WPC{ \^0S}^KMٳ"\#S*zSA4|Xl((`+ZRMX[PA10_5'q0$Ƙ5\a-aH1'Y1Qൔ#8Q D3/|Ẹi5}j)"_g^HiO TL$ G|S!`CԴ[xg9FcIw&^ȿ>VEX1";#7tI~(a iR }IBgnkБHCs^8?1x4p` $Y┧},󦌰)q-D0(ďb!wG$ں}G/O2VmkJ#8]@.]n >t qD>%œDt7,FI ;AѰ ]fn/>#= ϨFvz$U: %2 8 0`# 0V$ 0 d% 0p& 0' 0`' 0X(J) 0K* 0!- 0. 0^/ 0E61{2 01c 8 0o8 0E; C;f;a; B; 1 i< 0 <?n? 0K@#C 1uENDF^ FFwRF4VFjF mlFU"NFU@FF 72G 0UCG 0G 0{H 0@I 0I 0J 0kK 0L 0L 0`M 0%N 0N 0O 0VP 0P 0Q 09R 0R 0[S 0T 0T 0U 0EV 0V 0W 0X 0X 0;Y 0Y 0Z 0>i[ 0[ 0\ 0] 0c^ 0E_ 0'` 0 a 0a 02b 0b 0:c 0Yc 0_Vd 0 d 0e 0Ag B*Gi D/qi D+i 0i D/k 0l 06l 0m 0: n 0^Fn 0<nU6nU >oU*ToTo>~o 0DooU@pppp @p p @q PRq qUNqqqqqqqqq0rU@2uruU@({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({({ 0Nh{<6X9`("Courier 10cpiX' 'form writ 2hab bo 0 .  *Swain implied malice conspiracy to commit second degree murder. new rule or change in the law exception to limitations on habeas relief Harris.R42 SpacingDouble Spacingzy2SectionISection I, II etc. with TOC Level 1  8.. 8` ..  2I.3  0 ..  xy2SectionASection A, B etc. with TOC Level 2  8.. 8` ..  2A.3  0 ..  d4,QuoteL/R Indented, Single Spaced8.. 8` ..nt2EnvelopeEnvelope #10, for HP LaserJet    \RV,\R41 SpacingSingle Spacingr 6PleadFinalFinal Pleading with 1.5" Left Margin    X  =   )        C  $3C  XXXX@-D  1  ڀ(2X$ ]!TRX3'Avery 5366 File Folder -X3' Letter3'Avery 5366 File Folder -3'LetterT  kXXXXkIXkX          (43  x#.Label3Labels, 3-Down FDAP, for HP LaserJet 0          \Rx\    \Rx AL MAIL \  x:EnvelopeDJetEnvelope #10, for DeskJet Plus    \RV,\   X `  X |6Label3DJetLabels, 3-Down for HP DeskJet Plus    \R+\nd+pz HxX,r,n~2Label3iiLabels, 3-Down, FDAP for HP Series II    \R >\   X   X   X     #$  kXXXXkIXkX       (43Ӏ  1    _ ` &IkIInrecognitionoftheimportanceoftheimplicationsofBlakelytothe  DeterminateSentencingLawinCalifornia,onJuly14,2004,theCalifornia  SupremeCourtgrantedreviewofaBlakelyclaiminPeoplev._Towne_  (S125677)onlythreeweeksaftertheBlakelydecision:Theissue,asstatedon  thecourtselectronicdocket,is: Inadditiontotheissueraisedinthepetition  forreview,thepartiesshalladdressthefollowingissues:(1)DoesBlakelyv.   Washington(June24,2004)򀀀U.S.򀀀[2004WL1402697]precludeatrial   courtfrommakingtherequiredfindingsonaggravatingfactorsforanupper   termsentence?(2)Ifso,whatstandardofreviewapplies,andwastheerrorin   thiscaseprejudicial?#kI&Iu#(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (2X$ ]!TRX3'Avery 5366 File Folder -X3' Letter3'Avery 5366 File Folder -3'LetterT  kXXXXkIXkX          (43  (b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (# dTable_A d$35;AGMU]c1I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)(!2#$ ]!TRX3'Avery 5366 File Folder -X3' Letter3'Avery 5366 File Folder -3'LetterT  kXXXXkIXkX          (43  Ӏ  0  3|x <6X9`("Courier 10cpiXx6X@8;X@(]$TRX3'Avery 5366 File Folder -X3' Letter3'Avery 5366 File Folder -3'LetterT  kkkk          (4$HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 603#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)0 z09.habƒU(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular\  `(Times NewRomanTTi)*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Kd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7Z(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?f%2A`Arial?  Se\  `&Times New RomanS7[(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dY)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7](X7    5+ ` hp x 5?f%2A`Arial?  Se\  `&Times New RomanS7[(X75+ ` hp x 5  Y)2dxd0KS.SampleKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial Blakely U.SC.D.O.S.(#$  0  (9 Z(Times New Roman citeas((Cite as: 508 U.S. 275, *279, 113 S.Ct. 2078, **2082)citeas((Cite as: 508 U.S. 275, *280, 113 S.Ct. 2078, **2082)SDU_19citeas((Cite as: 63 Cal.2d 400, *406)SDU_16(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular & #$  kXXXXkIXkX       (43Ӏ  2    _ ` ~IkIRule4.408(a)provides Theenumerationintheserulesofsomecriteria  forthemakingofdiscretionarysentencingdecisionsdoesnotprohibitthe  applicationofadditionalcriteriareasonablyrelatedtothedecisionbeingmade.  Anysuchadditionalcriteriashallbestatedontherecordbythesentencing  judge.(9 Z(Times New Roman   #$  kXXXXkIXkX       (43Ӏ  3    _ ` IkIThatajurywasnotinstructedtofindtheaggravatingcircumstance   beyondareasonabledoubt alsoconstitutesaviolationofpetitionersrights  undertheFifthAmendment.AstheSupremeCourtobservedinSullivanv.  Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275,278:  8 ` Itisselfevident,wethink,thattheFifthAmendment   requirementofproofbeyondareasonabledoubtandtheSixth   Amendmentrequirementofajuryverdictareinterrelated.It   wouldnotsatisfytheSixthAmendmenttohaveajurydetermine   thatthedefendantisprobablyguilty,andthenleaveituptothe    judgetodetermine(asWinshiprequires)whetherheisguilty   beyondareasonabledoubt.Inotherwords,thejuryverdict   requiredbytheSixthAmendmentisajuryverdictofguilty   beyondareasonabledoubt.