeHarrisv.UnitedStates(2002)536U.S.545.)#XsXHs##XsXXXsT# P  $    11    _XsXXX#XsXXXsT#XsXXXsHXXsԀAppellantalsonotesthatthefactusedtoimposetheuppertermoncountone  (viz.,takingadvantageofapositionoftrust(RT50))wasnotafactactuallyarticulatedin  T theprosecutorsfactualbasisstatement.Rather,theonlythinginthatstatementfrom  whichthisfactmaybeinferredistheprosecutorsstatement,indescribingthefactual  basisforcountselevenandtwelve,thatthosecountstookplaceatappellantsdaughters  daycarefacility.(SeeRT2628.)Anysuggestionthatappellantwasonnoticeofthe  punitivesignificanceofhisattorneysstipulationtotheprosecutorsfactualbasis  statementmightbemorepersuasiveifthatstatementmorecloselyaccordedwiththe    positionoftrustlanguagelaterusedbythetrialcourtatsentencing.But,evenifitdid,   thatlanguagealonewouldstillnotprovidethenecessaryshowingthatappellantwas   awareofandwaivedhisconstitutionalrightsastothefactusedtoimposetheupperterm.#XsXH#HXXs#HH#HH#XsXH##XsXXXs#EGHKLMNS 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. !  _XX_Kopp_Ԁv.FairPol.PracticesCom.(1995)11Cal.4th607#Xi X.#UKopp v. Fair Pol. Practices Com. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 6CASES !  _XsXXXHXXsTRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT  8 O 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  O  APPELLANTSREPLYBRIEFONTHEMERITS      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  ,((  HHP1H8Hd XXd8  @QQ" TABLEOFCONTENTS   !!G(#Page  APPELLANTSREPLYBRIEFONTHEMERITS    I.0 ` INTRODUCTION#""J(#. ` (#` (##1     II.0 ` THEBLAKELYISSUERAISEDINTHISCASEDOESNOTREQUIRE   ACERTIFICATEOFPROBABLECAUSE;RESPONDENTS   CONTENTIONTHATITDOESSHOULDALSOBEREJECTEDON   THEGROUNDTHATITWASNOTRAISEDINTHECOURTOF   APPEAL#""J(#. ` (#` (##3     0 ` A.0 ` (#` (#Introduction#""J(#.% (# (##3     ` B.0 ACertificateofProbableCauseIsNotRequired,Because   AppellantIsNotChallengingtheValidityofHisNoContest (# (#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#Plea#""J(#.. .  (# (##4    0 ` C.0 ` (#` (#ResolvingthisCaseontheBasisofRespondentsCertificateof  ProbableCauseArgumentWouldBeInappropriateSince  RespondentDidNotRaiseThatIssueBelow#L"L"I(#.B (# (##11    III0 ` RESPONDENTSCONTENTIONSTHATAPPELLANTFORFEITED  HISCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSBYFAILINGTOOBJECTAND  THATHEADMITTEDTHEAGGRAVATINGFACTLEGALLY  ESSENTIALTOHISUPPERTERMSENTENCEAREINCORRECT  ANDINCONSISTENTWITHTHEUNITEDSTATESSUPREME   COURTSOPINIONSINBLAKELYANDCUNNINGHAMANDWITH ! THISCOURTSJURISPRUDENCEINSIMILARCONTEXTS; " RESPONDENTSCLAIMOFFORFEITURESHOULDALSOBE # REJECTEDBECAUSEITWASNOTRAISEDINTHECOURTOF $  APPEAL#L"L"I(#. ` (#` (##15 %!!   0 ` A.0 ` (#` (#Introduction#L"L"I(#.% (# (##15 '##   0 ` B.0 ` (#` (#RespondentsClaimofForfeitureShouldBeRejectedBecauseit )%% WasNotRaisedintheCourtofAppeal#L"L"I(#.> (# (##17 *&&  -))  @QQ" TABLEOFCONTENTS   !!G(#Page    0 ` C.8 ` (#` (#BlakelyRightsMayNotBeUnknowinglyForfeited;They  AreFundamentalConstitutionalRightsThatCanBe   RelinquishedOnlyviaaDefendantsExpress,Knowing,   IntelligentandVoluntaryWaiver#L"L"I(#.9 #18     0 ` D.8 ` (#` (#EvenIfBlakelyRightsMayBeForfeitedbytheFailureto   ObjectinSomeSituations,thisIsNotaCaseinWhich   ApplicationoftheForfeitureDoctrineWouldBeAppropriate#L"L"I(#. T #21     0 ` E.8 ` (#` (#TheFactualBasisStatementinthisCaseDoesNotSupport   RespondentsContentionThatAppellantAdmittedfor  PurposesofBlakelyThatHeCouldBeSentencedtothe  UpperTermonCountOne#L"L"I(#.0 #23    IV8 ` THEERRORISNOTHARMLESS;REVERSALAND  IMPOSITIONOFTHEMIDDLETERMONCOUNTONE  AREREQUIRED#L"L"I(#. ` x` x#26    V.0 ` RESPONDENTSSUGGESTEDREFORMATIONOFTHEDSL  WOULDRAISEANUMBEROFCONSTITUTIONALCONCERNS  ANDSHOULDTHEREFOREBEREJECTED#L"L"I(#.4` (#` (##27  CONCLUSIONL"L"I(#.2 2 30  CERTIFICATEOFWORDCOUNT     '## @  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES   !!G(#Page   FEDERALCASES   Blakelyv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296 E(#.3Passim   Boykinv.Alabama(1969)395U.S.238L"L"I(#./18   Cunninghamv.California(2007)549U.S.__[127S.Ct.856;     166_L.Ed_.2d856]!!E(#.  1,9,16   Duncanv.Louisiana(1968)391U.S.145L"L"I(#.120   Estellev.Smith(1981)451U.S.444L"L"I(#.LL.24  InreWinship(1970)397U.S.358L"L"I(#.+20  Halbertv.Michigan(2005)545U.S.605L"L"I(#.122  Harrisv.UnitedStates(2002)536U.S.545L"L"I(#.525  Hicksv.Oklahoma(1980)447U.S.343 D(#.~~/8,11,28  Johnsonv.Zerbst(1938)304U.S.458L"L"I(#./24  Mongev.California(1998)524U.S.721L"L"I(#.120  Ringv.Arizona(2002)536U.S.584:!:!F(#.``-19,20 ! Schrirov.Summerlin(2004)542U.S.348:!:!F(#.<<219,20 # Sullivanv.Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275L"L"I(#.,,320 %!! Taylorv.UnitedStates(1973)414U.S.17L"L"I(#.VV424 '## UnitedStatesv.Paulus(7thCir.2005)419F.3d693L"L"I(#.>23 )%% Vitekv.Jones(1980)445U.S.480L"L"I(#.,28 +'' Ї@  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES   !!G(#Page   STATECASES   Arpv.Workers'CompensationAppealBoard(1977)19Cal.3d395L"L"I(#.H28   InreBrown(1973)9Cal.3d612L"L"I(#.)29   InreBrown(1973)9Cal.3d679L"L"I(#.)12   InreChavez(2003)30Cal.4th643L"L"I(#.,12   InreTahl(1969)1Cal.3d122L"L"I(#.""(18   InreYurko(1974)10Cal.3d857L"L"I(#.00*18  Koppv.FairPol.PracticesCom.(1995)11Cal.4th607L"L"I(#.@28  McGinityv.State(Ind.App.2005)824N.E.2d784( ( C(#.PP;23,24,25  Peoplev.Anderson(1987)43Cal.3d1104L"L"I(#.XX228  Peoplev.Belmares(2003)106_Cal.App_.4th19L"L"I(#.619  Peoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238L"L"I(#.>>021  Peoplev.Bobbit(2006)138_Cal.App_.4th445!!G(#.FF54,10  Peoplev.Buttram(2003)30Cal.4th773""H(#.17,9 ! Peoplev.Camacho(2000)23Cal.4th824L"L"I(#.118 # Peoplev.Cole(2001)88_Cal.App_.4th850 E(#.  