(9 Z(Times New Roman (O$ ]!TRX3'Avery 5366 File Folder -X3' Letter3'Avery 5366 File Folder -3'LetterT  kXXXXkIXkX          (43  _&IkI  8&I&dd8     Pleading: ModelHabeasCorpusPetitionFiledinCaliforniaStateCourts   ProceduralPosture :Forfilingafterdenialofpetitionforreview,incase  whichwasnotfinalondirectreviewonJune24,2004,whentheSupreme  CourtissuedtheBlakelyopinion.   BlakelyIssue: DenialofJuryTrial&ProofBeyondaReasonableDoubton   AggravatingFactorsUsedtoImposedUpperTermforSubstantiveOffense   andforEnhancement.    1ImportantNote :Thisisa generic habeaspetitionyoucandirectlyuse(just   fillintheblanksregardingfactsetc,asnotedintheinstructions.) This   modelpetitionisonlyforcaseswhichwerenotfinalondirectreview   whenBlakelywasdecidedonJune24th. Whetheracasewasstillpending   ondirectappealdependsuponwhetherapetitionforreviewwasfiled.(1)If  apetitionforreviewwasfiledanddenied[reviewpetitiondoesn'tneedto  haveraisedBlakelyissue],thecaseisnotfinalondirectreviewuntilthe  timeforfilingacertioraripetitionruns,i.e.90daysfromtheCal.Supreme  Courtdenialofreview.Forcasesinwhichapetitionforreviewwasfiled,  Blakelythusappliesandthismodelpetitionmaybeusedifthose90days  hadnotrunwhenBlakelywasdecided.(2)Ifnopetitionforreviewwas  filed,thecaseisnotfinalondirectreviewuntil40daysafterthefilingof  thecourtofappealopinion.Forcasewithnopetitionforreview,Blakely  appliesandthismodelpetitionmaybeusedifthose40dayshadnotrun  whenBlakelywasdecided  Underwell-establishedlaw,suchcasesareconsideredtohavebeen  "pendingondirectappeal"atthetimeBlakelywasdecided,andtherefore  theyarecoveredbyBlakelyandthereisnoissueastoretroactivity.Further,   youcanfilethehabeasafterthe90-daywindow,aslongastheappealwas ! inthe90-daywindowatthetimeBlakelywasdecided.NOTE:Thisisvery " differentfromcaseswhichwerealreadybeyondthe90-dayperiodwhen # Blakelywasfiled.ThosecasesarenotdirectlycoveredbyBlakely,and $  theirviabilitywilldependonwhetherthecourtsruleBlakelytobe %!! retroactive.Wehopeinthenearfuturetohaveagenerichabeasdealing &"" withthosekindsofcases,butthismodelhabeasdoesnotdealwithtrue '## retroactivityandisjustforcasesthatwereinthecertiorariwindowwhen ($$ Blakelywasdecided. )%%  --------------------- ,(( Posted:7/21/04  -))   @INTHECOURTOFAPPEALOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  @ *_______APPELLATEDISTRICT,@@#DIVISION*_____  * ddd Xdd Xdd X  ,dt ,Ydd +  :'   :Inre*򀀀, , | ̀Petitioner, (x  ̀OnHabeasCorpus. 6,!$t  6No.*_______ . ~  RelatedAppeal,No.*_______ * z *򀀀County &v  Sup.CourtNo.*򀀀) $t  -#!"r    -  PETITIONFORWRITOFHABEASCORPUS .~    TO:0 ` THEHONORABLEPRESIDINGJUSTICEANDASSOCIATE *z JUSTICESOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALOFTHESTATEOF *z CALIFORNIA,*򀀀APPELLATEDISTRICT,DIVISION*_____:*z` `   ` Petitioner*__________respectfullypetitionsthisCourtforawritof *z habeascorpusonthegroundthatinviolationoftheFifthandSixth  AmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitution,thetrialcourtillegallyimposed *z theaggravatedtermsinpetitionerscaseundertheU.S.SupremeCourts ! opinioninBlakelyv.Washington(June24,2004,021632)542U.S___,124 * z# _S.Ct_.2531;04C.D.O.S.5539,5540;2004WL1402697.Bythisverified !% petition,petitionersetsforththefollowingfactsandcausesfortheissuanceof *#z' thewrit: $)  (#34"3"  3x2#  1  .3  0 `   ݀Petitionerisunlawfullyheldincustodyat*__________StatePrison *&z!+ bytheWarden,andbytheDirectoroftheDepartmentofCorrections.3x݌'"-` `  Ќ  "3"  32#  2  .3  0 `   ݀Petitionerisconfinedpursuanttoajudgmentofimprisonmentof *)z$/ *____yearsrenderedon*_______in*______CountySuperiorCourt, *%1  No.*򀀀,Hon.򀀀,Judge.3 ݌#*,z'3` `  #Ќ  _"3"  32#  3  .3  0 `   ݀Inthatproceeding,petitionerwaschargedwith*___________,inan   informationfiled*______.[On*________,petitionerenteredaplea 0 toCounts*򀀀(CT___)] OR [ajuryreturnedverdictsofguiltyon  Counts*________.(CT___)]3݌6 ` `  Ќ  "3"  32#  4  .3  0 `   On*򀀀,thetrialcourtsentencedpetitionertoatermof*__   years:calculatedasfollows:*[ includeheredescriptionofaggravated 6   term ].(CT___)3݌ ` `  Ќ  "3"  3t2#  5  .3  0 `   Petitionerisentitledtoissuanceofawritofhabeascorpusvacatinghis B  sentencebecausethetrialcourtillegallyimposedtheaggravated   term(s)inpetitionerscaseinviolationoftheFifthandSixth B  AmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitution:3t݌` `  Ќ  "3"  3x!2#  6  .3  0 `   OnJune24,2004,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldinBlakelyv. B Washingtonthatwherestatelawestablishesapresumptivesentencefor  aparticularoffenseandauthorizesagreatertermonlyifcertain B additionalfactsarefound(beyondthoseinherentinthepleaorjury  verdict),theSixthAmendmententitlesthedefendanttojury B determinationofthoseadditionalfactsbyproofbeyondareasonable   doubt.(Blakelyv.Washington(June24,2004,021632)542U.S___, B" 124S.Ct.2531;04C.D.O.S.5539,5540;2004WL1402697.)3x!!݌$` `  Ќ  "3"  3$2#  7  .3  0 `   UnderBlakely,inCalifornia,themiddletermisthe statutory B!& maximum,becauseanuppertermrequiresadditionalfindings(i.e., "(  aggravatingcircumstances)beyondthoseinherentintheoffense B$* itself.3$!%݌%!,` `  Ќ  "3"  3&2#  8  .3  0 `   UndertheSixthAmendmentreasoningofBlakely,petitionerisentitled B'". tojurydeterminationofanysuchaggravatingcircumstanceusedto ($0 imposeanuppertermandthosefindingsmustbesubjecttoa B*%2 reasonabledoubtstandardofproof,ratherthana_preponderance +'4 standard,asCalifornialawcurrentlyprovides(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule  4.420(b)).3&'݌0` `  Ќ  "3"  3w)2#  9  .3  0 `   Here,*[petitionerpledguiltyto ] OR [ajuryfoundpetitionerguiltyof]:  * listoffenses andenhancementallegations .3w))݌6 ` `  Ќ  "3 "  3*2#  10  .3  0 `   InviolationofBlakely,however,thecourtsimpositionofaggravated   termsfor*[ listoffensesorenhancementallegationsforwhichthe <   aggravatedtermwasimposed ]wasunauthorizedandinviolationof    theSixthAmendment,becausenoneofthejudicialfindingsusedto H  aggravatewereadmittedbypetitionerorfoundtruebyajury.Assuch,   petitionerwasentitledto,butdenied,ajurydeterminationofthose H  additionalfactsexposinghimtothepossibilityofasentencegreater  thanthemaximumallowedbyajurysfindingsandbyproofbeyonda H reasonabledoubt.3*+݌` `  Ќ  "3 "  3.2#  11  .3  0 `   Blakelyisapplicabletopetitionerscasebecauseitwasnotyetfinalon H directreviewatthetimeBlakelywasdecidedonJune24,2004.  Petitionerscasewasnotyetfinalbecause*[his/herpetitionforreview H wasstillpendingonJune24,2004] OR [onJune24,2004,lessthan90   dayshadelapsedfromthedateoftheCaliforniaSupremeCourts N" denialofhis/herpetitionforreviewon*򀀀(i.e.,onorafter $ March26,2004)] OR [althoughhe/shehadnotyetfiledapetitionfor N!& reviewonJune24,2004,lessthan40dayshadpassedsincethe "$( issuanceofthisCourtsopinionon3..݌T$*` `  Ќ   ` *򀀀]. %$!, "3 "  322#  12  .3  0 `   ݀Moreover,asBlakelyindisputablyconstitutesachangeinthelaw, T'". habeascorpusisthepropervehicleforaddressingpetitionersBlakely ($$0  claims.322݌T*%2` `  Ќ  "3 "  3^42#  13  .3  0 `   Petitionerreferstoandincorporateshereinbyreferencetheattached   MemorandumofPointsandAuthorities.3^44݌0` `  Ќ  "3 "  352#  14  .3  0 `   Petitionerhasnoplain,speedy,oradequateremedyatlawtoraisethe  aboveclaim.'I&IHehasnotpresentedthegroundsforreliefraisedherein 0  anyotherpetition,motion,orapplicationtoanycourtexceptinsofaras   theclaimsareimplicatedonhisdirectappeal.#&I'I6#355݌0  ` `  Ќ  "3"  382#  15  .3  0 `   'I&IPetitionerhasfilednootherpetitionforwritofhabeascorpusrelating   tothisconfinementandrestraint.#&I'I8#3818݌0 ` `  Ќ  "3"  392#  16  .3  0 `   WHEREFORE,petitionerrespectfullyrequeststhatthisCourt:399݌ ` `  Ќ  ! ! (#33a.0 ` Takejudicialnoticeoftherecordinpetitionersdirectappeal,No. 0  *______;` `  b.0 ` IssueanordertoshowcausebeforethisCourtwhyitshouldnotvacate 0 petitionerssentence;` `  c.0 ` 'I&IUponreviewofthepetitionandresponse,vacatepetitionerssentence 0 #&I'Iz<#in*__________CountySuperiorCourtNo.*______'I&Iandremandthis  matterforfurtherproceedings;0` `  #&I'IK=#d.0 ` 'I&IGrantpetitionersuchotherandfurtherreliefastheCourtdetermines   appropriate#&I'I=#.0"` `   ` Foralltheforegoingreasons,petitionerrespectfullyrequeststhisCourt $ tograntthepetitionforwritofhabeascorpus. 0!& Dated:*򀀀,2004 h     0 p Respectfullysubmitted,"(p p   `     h      p * F  $ *  `     h      p AttorneyforPetitioner  %!+ _@$ VERIFICATION    ` I,*___________________,declare: - }  ` IamamemberoftheBaroftheStateofCalifornia.Iamtheattorney   forpetitioner*________________,whoisconfinedandrestrainedofhis - }  libertyat*__________________StatePrison,in*___________,California.     ` Iamauthorizedtofilethispetitionforwritofhabeascorpusonhis -}  behalf.Imakethisverificationbecausepetitionerisincarceratedinacounty   differentfromthatofmylawofficeandbecausethesemattersaremorewithin -}  myknowledgethanhis.   ` Ihavereadtheforegoingpetitionforwritofhabeascorpus.Ideclare -} thatallthemattersallegedherearetrueofmyownpersonalknowledgeorare  supportedbytherecordinpetitioner'sdirectappeal,No.*_______,orbythe -} attachedexhibits.   ` IdeclareunderpenaltyofperjuryunderthelawsoftheStateof -} Californiathattheforegoingistrueandcorrect.    ` Executedon*_____________,2004,at*______________,California. -}" NA `     h      p * F   %  `     h      p AttorneyforPetitioner  !& @  MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIES    I.0 ` INVIOLATIONOFTHEFIFTHANDSIXTHAMENDMENTS   TOTHEUNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTIONANDBLAKELYV.   WASHINGTON,THETRIALCOURTILLEGALLYIMPOSED   THEAGGRAVATEDTERMINPETITIONERSCASE ` `    ` A.0 IntroductionandBackground     ` OnJune24,2004,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldinBlakelyv.   