2Passim %!! Peoplev.Hill(2005)131_Cal.App_.4th1089L"L"I(#.421 '## Peoplev.Hoffard(1995)10Cal.4th1170( ( C(#.213,14,16 )%% Peoplev.Holmes(2004)32Cal.4th432L"L"I(#.vv024 +'' Ї@  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES   !!G(#Page   STATECASES   Peoplev.Lloyd(1998)17Cal.4th658""J(#./5   Peoplev.Menchaca(1983)146_Cal.App_.3d1019L"L"I(#.719   Peoplev.Mendez(1999)19Cal.4th1084L"L"I(#.112   Peoplev.Panizzon(1996)13Cal.4th68""H(#.15,6   Peoplev.Perez(2007)148,_Cal.App_.4th353:!:!F(#.411,12  Peoplev.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580:!:!F(#.118,19  Peoplev.Shelton(2006)37Cal.4th759r!r!F(#.pp14,7,8  Peoplev.Vera(1997)15Cal.4th269L"L"I(#.zz.19  Peoplev.Ward(1967)66Cal.2d571""J(#.zz-5  Peoplev.Williams(1998)17Cal.4th148L"L"I(#.217  Peoplev.Young(2000)77_Cal.App_.4th827""H(#.34,6  _Popelka_,_Allard_,_McCowan_Ԁ&Jonesv.SuperiorCourt(1980)107     _Cal.App_.3d496L"L"I(#.x x 12 ! Porterv.SuperiorCourt(March20,2007)___Cal.App_.4th__[2007Cal.App. #   LEXIS395,3741]L"L"I(#. !27 $  Statev.Brown(Ariz.2006)129P.3d947,952953L"L"I(#.<<;23 &"" Statev.Brown(Ariz.App.2005)115P.3d128,132138L"L"I(#.""@23 ($$ Statev.Hagen(Minn.App.2004)690N.W.2d155L"L"I(#.>>923 *&&  +'' Statev.Ward(Ariz.App.2005)118P.3d1122,11261129L"L"I(#.B23  @  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES   !!G(#Page   STATECASES    Sturm,_Ruger_Ԁ&Co.v.SuperiorCourt(1985)164_Cal.App_.3d579L"L"I(#.ZZH12    STATESTATUTES    CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule8.304(b)""J(#.@@24   PenalCodesec.6L"L"I(#. 29  PenalCodesec.1237.5,subd.(a)L"L"I(#.+12  PenalCodesec1237.5,subd.(b)L"L"I(#.+12   MISCELLANEOUSREFERENCES   5_Witkin_,Cal.ProcedureL"L"I(#.* * "12  CaliforniaConst.,art.III,sec.3L"L"I(#.||-28  #P1P1:##HP1Y#     8sXXdd8  OY @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(#(#APPELLANTSREPLY  p(#p(# ЀWESLEYDAVIDFRENCH,0 h 0h(#h(#   p BRIEFONTHEMERITS  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  @  (#(#    `  DefendantandAppellant.       ` @) I.    A"){ dE{ AINTRODUCTION   A  InRespondentsBriefontheMerits( RBOM),respondentraisesseveral  argumentsinoppositiontoappellantsclaimthatthetrialcourtsimpositionoftheupper  termastocountoneviolatedhisconstitutionalrightstodueprocessandtrialbyjury,as  recognizedinBlakelyv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296andCunninghamv.California   (2007)549U.S.__[127S.Ct.856,166_L.Ed_.2d856].First,respondentarguesthatthe " appealshouldbedismissed,becauseappellantsclaimconstitutesachallengetohisno $  contestpleaandthereforerequiresacertificateofprobablecause,whichappellanthasnot &!" obtained.(RBOM,pp.410.) (#$   Respondentalsoarguesthatappellantforfeitedtheconstitutionalclaimsthatare *%& thesubjectofthisappealbyfailingtoobjectonBlakelygroundsathissentencingandthat ,'( headmittedthefactusedtoimposetheuppertermbypleadingnocontestafterhaving  beenadvisedthathecouldreceiveasentenceaslongastheoneimposed,andby  stipulatingtotheprosecutorsstatementofthefactualbasisforhisnocontestplea.  (RBOM,pp.6471.)     Respondentalsoarguesthatanyerrorinimposingtheupperterminthiscasewas   harmless,becausetheevidencesupportingtheimpositionoftheuppertermwas    overwhelmingand essentiallyuncontroverted.(RBOM,pp.7273.)     Finally(thoughnotlast),respondentarguesthatthiscourtshouldretroactively  eliminatealldefendants BlakelyrightsunderCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLaw  ( DSL)byreformingtheDSLsoastomakeiteasierfortrialcourtstoimposeupper  termsentencesthanitwasundertheDSLevenpriortoBlakely.(RBOM,pp.1760.)    ForthereasonssetforthintheargumentsthatfollowandthoseinAppellants  OpeningBriefontheMerits( ABOM),appellantdisagreeswithallofthesearguments.  And,asappellantwillexplainlater,heobjectstorespondentscertificateofprobable  causeandforfeitureargumentsfortheadditionalreasonthatthoseargumentswerenot   raisedintheCourtofAppeal.  "    II.  THEBLAKELYISSUERAISEDINTHISCASEDOESNOT  REQUIREACERTIFICATEOFPROBABLECAUSE;RESPONDENTS  CONTENTIONTHATITDOESSHOULDALSOBEREJECTEDONTHE  GROUNDTHATITWASNOTRAISEDINTHECOURTOFAPPEAL     M1M A.0  Introduction.  (#(#   Respondentargues,forthefirsttimeinthismatter,thatthisappealshouldbe    dismissedbecauseappellantdidnotobtainacertificateofprobablecause,asrequiredby   PenalCodesection1237.5.Respondentcontendsthat,bychallengingtheimpositionof   theuppertermonBlakelygrounds,appellantischallenginghisnocontestplea;thus,a  certificateofprobablecauseisrequired.And,sinceappellantdidnotobtainone,the  appealshouldbedismissed.(RBOM,pp.411.)    Respondentisincorrect.Hisargumentisbasedonthesameflawedpremisethat  appellantrefutedinhisOpeningBriefontheMerits( ABOM),viz.:thatappellants  pleaincludedanadmissionofthefactthetrialcourtusedtoimposetheupperterm.Itdid  not.(SeeABOM,pp.926.)Sinceappellantspleadidnotinvolveanadmissionofthe  factlegallyessentialtotheimpositionoftheupperterm,hischallengeofhissentencein ! thisappealonthatgrounddoesnotconstituteachallengeofthevalidityofhispleaandso # doesnotrequireacertificateofprobablecause. % !   Itwouldalsobeinappropriatetoresolvethiscaseonthebasisofappellants '"# failuretoobtainacertificateofprobablecausebecauserespondentdidnotraisethatissue )$% intheCourtofAppeal,anditisimpossibletosaywithcertaintythat,hadrespondentdone +&' _so,acertificateofprobablecausewouldnothavebeenissuedbythetrialcourton  appellantstimelyfiledcertificateofprobablecauserequest.   B.0  ACertificateofProbableCauseIsNotRequired,Because(#(#   AppellantIsNotChallengingtheValidityofHisNoContestPlea.    `V  Insupportofhisargumentthattheinstantappealrequiresacertificateofprobable   cause,respondentcitesfourcases:Peoplev.Shelton(2006)37Cal.4th759;Peoplev.    