Washingtonthatwherestatelawestablishesapresumptivesentencefora  p particularoffenseandauthorizesagreatertermonlyifcertainadditionalfacts  arefound(beyondthoseinherentinthepleaorjuryverdict),theSixth  p Amendmententitlesthedefendanttojurydeterminationofthoseadditional  factsbyproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Blakelyv.Washington(June24,  p 2004,021632)542U.S___,124S.Ct.2531;04C.D.O.S.5539,5540;2004  WL1402697.)  On*򀀀,[petitionerpledguiltyto ] OR [ajury  p foundpetitionerguiltyof]:* listoffenses andenhancementallegations .(CT  Ѐ.) ,|  ` On*򀀀,thetrialcourtsentencedpetitionertoatermof*__  ! years:calculatedasfollows:[includeheredescriptionofaggravatedterm]. ,"|# (CT___) #%  ` Inchoosingtheaggravatedterm,thecourtstated*򀀀. ,%| ' (EXHIBITA:RT򀀀.) kI&I[NOTE:Attachcopyofsentencingtranscriptand &!) designateas EXHIBITA.Alsoattachcopyofprobationreport,if 2(#+  necessarytoclaim(e.g.,whenthecourtexpresslyreliesuponprobation )$- recommendationorwhereprobationreportotherwisehelpstoestablish   Blakelyerrorandprejudice;see ANALYSISatp.11).] #&IkI@O# -}  ` Asdiscussedbelow,thecourtsimpositionoftheaggravatedtermwas  unauthorizedunderBlakelyandinviolationoftheSixthAmendment,because * z petitionerwasentitledtoajurydeterminationofthoseadditionalfacts   exposinghimtothepossibilityofasentencegreaterthanthemaximum * z  allowedbyajurysfindings(inCalifornia:themiddleterm)byproofbeyond    areasonabledoubt. i#  1      ׀ *z   ` B.0 Blakelyv.Washington *z    ` InBlakely,thedefendantpledguiltyadmittingtheelementsofsecond  degreekidnapingandadomesticviolenceandfirearmallegations,butnoother 'w relevantfacts.InWashington,seconddegreekidnapingisaclassBfelony,  subjecttoanabsolutemaximumof10yearsinstateprison.Washingtonlaw 'w specifiesa standardrangeforseconddegreekidnapingwithafirearmof49  to53months.Washingtonlawfurtherprovidedthatacourtcouldimposea 'w sentencegreaterthanthe standardrange(butstillwithinthe10yearcap)   onlyifitfound substantialandcompellingreasonsjustifyinganexceptional 'w" sentence.Thestatuteprovidedalistof aggravatingfactorswhichcould $ justifysucha departurefromthe standardrangeanddescribedthelisted  factorsas illustrativeratherthanexhaustive.However,thetrialcourt 0 imposedan exceptionalsentenceof90months!37monthsabovethe  standardrange!baseduponthejudgesfindingthatBlakelyactedwith 0   deliberatecruelty,oneoftheenumeratedaggravatingfactors.(Blakelyv.   Washington,supra,04C.D.O.S.atp.5539.) 0    ` TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatthiswaserrorunder   Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,490,whichonlyfouryears 0  earlierhadheld: Otherthanthefactofapriorconviction,anyfactthat   increasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximum 0  mustbesubmittedtoajury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt.  ConsideringApprendiandRingv.Arizona(2002)536U.S.584,asubsequent 0 casesinwhichthehighcourtappliedtheApprendirule,Blakelyobserved:  8 ` ApprendiinvolvedaNewJerseyhatecrimestatutethat 0 authorizeda20yearsentence,despitetheusual10year 0 maximum,ifthejudgefoundthecrimetohavebeencommitted 0  withapurposetointimidate...becauseofrace,color,gender, 0 handicap,religion,sexualorientationorethnicity.Id.,at468 0 469(quotingN.J.Stat.Ann.2C:443(e)(WestSupp.1999 0 2000)).InRingv.Arizona,536U.S.584,592593,andn.1 0  (2002),weappliedApprenditoanArizonalawthatauthorized 0! thedeathpenaltyifthejudgefoundoneoftenaggravating 0 " factors.Ineachcase,weconcludedthatthedefendants 0!# constitutionalrightshadbeenviolatedbecausethejudgehad 0"$ imposedasentencegreaterthanthemaximumhecouldhave 0#% imposedunderstatelawwithoutthechallengedfactualfinding. 0$& Apprendi,supra,at491497;Ring,supra,at603609.0% '` x` x  ` (Blakely,atp.5540.) 0'") \ ` TheCourtobservedthatalthoughBlakely wassentencedtomorethan )%, threeyearsabovethe53monthstatutorymaximumofthestandardrange 0+&. becausehehadactedwithdeliberatecruelty, [t]hefactssupportingthat  findingwereneitheradmittedbypetitionernorfoundbyajury.TheSupreme 0 Courtheldthatthetrialcourtsfindingofthataggravatingfactorviolated  Apprendisruleentitlingadefendanttojurydeterminationofanyfact 0  exposingadefendanttogreaterpunishmentthanthe maximumotherwise   allowablefortheunderlyingoffense. 0    ` Indoingso,itrejectedthestatesargumentthattherelevant    maximumwasthe10yearcapfora classBfelony.Instead,thecourt 0  treatedthetopendofthe standardrange(53months)astherelevant    statutorymaximum,becausethatwasthegreatestsentenceBlakelycould 0  receivebasedsolelyonthefactsadmittedbyhisplea:  8 ` Ourprecedentsmakeclear,however,thatthe statutory 0 maximumforApprendipurposesisthemaximumsentencea 0 judgemayimposesolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthe 0 juryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant.SeeRing,supra,at 0 602( themaximumhewouldreceiveifpunishedaccordingto 0 thefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictalone(quotingApprendi, 0 supra,at483));Harrisv.UnitedStates,536U.S.545,563 0 (2002)(pluralityopinion)(same);cf.Apprendi,supra,at488 0 (factsadmittedbythedefendant).Inotherwords,therelevant 0  statutorymaximumisnotthemaximumsentenceajudgemay 0 imposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,butthemaximumhemay 0  imposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.Whenajudgeinflicts 0 ! punishmentthatthejurysverdictalonedoesnotallow,thejury 0!" hasnotfoundallthefacts whichthelawmakesessentialtothe 0"# punishment,Bishop,supra,87,at55,andthejudgeexceeds 0#$ hisproperauthority.0$%` x` x  ` (Blakely,atp.5540[italicsintheoriginal].) 0&!' f `  ` RejectingthestatesattempttodistinguishApprendiandRingby ($* pointingoutthattheenumeratedgroundsfordepartureinitsregimeare 0*%, illustrativeratherthanexhaustive,theBlakelycourtdetermined: This +'. distinctionisimmaterial.Whetherthejudgesauthoritytoimposean  enhancedsentencedependsonfindingaspecifiedfact(asinApprendi),one 0 ofseveralspecifiedfacts(asinRing),oranyaggravatingfact(ashere),it  remainsthecasethatthejurysverdictalonedoesnotauthorizethesentence. 0  Thejudgeacquiresthatauthorityonlyuponfindingsomeadditionalfact.    ` Accordingly,Blakelyreversed,holding: 4l5  T      T*p   T      6 p#O  7 pBecausetheStatessentencing 0   proceduredidnotcomplywiththeSixthAmendment,petitionerssentenceis   invalid.(Blakely,atp.5540.) 0   ` Blakelyappliestopetitionerscaseandrequiresthesameresult.     ` C.0 BlakelyAppliestoPetitionersCase    ` UnderBlakely,inCalifornia,themiddletermisthe statutory -} maximum,becauseanuppertermrequiresadditionalfindings(i.e.,   aggravatingcircumstances)beyondthoseinherentintheoffenseitself. -}  ` Californiastatutes,courtrules,andcaselawmakeclearthat,unless  thereisafindingofatleastoneaggravatingcircumstance,acourtcannot -} imposetheupperterm: Whenajudgmentofimprisonmentistobeimposed,    thecourtshallorderimpositionofthemiddleterm,unlessthereare -}" circumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime .(1170(b), $ emphasisadded;Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(a)&(b);cf.,e.g.,Peoplev. 0!& Piceno(1987)195Cal.App.3d1353,1360.)Aswiththe standardrangein "( Blakely,themidtermisthepresumptivesentence. 0$*  ` Similartothe exceptionalsentenceinBlakely,aCaliforniacourt %!, lacksstatutoryauthoritytoimposeanuppertermunlessitfinds aggravating 0'". circumstancesbeyondtheelementsinherentintheoffenseitself. ($0  ` LiketheWashingtonstatutes,theCaliforniarulesprovidealistof 0*%2 enumeratedaggravatingcircumstances(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.421),but +'4 thelistis notexclusiveandacourtmayrelyuponannonenumerated  circumstance reasonablyrelatedtothesentencingdecision.(Cal.Rulesof 0 Court,rule4.408(a)} i#  2      ;seee.g.,Peoplev.Garcia(1989)209Cal.App.3d790,  794795[rapistsknowledgeofhisherpesinfection];compareBlakely,atp. 0  5539[listedaggravatingfactors illustrativeratherthanexhaustive].)As   withtheWashingtonscheme,thecourtmustmakeexplicitfactualfindings. 0   (1170(c);Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(e)[ aconcisestatementofthe   ultimatefactsdeemedtoconstitutecircumstancesinaggravation];Blakely, 0  atp.5539[Washingtonjudge mustsetforthfindingsoffactsandconclusions   oflawsupportingan exceptionalsentence].) 0   ` Moreover,Californias dualuseruleunderscoresthenecessityof  findingadditionalfacts,foracourtcannotbaseanuppertermonafactwhich 0 iseitheranelementoftheunderlyingoffenseoristhebasisforan  enhancement.(1170(b);Cal.RulesofCourt,rules4.420(c)&(d).)Thus, 0 theaggravatingcircumstancesauthorizinganuppertermarealmost  necessarilyfactsbeyondthosedeterminedbythejurysoffenseverdictsand 0 enhancementfindings(unlessthecourtelectstostrikeanenhancementand   insteadusetheenhancingfactstoimposetheupperterm(Cal.RulesofCourt, 0" rule4.420(c))).Putanotherway,wheretheonlyaggravatingcircumstances $ arethosewhichoverlapeithertheoffenseoranyenhancement,themiddle 0!& termisthe maximumsentenceadefendantmayreceive.Itisonlyafinding "( ofsomeadditionalnonoverlappingaggravatingcircumstancewhichcan 0$*  exposeadefendanttoanupperterm. Thejudgeacquiresthatauthority[to  imposeanupperterm]onlyuponfindingsomeadditionalfact.(Blakely,at 0 p.5540.)   ` Accordingly,undertheSixthAmendmentreasoningofBlakelyand 0  Apprendi,petitionerisentitledtojurydeterminationofanysuchaggravating   circumstanceusedtoimposeanuppertermandthosefindingsmustbesubject 0   toareasonabledoubtstandardofproof(Blakely,atp.5540),ratherthana   preponderancestandard,asCalifornialawcurrentlyprovides(Cal.Rulesof 0  Court,rule4.420(b)). i#  3      ׀ h    * [ANALYSIS:discusshereeachaggravatingfactormentionedbycourt 0  andshowhowitviolatesBlakely(e.g.,courtsrecitationofCal.Rulesof  Court,rule4.421(a)(1)[crimeinvolvedgreatviolenceandthethreatof 3 greatbodilyharm]ispreciselythekindofjudicialfindingofhistorical  factsoftheoffenseproscribedbyBlakely;orinvokingCal.RulesofCourt, -}  rule4.421(b)(5),[performanceonprobationunsatisfactory]constitutesa  judgemadefindingusedtoimposeanuppertermbeyondthose  determinedbythejurysverdictorplea).]  -}   ` D.0 TheBlakelyErrorRequiresReversal* z    ` WhilethedispositioninBlakelydidnotspecifywhethertheerror   requiresareversalofthesentenceorwassusceptibletoaharmlesserror ' w  analysis,petitionerassertsthatthiserrorisstructuralrequiringreversalwithout    employingaprejudiceanalysis.   'w   ` InSullivanv.Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275,theSupremeCourtheld   thataconstitutionallydeficientreasonabledoubtinstructionrequiredreversal 'w  ofconviction,withoutaharmlesserroranalysisofChapmanv.California  (1967)386U.S.18.JusticeScalia,writingforthecourt,observedthat 'w 8 ` Chapmanitselfsuggeststheanswer.Consistentwiththejury  trialguarantee,thequestionitinstructsthereviewingcourtto  considerisnotwhateffecttheconstitutionalerrormight  generallybeexpectedtohaveuponareasonablejury,butrather  whateffectithadupontheguiltyverdictinthecaseathand.  SeeChapman,supra,386U.S.,at24(analyzingeffectoferror  on verdictobtained).Harmlesserrorreviewlooks,wehave  said,tothebasisonwhich thejuryactuallyresteditsverdict.  Yatesv.Evatt,500U.S.391,404(1991)(emphasisadded).The   inquiry,inotherwords,isnotwhether,inatrialthatoccurred ! withouttheerror,aguiltyverdictwouldsurelyhavebeen  " rendered,butwhethertheguiltyverdictactuallyrenderedinthis !# trialwassurelyunattributabletotheerror.Thatmustbeso, "$ becausetohypothesizeaguiltyverdict% o %ozthatwasneverinfact #% renderednomatterhowinescapablethefindingstosupportthat $& verdictmightbe"wouldviolatethejurytrialguarantee.See % ' % p %pnRosev.Clark,478U.S.570,578(1986);id.,at593 &!( (BLACKMUN,J.,dissenting);Popev.Illinois,481U.S.497, '") 509% q %q9510(1987)(STEVENS,J.,dissenting).(#*` x` x  8 ` Oncetheproperroleofanappellatecourtengagedinthe *%, Chapmaninquiryisunderstood,theillogicofharmlesserror +&- reviewinthepresentcasebecomesevident.Since,forthe  reasonsdescribedabove,therehasbeennojuryverdictwithin  themeaningoftheSixthAmendment,theentirepremiseof  Chapmanreviewissimplyabsent.Therebeingnojuryverdict  ofguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt,thequestionwhetherthe  sameverdictofguiltybeyondareasonabledoubtwouldhave   beenrenderedabsenttheconstitutionalerrorisutterly   meaningless.Thereisnoobject,sotospeak,uponwhich   harmlesserrorscrutinycanoperate.Themostanappellatecourt   canconcludeisthatajurywouldsurelyhavefoundpetitioner   guiltybeyondareasonabledoubt"notthatthejurysactual   findingofguiltybeyondareasonabledoubtwouldsurelynot   havebeendifferentabsenttheconstitutionalerror.Thatisnot   enough.SeeYates,supra,500U.S.,at413414(SCALIA,J.,   concurringinpartandconcurringinjudgment).TheSixth  Amendmentrequiresmorethanappellatespeculationabouta  hypotheticaljurysaction,orelsedirectedverdictsfortheState  wouldbesustainableonappeal;itrequiresanactualjuryfinding  ofguilty.SeeBollenbachv.UnitedStates,326U.S.607,614(1946).   (Sullivanv.Louisiana,supra,508U.S.atpp.279280[original  italics].)` x` x Ë ` SullivanslogicapplieswithequalforcetoBlakelyerror.8 @ Here,asin 0 Sullivan,therebeingnojuryfindingoftheaggravatingcircumstancebeyond  areasonabledoubt,thequestionwhetherthesamefindingbeyonda 0 reasonabledoubt wouldhavebeenrenderedabsenttheconstitutionalerroris   utterlymeaningless. 0"   ` ItistruethattheCaliforniaSupremeCourtinPeoplev.Sengpadychith #" (2001)26Cal.4th316,consideringApprenditypeerror,appliedaChapman 0% $ analysis.ButSengpadychithandothercasesconsideringApprenditypeerror &"& (e.g.,Peoplev.Scott(2001)91Cal.App.4th1197)aredistinguishableinways 0(#(  thatdonotrenderthemvulnerabletoSullivan. )%*  ` Sengpadychithinvolvedanomissionofadiscreteelementofan   enhancement(the primaryactivitieselementofthegangenhancement, 0 186.22(b))ratherthanacompletefailuretosubmittheentiremattertothejury.  Thus,theerrorinSengpadychithwas trialerror,lendingitselftoa 0  circumstancegovernedbyNederv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1,8-15   (instructionalerrorinomittinganelementoftheoffense),inwhichChapman 0   applies.Moreover,inSengpadychith"unlikehere"therewasnoviolationof   petitionersrighttohavethejurymaketherelevantfinding beyonda 0  reasonabledoubt,asinSullivan.    ` Fortheforegoingreasons,theerrorrequiresreversalwithoutaharmless 0  erroranalysis.   ` However,intheeventthisCourtdeterminesthatChapmandoesapply, 0 aNedermustalsoapply.Thisinquiry askswhethertherecordcontains  evidencethatcouldrationallyleadtoacontraryfindingwithrespecttothe 0 omittedelement.(Neder,527U.S.atp.19.)Nederheldthat wherea  reviewingcourtconcludesbeyondareasonabledoubtthattheomittedelement 0 wasuncontested and supportedbyoverwhelmingevidence,suchthatthejury   verdictwouldhavebeenthesameabsenttheerror,theerroneousinstruction 6" isproperlyfoundtobeharmless.(Id.,atpp.18-19[emphasisadded].) $  ` * [ANALYSIS:showherehowtrialcourtsfindingwascontested 6!& andnotsupportedbyoverwhelmingevidence.] Harmlesserroranalysis, " ( therefore,doesnotwithstandNederscrutiny.(Neder,527U.S.atp.1819.) B$* Blakelyerrorherewasnotharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Accordingly, %!, evenunderChapman,theerrorneverthelessrequiresreversal. B'".   ($0  ` E.0 PetitionersBlakelyClaimsAreCognizableandReviewable  onStateHabeasBecausePetitionersCaseWasStillPending  onDirectReviewattheTimeBlakelyWasDecided t    ` 'I&IThisCourt#&I'IӨ#affirmedpetitionersconvictionon*򀀀.Blakely )y isapplicabletopetitionerscasebecauseitwasnotyetfinalondirectreview   atthetimeBlakelywasdecidedonJune24,2004.Petitionerscasewasnot ) y yetfinalbecause*[his/herpetitionforreviewwasstillpendingonJune24,    2004] OR [onJune24,2004,lessthan90dayshadelapsedfromthedateof )y  theCaliforniaSupremeCourtsdenialofhis/herpetitionforreviewon   *򀀀(i.e.,onorafterMarch26,2004)] OR [althoughhe/shehadnot /  yetfiledapetitionforreviewonJune24,2004,lessthan40dayshadpassed  sincetheissuanceofthisCourtsopinionon*򀀀].'I&I 5  ` Asapreliminarymatter,habeascorpusisavailabletopetitionerasa  vehicleforaddressingpetitionersBlakelyclaims#&I'I#'I&I.#&I'I#Itiswellestablishedthat 5 adefendantmayusehabeascorpustoobtainreliefbasedonachangeinthe  law.(InreHarris(1993)5Cal.4th813,841.)AsBlakelyindisputably 5 constitutesachangeinthelaw,habeasisavailabletopetitioner.   ` 'I&IԀAspetitionerscasewasstillpendingondirectappealatthetime 5  Blakelywasdecided,theclaimiscognizableandreviewablebythisCourt. " #&I'I>#'I&IConsistentwith#&I'IB#InreSpencer(1965)63Cal.2d400'I&I,habeascorpusin#&I'I#'I&Ithis 5 $ Courtisproperforadjudicationof#&I'I#petitioner'I&Isclaimsbecause(1)petitioner !& hadnoopportunitytoraisetheconstitutionalissueof#&I'I#Blakelyv.Washington 5#( 'I&Iattrialandonappeal#&I'I|#'I&IԀand(2)hiscasehadnotyetbecomefinalastotheU.S. $ * SupremecourtpriortothetimeitrendereditsdecisioninBlakely#&I'IԲ#'I&I.#&I'I# x  5&!,  ` InSpencer,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthatthedefendantcould '#. pursueahabeascorpusinacollateralattackonthevalidityofhisconviction 5)$0 onEscobedov.Illinois(1964)378U.S.478grounds(i.e.,thathesufferedan *&2 unconstitutionaldeprivationofhisrighttocounselduringhisinterrogations  bythepolice)wherehisconvictionhadnotyetbecomefinalastotheU.S. 0 SupremecourtwhenthehighcourtrendereditsdecisioninEscobedo.  Spencerreasoned: 0  8 ` UndertheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsviewoffinality,   federalhabeascorpuswillthereforebeavailabletoreview    petitionersjudgment.(SeeFayv.Noia(1963)372U.S.391,    438.)Whetherornotwearecompelledtoafforddefendantsa   comparablestatecollateralremedy(% r %r-Casev.Nebraska(1965)   381U.S.336;Henryv.Mississippi,379U.S.443;InreShipp   (1965)62Cal.2d547,553fn.2;76Harv.L.Rev.(1963)1253,   1269),theavailabilityofthefederalremedymakesitspointless   forustorefusetodoso,when,asinthiscase,defendantis  entitledtoanewtrialontheissueofpenalty.Moreover,the  grantofstatecollateralreliefinthesecircumstancesaccords  withourtraditionalhabeascorpusrules.Thiscourtnormally  affordscollateralreliefonconstitutionalgroundsifthe  petitionerhadnoopportunitytoraisetheconstitutionalissueat  trialandonappeal.(SeeInreDixon(1953)41Cal.2d756,760  761;InreShipp,supra,62Cal.2d547,551553.Petitionerhad  nosuchopportunitywhen,asinthiscase,thenewconstitutional  righthadnotbeendeclaredatthosetimes.(SeePeoplev.Hillery  (1965)62Cal.2d692,711712;Peoplev.Kitchens(1956)46  Cal.2d260,262263.)` x` x 'I&I ` (#&I'Il#InreSpencer,supra,63Cal.2datpp.405406.)'I&I  #&I'I#'I&I ` Petitionersproceduralpostureislikethatofthedefendantin#&I'I`#Spencer. 0"  Here,asinSpencer,'I&Ipetitionerhadnoopportunitytoraisetheconstitutional #" issue(#&I'I1#inthiscase,Blakelyerror)'I&IԀattrialandonappeal,#&I'I#'I&IԀandhiscasehadnotyet 0% $ becomefinalastotheU.S.SupremeCourtpriortothetimethehighcourt &"& rendereditsdecision(Blakely#&I'IP#). 