Young(2000)77_Cal.App_.4th827;Peoplev.Cole(2001)88_Cal.App_.4th850;andPeople   v.Bobbit(2006)138_Cal.App_.4th445.(SeeRBOM,pp.49.)Thesecasesalldiscussthe   interplaybetweenthecertificateofprobablecauserequirementofsection1237.5andthe  exceptiontothatrequirement(setforthinCal.RulesofCourt,rule8.304(b)(4)(B))for  appealsbasedongroundsarising afterentryofthepleathatdonotaffectthepleas  validity.    NoneofthefourcasescitedintheRBOMprovidespersuasivesupportfor  respondentscontentionthatthisappealchallengesappellantspleaandthereforerequires  acertificateofprobablecause.Thereasoningofthefirstthree(Shelton,ColeandYoung)  supportsappellantspositionthatacertificateofprobablecauseisnotrequiredinthis ! case.Andthefourthcase(Bobbit)isaverylimitedopinionintermsofitsreasoning,and # isfactuallydistinguishablefromthiscase,soastobeoflimitedusefulnessinassessing % ! theapplicabilityofthecertificateofprobablecauserequirementinthiscase. '"#   InPeoplev.Cole,supra,theSecondDistrictCourtofAppeal(DivisionFive) )$% summarizedthiscourtsjurisprudenceonthecertificateofprobablecauserequirementin +&' guiltypleacasesinwhichthedefendantchallengedanaspectofhissentenceonappeal.  (Id.,88_Cal.App_.4thatpp.861866.)Thecourtexplainedthat,fromthiscourtsopinion  inPeoplev.Ward(1967)66Cal.2d571,therulenowembodiedinrule8.304(b)(4)(B)  (formerlyrule31(d)andlaterrule30(b))emergedthatadefendantneednotobtaina   certificateofprobablecausewheretheappealisbasedongroundsthataroseafterentryof   thepleathatdonotaffectitsvalidity.(Cole,supra,atpp.861862.)However,this   courtssubsequentjurisprudence(Peoplev.Panizzon(1996)13Cal.4th68;Peoplev.   Lloyd(1998)17Cal.4th658)clarifiedthatthisexceptiontothecertificateofprobable  causerequirementisnotasbroadasitsounds,andthatthecertificateofprobablecause  requirementisnotsimplyafunctionofwhentheactionchallengedonappealarosein  relationtotheplea,butwhethertheappeal,insubstance,challengesthevalidityofthe  plea.Thus,whenadefendantentersapleatoaspecifiedsentence,hemustobtaina  certificateofprobablecauseinordertochallengetheimpositionofthatsentenceon  appeal.(Cole,supra,atpp.863864,citingPanizzon,supra,13Cal.4thatpp.7679.)    ApplyingthesubstanceoftheappealreasoningofPanizzon,thecourtinCole   concludedthatthedefendantinthatcase(whopledguiltywiththeunderstandingthata " sentenceof25yearstolifewouldbeimposedunlessthetrialcourtexercisedits $  discretionundersection1385todismissa strikepriorallegation)neededacertificateof &"" probablecauseastotwoissuesthathehadraisedintheappeal(viz.,(1) thathemustbe ($$ allowedtowithdrawhisplea,becauseitwasmanifestlyinfluencedbythesuperior *&& court'spromisetoconsiderstrikingoneormoreofhispriorseriousorviolentfelony  convictions;and(2)thathissentenceof25yearstolifeconstitutedcruelandunusual  punishment),buthedidnotneedacertificateofprobablecausetochallengethetrial  courtsrefusaltodismissastrikepriorallegationinfurtheranceofjustice.(Cole,supra,   88_Cal.App_.4thatpp.867872.)  #  1           InsupportofitsholdingthatColeneededacertificateofprobablecausetoargue   onappealthathissentenceof25yearstolifeconstitutedcruelandunusualpunishment,   thecourtreliedinpartontheholdingoftheThirdDistrictCourtofAppealinPeoplev.  Young,supra,whichhadreachedthesameconclusioninasimilarcase.(SeeCole,supra,  88_Cal.App_.4thatp.866.)InYoung,thecourtalsoapplied_Panizzon_ssubstanceofthe  appealruleandexplainedthat,bychallenginghis25tolifesentenceascruelandunusual  punishment,thedefendantsought tovoidatermoftheagreementtowhichbothparties  agreedtoabide[citation],and[was]insubstance,attackingthevalidityoftheplea.  (Young,supra,77_Cal.App_.4thatp.832,quotingPanizzon,supra,13Cal.4thatp.78.)    InPeoplev.Shelton,supra,thiscourtrecentlyheldthatadefendantneededa   certificateofprobablecauseinordertochallengethetrialcourtsimpositionofa " sentence lidonthegroundthatitviolatedsection654.Thecourtconcludedthat $   inclusionofasentencelidimpliesamutualunderstandingandagreementthatthetrial &"" courthasauthoritytoimposethespecifiedmaximumsentenceandpreservesonlythe  defendant'srighttourgethatthetrialcourtshouldormustexerciseitsdiscretioninfavor  ofashorterterm.Accordingly,achallengetothetrialcourt'sauthoritytoimposethelid  sentenceisachallengetothevalidityoftheplearequiringacertificateofprobable   cause.(Peoplev.Shelton,supra,37Cal.4thatp.763.)     Thecourtemphasizedthat_Shelton_schallengeofhis lidsentenceonsection654   groundswasproblematicbecauseitconstitutedachallengeofthetrialcourtsauthorityto   imposethatsentence,asopposedtoachallengeofthecourtsexerciseofitssentencing  discretion.(Shelton,supra,atpp.763,768769.)Thecourtalsonotedthatitwasnot  departingfromitsrecentholdinginPeoplev.Buttram(2003)30Cal.4th773,thatthe  "issues[that]mayberaisedonappealfollowingaguiltyornolopleawithouttheneedfor  acertificate[ofprobablecauseinclude]issuesregardingproceedingsheldsubsequentto  thepleaforthepurposeofdeterminingthedegreeofthecrimeandthepenaltytobe  imposed."(Shelton,supra,atp.766,quotingPeoplev.Buttram,supra,30Cal.4thatp.  780.)     ThecommonthemeinShelton,YoungandColeisthat,whenthedefendants " appealchallengesthetrialcourtsauthoritytoimposeasentenceallowedbyhisplea, $  suchthatthetrialcouldnotlawfullyimposethatsentence,thatcontentionisatoddswith &"" thepleaandrequiresacertificateofprobablecause.Suchachallengeis,insubstance,an ($$ attackontheplea,becausethedefendantisclaimingthatthetrialcourtcouldnotlawfully *&& reachasentencethatthepartiesexpresslyagreedwasnotnecessarilyforeclosedbythe  pleaagreement.    Shelton,ColeandYoungareallmateriallydistinguishablefromthiscase,because  appellanthereisnotcontendingthatthetrialcourthadnoauthority,underany   circumstances,toimposeanupperterm,18yearsentence.?  #  2      ׀Rather,heischallengingthe   trialcourtsuseofaparticularfacttoimposethatsentence.Heiscontendingthatthat   factwasnotembracedbyhisplea,andthatthetrialcourtsuseofthatfactistherefore   unconstitutional.ThiscontentionisexpresslysupportedbytheUnitedStatesSupreme  CourtsholdinginCunningham,supra,inwhichtheCourtheldthatthefactslegally  essentialtoanuppertermsentenceimposedunderCaliforniasDSLarenot embraced  bythedefendantsplea....(Id.,127S.Ct.atp.864,emphasisadded;andseeid.atpp.  869870.)    UnliketheargumentsraisedinShelton,ColeandYoung,theargumentthatisthe  subjectofthisappealwouldnothaveforeclosedtheprosecutorfromseekingthe  maximumsentenceallowedbyappellantsplea.Appellantissimplyraisingan"issue[]   regardingproceedingsheldsubsequenttothepleaforthepurposeofdeterminingthe " degreeofthecrimeandthepenaltytobeimposed."(Peoplev.Buttram,supra,30  Cal.4thatp.780.)AppellantsclaimisnotthatBlakelyandCunninghamforecloseall  uppertermsentences.Theyclearlydonot.Theysimplyforecloseuppertermsentences  basedonfacts,otherthanpriorconvictions,that areneitherinherentinthejurysverdict   norembracedbythedefendantsplea....(Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.864.)     Respondentsclaimthatappellantischallenginghispleaandthereforeneedsa   certificateofprobablecauseissimilartotheCourtofAppealsreasoningbelowthat,    [w]here,ashere,adefendantagreesthatthecourthastheauthoritytosentencethat  defendanttoanupperterm,heisdeemedtohaveadmittedthathisconduct,asamatterof  fact,cansupportthatterm.(CourtofAppealOpinion,p.3.)Asexplainedinthe  ABOM,thisreasoningisflawedbecauseitwasexpresslyrejectedbytheUnitedStates  SupremeCourtinBlakely.(SeeABOM,pp.1618.)Indeed,thebriefoftheStateof  WashingtonmadethissameargumentinBlakely.(BrieffortheStateofWashington,  Oct.Term2003,No.021632,pp.3536;HHhttp://www/abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/  pdfs_3/1632Resp.pdf#HH#.)  #  3           InPeoplev.Bobbit,supra,theThirdDistrictCourtofAppealdismissedforlackof " acertificateofprobablecauseanappealinwhichthedefendantclaimedthattheupper $  termsentencehereceived,whichwasthemaximumsentencehewastoldhecould  receiveunderhispleaagreement,violatedBlakely.(Bobbit,supra,138_Cal.App_.4that  pp.447448.)Insupportofthisholding,thecourtquotedseveralpassagesfromthis  courtsopinioninShelton,supra,andemphasizedthefactthat_Bobbit_sattorneyraisedno   objectiontotheuppertermsentenceonBlakelygrounds,althoughboththeentryof   _Bobbit_snocontestpleaandhissentencingoccurredmorethansevenmonths afterthe   highlypublicizeddecision,whichdispelsanydoubtthattheissuewasnotpreserved   throughtheoversightofdefensecounsel.(Bobbit,supra,atpp.447448.)    Bobbitismateriallydistinguishablefromthiscasebecausethetimingofthetwo  casesinrelationtoBlakelydoesnotsupportsimilarinterpretationsofthedefendants  respectivepleaagreementswithrespecttotheirBlakelyrights.Appellantsnocontest  pleawasenteredonJune8,2004(CT136;RT2237),sixteendaysbeforeBlakelywas  decided(June24,2004).HewassentencedonJuly9,2004,sixteendaysafterBlakely  wasdecided.(CT17,157159;RT38.)AndhiscounselmadenomentionofBlakely  (nordidthecourtorprosecutor)eventhoughappellantobjectedtotheimpositionof   judgmentandaskedforacontinuancesohecouldobtainalternatecounseltohelphim " movetowithdrawhisplea.(RT3853.)Thus,here,unlikeBobbit,therecordprovides $   nobasisforinferringthatappellantmusthaveunderstoodthat,bypleadingnocontest,he &"" OY    waswaivinghisBlakelyrightsastotheimpositionofanuppertermsentence.#  #  4           Insum,respondentsclaimthattheappealshouldbedismissedforlackofa  certificateofprobablecauseisbasedonapremisethatisinconsistentwithCunningham,  viz.:thatappellantspleaadmittedthefactthatconstitutionallyauthorizedthetrialcourt   toimposetheupperterm.Cunninghamholdsjusttheopposite.(Id.,127S.Ct.atp.864.)   Sinceappellantspleadidnotinvolveanadmissionofthefactlegallyessentialtothe   impositionoftheupperterm,hischallengeofhissentenceinthisappealonthatground   doesnotconstituteachallengeofthevalidityofhispleaandsodoesnotrequirea  certificateofprobablecause.   C.0  ResolvingthisCaseontheBasisofRespondents(#(#   CertificateofProbableCauseArgumentWouldBe    InappropriateSinceRespondentDidNotRaiseThatIssueBelow. 0    Itwouldbeinappropriatetoresolvethiscaseonthebasisofappellantsfailureto  obtainacertificateofprobablecausefortheadditionalreasonthatrespondentdidnot  raisethatissueintheCourtofAppeal,anditisimpossibletosaywithcertaintythat,had  respondentdoneso,acertificateofprobablecausewouldnothavebeenissuedbythetrial   courtonappellantstimelyfiledrequestforacertificateofprobablecause. "   Adefendantwhoneedsacertificateofprobablecauseinordertoappealanissue $  thatconstitutesanattackonhisguiltyornocontestpleamusttimelyapplyforoneby  filing awrittenstatement,executedunderoathorpenaltyofperjuryshowingreasonable,  constitutional,jurisdictional,orothergroundsgoingtothelegalityoftheproceedings  (Pen.Code1237.5,subd.(a))within60daysaftertherenditionofjudgment.(Seerules   8.304(b)(1),8.308(a);Peoplev.Perez,supra,148_Cal.App_.4thatpp.361365.)Ifa   timelystatementofreasonsundersection1237.5(i.e.,requestforcertificateofprobable   cause)isfiled,thetrialcourtmustgrantordenytherequestwithin20daysafteritsfiling.   (Rule8.304(b)(2).)    Thecertificateofprobablecauserequirementisnotsatisfiedsolelybythetimely  filingofacertificaterequest;thecertificatemustbeissuedinorderfortherequirementto  befulfilled.(Pen.Code1237.5,subd.(b);Peoplev.Mendez(1999)19Cal.4th1084,  1095.)However,onlythefailuretotimelyfileanoticeofappealorrequestfora  certificateofprobablecauseisirremediable.(InreChavez(2003)30Cal.4th643,650  657;rule8.60(d).)Atrialcourtsfailuretoissueatimelyrequestedcertificateof  probablecausemayberemediedbythefilingofapetitionforwritofmandate,afterthe   trialcourts20daydeadlineforrulingontherequesthaspassed.D  #  5      ׀(InreBrown(1973)9 " Cal.3d679,683;Peoplev.Cole,supra,88_Cal.App_.4thatp.860,fn.3.)  #  6          Appellanttimelyfiledarequestforacertificateofprobablecauseinthetrialcourt  (i.e.,aftertheCourtofAppealgrantedhisrequestforconstructivefilingofanoticeof  appeal).(CT213215.)  #  7      ׀Hewasthereafterrepresentedbyappointedappellatecounsel   andwouldhavebeenentitledtorelyonthatcounseltolitigatetheappealandany   requirementtopursuearulingonhistimelyfiledrequestforacertificateofprobable   cause.X   #  8      ׀HadrespondentraisedanissueintheCourtofAppealregardingthetrialcourts   failuretoruleonappellantstimelyfiledrequestforacertificateofprobablecause,  appellantsappointedcounselmightwellhaveaskedtheCourtofAppealtoexpandhis  appointmenttoincludethepreparationandfilingofapetitionforawritofmandate  directingthetrialcourttoruleonappellantstimelyfiledrequest.    Appellantscertificateofprobablecauserequest(CT214)statedgroundswhich,  whenviewedinthecontextofwhatoccurredinthetrialcourt,whereappellantentered  hisnocontestpleashortlyafterhavingbrainsurgeriesandbeingplacedonantiseizure  medication,andunsuccessfullyattemptedtocontinuehissentencinginordertoretain  counseltoassisthimwithamotiontowithdrawhisplea(seeCT17,9091,121,134;RT  67,1415,3940),werenot clearlyfrivolousandvexatious.(Peoplev.Holland   (1978)23Cal.3d77,84[italicsinoriginal].)Thus,itisquitepossiblethatan   appointmentexpansionrequestbyappellatecounselandsubsequentpetitionforwritof   mandatewouldhavebeengranted,andthatacertificateofprobablecauseonappellants   timelyfiledrequestalsowouldhavebeengranted.    Thepointis:thiscasemightwellnotbeinthesameposturewithrespecttothe  lackofarulingonappellantstimelyfiledrequestforacertificateofprobablecausehad  respondentmadeanissueofthatfactintheCourtofAppeal.Therefore,itwouldbe  inappropriatetoresolvethiscaseonthebasisofthatissue.(Seerule8.500(c).)      III.  RESPONDENTSCONTENTIONSTHATAPPELLANTFORFEITED  HISCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSBYFAILINGTOOBJECTANDTHAT  HEADMITTEDTHEAGGRAVATINGFACTLEGALLYESSENTIALTO  HISUPPERTERMSENTENCEAREINCORRECTANDINCONSISTENT   WITHTHEUNITEDSTATESSUPREMECOURTOPINIONSIN   BLAKELYANDCUNNINGHAMANDWITHTHISCOURTS   JURISPRUDENCEINSIMILARCONTEXTS;RESPONDENTS   CLAIMOFFORFEITURESHOULDALSOBEREJECTED    BECAUSEITWASNOTRAISEDINTHECOURTOFAPPEAL   )A.0  Introduction.  (#(#   Atpages6071oftheRBOM,respondentclaimsthatnocognizable_Blakely_Ԅ   Cunninghamerroroccurredinthiscasefortworeasons:(1)appellantforfeitedhis  constitutionalrightsunderBlakelybyfailingtoobjectonBlakelygroundstothe  impositionoftheuppertermoncountonewhenhewassentenced(RBOM,pp.6062);  and(2)appellantadmittedforpurposesofBlakelythefactusedtoimposetheupperterm  (RBOM,pp.6270).Thissecondargumenthastwoaspects:(1)thatappellantadmitted  thefactlegallyessentialtotheuppertermbypleadingnocontestwithnoticethathecould  receiveasentenceaslongastheuppertermsentenceimposedbythetrialcourt(RBOM,   pp.6869);and(2)thatthefactualbasisstatementtowhichappellantsattorney " stipulatedincludedafactsupportingthetrialcourtsimpositionoftheupperterm. $  (RBOM,pp.6268.) &!"   RespondentsclaimthatappellantforfeitedhisconstitutionalrightsunderBlakely (#$ shouldberejectedforthreereasons.First,itwouldbeinappropriatetofindappellants *%& claimofconstitutionalerrorforfeitedwhenrespondentdidnotraisethatargumentinthe  CourtofAppeal.Second,respondentsforfeitureargumentisnotwellreasoned,because  itundervaluesthefundamentalnatureoftheconstitutionalrightsatissueinthiscase.  Thesearerightsthatthiscourthasheldmaynotbeforfeitedbythemerefailuretoobject;   theirrelinquishmentrequiresanexpress,knowing,intelligentandvoluntarywaiver.   Third,evenassumingthatitwouldbereasonabletoapplytheforfeituredoctrinetoclaims   ofBlakelyerrorontherecordofsomecases,thisisnotsuchacase.     Respondentsclaimthatappellantadmitted,forpurposesofBlakely,thefactused  toimposetheuppertermoncountoneisincorrectastobothofitsanalyticalaspects.The  first!thatappellantadmittedthefactlegallyessentialtotheuppertermbypleadingno  contestwithnoticethathecouldreceiveasentenceaslongastheoneimposed!isthe  sameargumentmadebytheCourtofAppeal,whichappellantaddressedatlengthinthe  ABOM.(Seeid.atpp.1626.)Appellantwillnotrepeatallthepointsheraisedinthe  ABOMinresponsetothisargument,excepttoremindthecourtthatrespondents  argumentisthesameoneraisedbytheStateofWashingtonandrejectedbytheUnited   StatesSupremeCourtinBlakely.(Seediscussionatp.9,ante;ABOM,pp.1618.) " Simplystated,apleaofguilty(ornocontest)admitsallelementsofthechargedoffense $  (Peoplev.Hoffard,supra,atpp.11771178),butitdoesnotadmitthefactslegally &"" essentialtotheimpositionofanuppertermsentenceundertheDSL.(Cunningham, ($$ supra,127S.Ct.atp.864.) *&&   Thesecondaspectofrespondentsargumentthatappellantadmitted(forBlakely  purposes)thefactusedtoimposetheupperterm!i.e.,becausehestipulatedtoafactual  basisstatementthatincludedafactthatsupportedtheaggravatingfactcitedbythetrial  courtatsentencing!isnotaseasilybrushedaside,because,asrespondentcorrectly   notes,thereisasplitofauthorityinotherjurisdictionsthathaveconsideredwhethersuch   factsmaybeusedasadmissionsforpurposesofBlakely.However,appellantsubmits   thattheauthoritiesthatholdthatsuchstatementsmayconstitute Blakelyadmissionsare   notaspersuasiveasthosethatholdotherwise,becausethosestatementsdonotprovidea  basisforconcludingthatthedefendanthasmadeaknowing,intelligentandvoluntary  waiveroftheconstitutionalrightsthatarebeingrelinquishedinthatprocess.Andno  suchshowingisdemonstratedbytherecordofthiscase.   