0(#(  ` Since*[thepetitionforreviewinthiscasewasstillpendingonJune24, )%* 2004(thedateBlakelywasfiled),] OR [onJune24,2004,theCalifornia 0+&, SupremeCourthadalreadydeniedofhis/herpetitionforreviewon*򀀀  Ѐ( NOTE:onorafterMarch26,2004) ,] OR [( NOTE:wherepetitionfor 0 reviewnotyetfiledonJune24,2004 )lessthan40dayshadelapsedsince  theissuanceofthisCourtsopinionon*򀀀,]petitionerhadno <   realisticopportunitytoraisetheclaimondirectappealbecauseaclaim   underBlakelywasnotavailable atthetimetheappealwasbriefedand <   argued. (Peoplev.Treloar(1966)64Cal.2d141,143,InreVarnum(1966)   63Cal.2d629,631.) <   ` Fortheforegoingreasons,'I&IpetitionersBlakelyclaimsarecognizable   andreviewableonstatehabeasandarepresentedtothis#&I'In#'I&ICourtinthefirst <  instance#&I'I2#.'I&I   #&I'I#  ` F.0 ThereWasNoWaiverorForfeitureoftheIssueforLackof   ObjectiontotheBlakelyError      ` Lestitisarguedotherwise,theBlakelyerrorhereisnotwaivedforlack 7 ofobjectionunderPeoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331,352353,forseveral  reasons. 7  ` First,itiswellestablishedthatScottdoesnotapplywhere,ashere,the ! erroraffectsthesubstantialrightsofthedefendant.TheCaliforniaSupreme 7# Courthasheldthataclaim,suchaspetitionershere,assertingadenialofthe  % constitutionalrighttojurytrial,isanerroraffectingthesubstantialrightsof 7"' thedefendantandis,therefore,notwaivedforlackofobjection.(Peoplev. #) Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580,589,fn.5[ Defendantsfailuretoobjectalso 7% + wouldnotprecludehisassertingonappealthathewasdeniedhis &"- constitutionalrighttoajurytrial.[Citations.]];accordPeoplev.Valladoli 7(#/  (1996)13Cal.4th590,606;Peoplev.Vera(1997)15Cal.4th269,276277.) )%1  ` Statutorybasestoreviewtheissuealsoexistundersection1259,which,   inrelevantpart,provides: Uponanappealtakenbythedefendant,the 0 appellatecourtmay,withoutexceptionhavingbeentakeninthetrialcourt,  reviewanyquestionoflawinvolvedinanyruling,order,instruction,orthing 0  whatsoeversaidordoneatthetrial...andwhichaffectedthesubstantial   rightsofthedefendant. 0    ` Underdecisionalandstatutoryauthority,then,thedenialofpetitioners   SixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrialonaggravatingfactorsnecessaryto 0  exposehimtoanuppertermaffectedhissubstantialrights,andtherefore   precludeapplicationofScotttopetitionerscase. 0   ` Second,asgeneralmatter,sincetheerrorconstitutesanunauthorized  sentence"anexceptiontothewaiverdoctrineasdiscussedinPeoplev.Scott, 0 supra,9Cal.4th331"nowaiveroftheissueresultsfromanomissionto  object.Asalreadydiscussed,thetrialcourthadnoauthoritytoimposethe 0 uppertermunderthesecircumstances.Blakely,itself,expresslyholdssucha  sentenceisunauthorized: Whenajudgeinflictspunishmentthatthejurys 0 verdictalonedoesnotallow,thejuryhasnotfoundallthefactswhichthelaw   makesessentialtothepunishment,[citations]andthejudgeexceedshis 0" properauthority. $  ` Third,where,ashere,theclaimisbasedonasignificantsupervening 0!& changeinthelaw,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthasallowedreviewofthe "( unraisedclaim:eI&I Thoughevidentiarychallengesareusuallywaivedunless 0$* timelyraisedinthetrialcourt,thisisnotsowhenthepertinentlawlater %!, changedsounforeseeablythatitisunreasonabletoexpecttrialcounseltohave 0'". anticipatedthechange.[Citations.](Peoplev.Turner(1990)50Cal.3d668, ($0  703;Clemensv.RegentsofUniversityofCalifornia% s %sD(1970)8Cal.App.3d1,20 0*%2 [barringpointonappealwouldhave unfairlypenalize[d]petitionerfora   lackofextrasensoryperception].)#&IeI_#Ԁ 0   ` UntilJune24,2004,Californiadecisionalandstatutoryauthority  plainlyprovidedonlyjudicialfactfindingforallaggravatingfactorsundera 0  preponderancestandard.(SeeCal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(b).)Beforethat   time,defendantshadnorighttoajurytrialemployingastandardofproof 0   beyondareasonabledoubtofaggravatingcircumstances.Blakelyplainly   representsaseachange;eI&Iitwouldbeentirelyunreasonabletoexpecttrial 0  counseltohaveanticipatedit.(Turner,supra,50Cal.3datp.703;Clemens   v.RegentsofUniversityofCalifornia,supra,8Cal.App.3datp.20.)#&IeIk# 0   ` Accordingly,theScottwaiverdoctrinedoesnotapplytothiscase.tI&I   ` #&ItI#  0  'I&I  CONCLUSION    ` Thefactsallegedinthispetition"assupportedbythetrial -} record"establish,iftakenastrue,aprimafaciecaseforrelief.Consequently,  thiscourtshouldissueashowcauseorderanddirectthePeopletofileareturn. - } Ѐ(Peoplev.Duvall(1995)9Cal.4th464,474475.)    ` Ultimately,moreover,theconstitutionallapsesdescribedinthis - }  petition,aloneortogetherwiththeimpactoftheerrorschallengedinthedirect    appeal(see,generally,Taylorv.Kentucky(1978)436U.S.478,487,&fn.15), -}  entitlepetitionertotheissuanceofthewritofhabeascorpusandthereversal   of#&I'I#petitioner'I&Issentence.#&I'I7#ԀAtaminimum,however,theCaliforniaSupreme -}  CourtsexpeditiousgrantofreviewinPeoplev.Towne(S125677)(seefn.1  atp.7,ante)"lessthanthreeweeksaftertheBlakelydecision"demonstrates -} theimportanceofBlakelytothiscase,compellingnotmerelytheorderingof  informalbriefing,butbriefingonthemerits. -} Dated:*_______,2004 h     Respectfullysubmitted, -}  `     h     * F  -}"  `     h     AttorneyforPetitioner