B.0  RespondentsClaimofForfeitureShouldBeRejected(#(#   BecauseitWasNotRaisedintheCourtofAppeal .    RespondentsclaimthatappellantforfeitedhisconstitutionalrightsunderBlakely  isnotproperlybeforethiscourt,becauserespondentdidnotraisethatclaimintheCourt  ofAppeal,andtheCourtofAppealdidnotrelyonordiscusstheforfeituredoctrineinits ! opinionbelow.(Seerule8.500(c)[ Asapolicymatter,onpetitionforreviewthe # SupremeCourtnormallywillnotconsideranissuethatthepetitionerfailedtotimelyraise %!! intheCourtofAppeal.].) '##   Evenifrespondentsforfeitureclaimwerecorrect,theCourtofAppealstillwould )%% havehadthediscretiontoaddressthemeritsofappellantsBlakelyclaim.(SeePeoplev. +'' _Williams(1998)17Cal.4th148,161,fn.6 .)ItshouldnotbesupposedthattheCourtof  Appealwouldnothaveexercisedthisdiscretion(indeed,theCourtofAppealsfailureto  relyonforfeiturewhilerestingitsholdinginpartongroundsnotraisedbyrespondent  suggestsotherwise),orthatappellantwouldnothavebeenabletoovercomeaclaimof   forfeitureintheCourtofAppeal,hadrespondentraisedthatclaiminthatcourt.Itisnot   appropriateforrespondenttoraisethatclaimforthefirsttimenow.(See,e.g.,Peoplev.   Camacho(2000)23Cal.4th824,837fn.4.)    C.0  BlakelyRightsMayNotBeUnknowinglyForfeited;TheyAreFundamental  ConstitutionalRightsThatCanBeRelinquishedOnlyviaaDefendants  Express,Knowing,IntelligentandVoluntaryWaiver. (#(#   AsnotedintheABOM,theHighCourtinBlakelymadeitclearthatadefendant  mayrelinquishhisApprendirights, [i]fappropriatewaiversprocured....(Blakely,  supra,542U.S.atp.310.)By appropriatewaivers,theCourtwasapparentlyreferring  tothewaiversconstitutionallyrequiredwhenadefendantpleadsguiltyornocontest,  whichmustbeknowing,intelligentandvoluntary,andmaynotbeinferredfroma  defendantsfailuretoobject.(SeeABOM,pp.1920,citing,interalia,Boykinv.   Alabama(1969)395U.S.238,243;InreTahl(1969)1Cal.3d122,132;andInreYurko " (1974)10Cal.3d857,863864.) $    Thiscourtalsohasrecognizedadistinctionbetweenfundamentalconstitutional &!" rightswhoserelinquishmentmustbeexpress,knowing,intelligentandvoluntary,and (#$ lesserrightsthatmaybeforfeitedbyadefendantsfailuretoobject.Peoplev.Saunders *%& (1993)5Cal.4th580isillustrative.InSaunders,thiscourtfoundthatthedefendanthad  forfeitedhisstatutoryrightundersection1025toadeterminationofallegedprior  convictionsbythesamejurythatdeterminedhisguilt(5Cal.4thatpp.589592),butheld  thathis failuretoobject[did]notprecludehisarguingonappealthathewasdeprivedof   hisconstitutionalrightnottobeplacedtwiceinjeopardy.(Id.atp.592.)     InPeoplev.Vera(1997)15Cal.4th269,276,thiscourtreiteratedthata    defendantisnotprecludedfromraisingforthefirsttimeonappealaclaimassertingthe   deprivationofcertainfundamental,constitutionalrights.(SeealsoPeoplev.Belmares  (2003)106Cal.App.4th19,27;Peoplev.Menchaca(1983)146Cal.App.3d1019,1025.)    CitingSchrirov.Summerlin(2004)542U.S.348,354,respondentattemptsto  downplaytheimportanceofthefundamentalconstitutionalrightstodueprocessandtrial  byjurythatarethesubjectofApprendiandBlakely.(SeeRBOM,p.67[ Blakely...  simplyalteredtheproceduralrulesattendanttoanyfactfindingnecessarytoimposethe  upperterm.])Appellantdisagreesandsubmitsthatrespondentisreadingtoomuchinto  Schriro.     TheSupremeCourtinSchriroheldthattheCourtsdecisioninRingv.Arizona " (2002)536U.S.584appliesretroactivelytocasesthatwerenotyetfinalonappealatthe $  timeRingwasdecided,butdoesnotapplytocasesalreadyfinal.(Schriro,supra,542 &"" U.S.atp.358.)Insoholding,theCourtdescribedtheruleinRingas proceduralrather ($$ than substantive.(Schriro,542U.S.atp.354.)However,theCourtdidnotholdthat *&& therightsrecognizedinApprendianditsprogenyarenot fundamental.Tothecontrary,  theCourtexpresslystatedthat [t]herighttojurytrialisfundamentaltooursystemof  criminalprocedure,andStatesareboundtoenforcetheSixthAmendment'sguaranteesas  weinterpretthem.(Schriro,supra,542U.S.atp.358.)     TheCourtmadethisjustasclearinBlakely. OurcommitmenttoApprendiinthis   contextreflectsnotjustrespectforlongstandingprecedent,buttheneedtogive   intelligiblecontenttotherightofjurytrial.Thatrightisnomereproceduralformality,   butafundamentalreservationofpowerinourconstitutionalstructure.(Blakely,supra,  542U.S.296,305306;seealsoDuncanv.Louisiana(1968)391U.S.145,149  [recognizingthattherighttoajurytrialinacriminalcaseis"fundamentaltothe  Americanschemeofjustice"];Sullivanv.Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275,277278  [notingthefundamentalnatureoftherightstotrialbyjuryandproofbeyonda  reasonable];InreWinship(1970)397U.S.358,359,364[ proofbeyondareasonable  doubtisamongtheessentialsofdueprocessandfairtreatment"].)    Indeed,theinalienabilityofourconstitutionalrightstotrialbyjuryanddue   processoflawisatthecoreofApprendianditsprogeny,whicharosefromtheHigh " Courtsconcernthatlegislaturesandcourtswereerodingtheserightsbyplacinglabelson $  factsessentialtopunishmentinordertoremovethemfromtheConstitutionsreach.(See &"" id.,530U.S.atpp.476,494;Blakely,supra,542U.S.atpp.306307;Ringv.Arizona, ($$ supra,536U.S.atp.611612,Scalia,J.,concurring;andseeMongev.California(1998) *&& 524U.S.721,738739,Scalia,J.,dissenting.)Itwouldbecontrarytothiscoreconcern  oftheSupremeCourtsApprendijurisprudencetoholdthatdefendantsfundamental,  constitutionalrightsunderApprendimaybeforfeitedsilentlyandinadvertently.   D.0  EvenIfBlakelyRightsMayBeForfeitedbytheFailuretoObject (#(# 0  0` (#(#  inSomeSituations,thisIsNotaCaseinWhichApplicationofthe ` (#` (#   ForfeitureDoctrineWouldBeAppropriate.     Respondentarguesthattheforfeituredoctrineappliesinthiscase,because   appellantwassentencedafterBlakelywasdecided,butbeforethiscourtissueditsopinion   inPeoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238.(RBOM,p.61.)Respondentalsonotes(on   thesamepage)thatthereisaCaliforniaappellateopinion(Peoplev.Hill(2005)131  Cal.App.4th1089,1103)thatappliestheforfeituredoctrinetoacaseinwhichthe  defendantwassentencedeightdaysafterBlakelywasdecided.    Hillismateriallydistinguishablefromthiscase,becausethecourtsforfeiture  findinginthatcase(ifnotincorrectforthereasonsdiscussedinthepriorsection)rested  inlargepartonthefactthatBlakelys(non)applicabilitytothatcasewasexpressly  discussedbythetrialcourtatthedefendantssentencing,inspiteofwhichthe   defendantstrialcounselraisednoBlakelyobjection.(Hill,supra,131Cal.App.4thatp. " 1103.)  #  9       $    Here,itwouldnotbereasonabletofindthatappellantforfeitedhisBlakelyrights &!" atsentencing,becauseheretherecorddoesnotreasonablysupporttheinferencethat  appellantorhistrialcounselwereawareofappellantsBlakelyrightsastothefactused  toimposetheupperterm.Ifanything,therecordherebeliesanysuchinference,because  thetrialcourtpossessednononBlakelyviolatingfactswithwhichtoimposetheupper   term,andtherewasnoreferencetoBlakelybythecourtorcounsel.(RT3853.)   Moreover,aspreviouslynoted,appellantobjectedtothetrialcourtsproceedingwith   sentencing,statingthathewantedacontinuancetoretaincounseltohelphimtomoveto   withdrawhisplea.(RT3940.)    Onthisrecord,themostreasonableandlikelyexplanationfortrialcounsels  failuretoraiseaBlakelyobjectiononappellantsbehalfisthatshewasnotawareofthat  decisionsimportinappellantscase.AnditmustberememberedthatBlakelyhadnot  beendecidedatthetimeappellantenteredhisnocontestplea.(SeeHalbertv.Michigan  (2005)545U.S.605,623[disagreeingwithstatescontentionthatdefendanthadwaived  hisrighttoappointedappellatecounselbyenteringanocontestplea,because,atthetime  heenteredthatplea,thedefendant"hadnorecognizedrighttoappointedappellate   counselhecouldelecttoforgo"].)Therefore,applicationoftheforfeituredoctrineon " thisrecordwouldbeunreasonable.  $   E.0  TheFactualBasisStatementinthisCaseDoesNotSupportRespondents  ContentionThatAppellantAdmittedforPurposesofBlakelyThatHeCould  BeSentencedtotheUpperTermonCountOne. I(#(#   Asrespondentcorrectlynotes(RBOM,p.66),thereisasplitofauthorityamong  courtsinotherjurisdictionsastowhetheradefendantsadmissionsinafactualbasis   statementtakeninconnectionwithaguiltypleaconstituteadmissionsforpurposesof   Blakely.SomecourtshaveheldthatsuchstatementsdonotsatisfyBlakelyunlessthe   recordshowsthatthedefendantwasawareofhisconstitutionalrightsastothefacts   admittedandthatheknowingly,intelligentlyandvoluntarilywaivedthoserights.(See   Statev.Brown(Ariz.2006)129P.3d947,952953;Statev.Brown(Ariz.App.2005)115  P.3d128,132138;Statev.Ward(Ariz.App.2005)118P.3d1122,11261129;Peoplev.  Isaacks(Col.2006)133P.3d1190,1195;Statev.Hagen(Minn.App.2004)690N.W.2d  155,158160.)OthershavefoundthatsuchadmissionssatisfyBlakely,eveninthe  absenceofashowingthatthedefendantwasawarethathisadmissionconstituteda  waiverofhisconstitutionalrighttoajurytrialastoanunchargedfactlegallyessentialto  theimpositionofanenhancedsentence.(SeeUnitedStatesv.Paulus(7thCir.2005)419   F.3d693,699;McGinityv.State(Ind.App.2005)824N.E.2d784,788789.) "   Aperusaloftheseconflictingcasesdemonstratesthattheformerarebetter $  reasonedthanthelatter.Aspreviouslyexplained,theconstitutionalrighttotrialbyjury &!" isonethatmaynotberelinquishedabsentaknowing,intelligentandvoluntarywaiver. (#$ (SeeIII.C.,ante;ABOM,pp.1922.)Waiveristhevoluntary,intelligent_and *%& intentionalrelinquishmentofaknownrightorprivilege.(Estellev.Smith(1981)451  U.S.444,471,fn.16;Taylorv.UnitedStates(1973)414U.S.17,19;Johnsonv.Zerbst  (1938)304U.S.458,464.)Waiverrequiresknowledgethattherightexists.(Taylorv.  UnitedStates,supra,414U.S.atp.19.)Factualbasisstatementsaredesignedtoensure   merelythattheelementsofthechargedoffensetowhichadefendanthaspledguilty   couldbeproven.(SeePeoplev.Holmes(2004)32Cal.4th432,441442[showinga   factualbasis"doesnotrequiremorethanestablishingaprimafaciefactualbasisforthe   charges].)Theydonotservethepurposeofsubstitutingforpleaadmonishmentsand  waiversastounchargedfactslegallyessentialtopunishmentbeyondthatavailablesolely  onthebasisofthechargedoffensesstatutoryelements.    RespondentattemptstodistinguishYurkoandsomeoftheotherauthorities  discussedabove,byarguingthatappellantsstipulationtothefactualbasisforhispleais  analogoustoanevidentiarystipulationtoasingleelementofanenhancement,nottoan  admissiontoanenhancementinitsentirety.(RBOM,pp.7071,citingPeoplev.Adams  (1993)6Cal.4th570,579582.)RespondentsargumentisunavailingbecauseAdams   actuallysupportstheconclusionthat_Boykin_ԄTahlwaiverswererequiredhere. "   InAdams,thiscourtexplainedthat [a]nadmissionorstipulationoffactsalleged $  inmostenhancementallegationswillleadtoimpositionofincreasedpunishmenton &"" convictionoftheunderlyingoffense.(Adams,supra,6Cal.4thatp.580.)Thecourt ($$ alsonotedthat, whenthestipulationadmitseveryelementoftheenhancementthatis *&& necessarytoimpositionoftheadditionalpenalty,forpurposesof_Boykin_ԄTahlanalysiswe  seenomeaningfuldistinctionbetweenanadmissionofthetruthofanenhancement  allegationandanadmissionofalloftheelementsnecessarytoimpositionofthe  additionalpunishmentauthorizedbytheenhancement.(Peoplev.Adams,6Cal.4thatp.   580,fn.7.)Sincerespondentismaintainingthatappellantsstipulationtothefactual   basisstatement(andthatstipulationalone)renderedhimeligibleforenhanced   punishmentthatotherwisewouldnotbeavailableunderBlakely,respondentis   necessarilyconcedingthat,underthiscourtsreasoninginAdams,_Boykin_ԄTahlwaivers  wererequired.  #  10      ׀Inshort,respondentcannothaveitbothways.    Here,therecordprovidesnobasisforconcludingthatappellantunderstoodthathe  hadtherighttoajurytrialonthefactusedtoimposetheuppertermoncountoneorthat  hisattorneysstipulationtotheprosecutorsfactualbasisstatementwouldeffecta  relinquishmentofthatright.Again,appellantsnocontestpleawasenteredonJune8,  2004,sixteendaysbeforeBlakelywasdecided.Thus,itwouldbeunreasonabletoinfer  fromthesilentrecordinthiscasethatappellantwasawareofhis Blakelyrightsatthe   timeheenteredhisplea.  #  11      ׀Andtherecorddoesnotaffirmativelyshowthatappellants " stipulationtotheprosecutorsstatementofthefactualbasisforthepleawasknowing,  intelligentandvoluntaryunderthetotalityofthecircumstances.Therefore,theupper  termsentenceimposedoncountoneshouldbereversed.     IV.   THEERRORISNOTHARMLESS;REVERSALANDIMPOSITION   OFTHEMIDDLETERMONCOUNTONEAREREQUIRED     G \   Respondentarguesthat,ifthetrialcourterredinimposinganuppertermsentence   onthebasisofafactnotadmittedbyappellant,anyerrorwasharmlessbecausethatfact   wassupportedby overwhelmingevidenceandwas essentiallyuncontrovertedinlight  ofappellantsstipulationtothefactualbasisforhisplea.(RBOM,p.73.)Thisargument  isillogicalbecauseitpresupposesthefactitmustassume(atleastforpurposesof  argument)didnotoccur,i.e.,thatappellantdidnotadmitthefactusedtoimposethe  upperterm.If(asappellantargues)hedidnotadmitthatfactforpurposesofBlakely  whenheenteredhisplea,itnecessarilyfollowsthattheerrorwasprejudicialandrequires  reversaloftheuppertermsentence,becausethatwastheonlyfactusedbythetrialcourt  toimposetheupperterm.Therearenootherconstitutionallypermissibleaggravating  factsavailabletoimposethatterm,andrespondenthasnotsuggestedany.    Andremandforrearraignmentandretrialonthisfactisnotavailable,becausethis  remedywouldrequireconstitutionallyimpermissiblepiecemeallitigationofagreater   offensethatincludestheoneonwhichappellantalreadystandsconvicted(seeABOM,p.   29;andseePorterv.SuperiorCourt(March20,2007)___Cal.App_.4th__[2007Cal.App.   LEXIS395,*37*41])andbecausethereisnolegislativelycreatedvehiclefortrying   appellantontheuppertermallegation,sothereisnowaythatitcouldbetriedtoajury  andprovenbeyondareasonabledoubt,withoutviolatingtheseparationofpowers  doctrine.HHԀ#HH&#Ԁ(ABOM,pp.2930.)Therefore,theappropriateremedyisanordervacatingthe  uppertermsentenceimposedoncountoneandremandingthecasetothetrialcourtwith  directionstoimposethemiddletermonthatcount.     V.  RESPONDENTSSUGGESTEDREFORMATIONOFTHEDSL  WOULDRAISEANUMBEROFCONSTITUTIONALCONCERNS   @ ANDSHOULDTHEREFOREBEREJECTED      Atpages1755oftheRBOM,respondentproposesthatthiscourtreformtheDSL " bymakinganumberofsubstantialchangestothelaw,theeffectofwhichisto $  retroactivelyeliminatealldefendantsBlakelyrightsundertheDSLandmakeiteasierfor &!" trialcourtstoimposeuppertermsentencesthanitwasundertheDSLevenpriorto (#$ BlakelyandCunningham.Appellanturgesthecourttorejectthisproposal.Sucha *%& _drasticreformationofthestatessentencinglawswouldbeinconsistentwiththejudicial  restraintthatthiscourthastraditionallyexercisedinreformingconstitutionallyinfirm  statutes.(SeeHHԀ V Koppv.FairPol.PracticesCom.(1995)11Cal.4th607,624[ ajudicial  narrowingformationoftheinvalidatedstatuteispermissible.];#HH#HHArpv.WorkersComp.   AppealBd.(1977)19Cal.3d395,407[such#HH#HHactionisdrasticandshouldbeinvoked   sparingly].)#HH}#ԀAnditwouldraiseanumberofconstitutionalissuesthatthiscourtwouldbe   wisetoavoid.(SeePeoplev.Anderson(1987)43Cal.3d1104,1146[statutory   constructionshouldavoidraisinggraveanddoubtfulconstitutionalquestions].)    Respondentsobjectionsnotwithstanding,appellantsubmitsthatamendingthe  statuteretroactivelyinthedramaticfashionrespondentsuggestswouldbeanalogousto  criminalizingconductretroactively,oratleastmakingiteasierforthestatetoobtain  uppertermsentencesforoffensesthanitisunderthelawasithasstoodforthirtyyears.  Thus,reformingtheDSLasproposedbyrespondentwouldviolatetheseparationof  powersdoctrineanddefendantsconstitutionalrightstodueprocessandagainstexpost  factolaws.(SeediscussionandauthoritiescitedinABOM,pp.2830.)     UndertheFourteenthAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution,astatemay " notdepriveitscitizensofalibertyinterestthatexistsunderthestateslaws.(Vitekv. $  Jones(1980)445U.S.480,488;Hicksv.Oklahoma(1980)447U.S.343.)Appellant &"" (likeallCalifornians)hasalibertyinterestunderCalifornialawtobeprosecutedonlyfor ($$ offensesthathavebeencreatedthroughthestateslegislativeprocess.(SeeCal.Const., *&& art.III,3;Pen.Code,6;InreBrown(1973)9Cal.3d612,624[ OnlytheLegislature  andnotthecourtsmaymakeconductcriminal.].)    InvadingtheprovinceoftheLegislaturebysubstantiallyrevisingtheDSLwill  alsobeunnecessaryiftheStateLegislaturehasalreadydonesobythetimethecourt   disposesofthismatter,whichappearslikely.(SeeSen.Bill40(20072008Reg.Sess.).)     Finally,appellantunderstandsthattheAttorneyGeneralhasfiledasubstantially   identicalproposedreformationoftheDSLinmany(ifnotall)oftherespondentsbriefs   orsupplementalrespondentsbriefshehasfiledinthesixothercasesinwhichthiscourt  hasgrantedrevieworrequestedsupplementalbriefinginthewakeofCunningham(i.e.,  Peoplev.Towne(S125677),Peoplev.Black(S126182),Peoplev.Mvuemba(S149247),  Peoplev.Pardo(S148914),Peoplev.Sandoval(S148917)andPeoplev.Hernandez  (S148974)).Appellantthereforerespectfullyrequeststojoinintheargumentsresponsive  totheAttorneyGeneralsproposedreformationoftheDSLfiledbythedefendantsin  theseothercases.(Seerule8.200(a)(5).)            VI.  CONCLUSION   (  Wherefore,appellantrespectfullyrequestshattheopinionoftheCourtofAppealbe  reversed,andthattheuppertermsentenceoncountonebereducedtothemiddleterm.   Dated:March28,2007     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(#(#