WPCx~ 9Vx:i*@ٴ0ul[0^9c} W$fPO;eH Y ǘzb7Mh$ag=9qrEܩ$f&^J KZ B3,{E *!ӌ9d2T 2XΆ3: J ~\\gR CZ p"Im#0%mewðjрn$΍5W2Tk_p (OѡiBtKCC")X*K s@؈0{ƈ#h:ڼ1{n)i(`j{؉O0J5K i%v{gY& 3 m)oOS@]imtԎ:Pbz Z@օ#DLg\w/txf˥pllliy͝E#!UN$ %$ 0.Y$U><%Ul@z%U:% 1u% 72i& 0U& 0& 0' 0( 03) 0) 0* 0(+ 0+ 0X, 0- 0- 0 C}. 0. 0a/ 1/ 00 0w1 01 0 2 02 013 03 0h4 0*5 05 0 ll6 06 0p7 08 08 0~9N9^ 9w94999 m99 0N:::::::::: 1<<<< 1s=s=s=s=s=s=s= 1========== > 1>>>>> B&?&?&? 1C?C?C?C? 1? 1Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@ 6@ 0cAzqAYAA DB 1^B^B^B^B^B^B^B &BB C C C C C C C "J  >J>J>J^J J 6K &;KaK (KY"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L"L ,{LL 28M .jMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjMjM 0:MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 2MNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN >NOOOO O 0O  P 6'P :]PPPP 6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6R6RPR (SSSSSSSSr&T&T&T&T&T&T&T&TtT . U:UTU ,UV *VV kW 8W  WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ,W!X BXXbY BYz-Z 8ZZsZ 6R[R[ l[ 8[,\ \ H\$] *] 8]^ ^^^ ^ ,^ '_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_ C_C_C_C_C_C_ N]_u______ 0 ` *P`P` 6z`b` a :,a *fa .aa 8Wb bb *;cec .c'd .d e ,e e ( f 4fRf *lff ,Fg rgg ,gg 6hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhh)i)i *iiiii .jjjj0j0j 8jj (&k&kNkNkNkNkzl .~mmoyqw ,x ;xWxyy 09z izz *4{^{ ,{ *|F| ,|} 6}x} 6B~HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,\  `&Times New Roman&d9 Z(Times New Roman ,@E Z"Book Antiqua 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)*+ (_2623  ..*A+A (_25   ) hp x)23  ..) hp x)   *2+2 (_24  &hp x&23  ..&hp x&  */+/ (_23 ` #hhp x#23  ..#hhp x# ` *,+, (_22   p x 23  .. p x  *)+) (_21  p x23  ..p x  *&+& (_20 h pp x23  ..pp x h *#+# (_19    x23  ..  x  * +  (_18     x23  ..   x  *;; (_17  /% ` hp x/23  Ԁ/% ` hp x/  *AA (_16   ) hp x)23  Ԁ) hp x)   *22 (_15  &hp x&23  Ԁ&hp x&  ($    *// (_14 ` #hhp x#23  Ԁ#hhp x# ` *,, (_13   p x 23  Ԁ p x  (EGMSY_ekqAutoList28A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.*)) (_12  p x23  Ԁp x  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#*&& (_11 h pp x23  Ԁpp x h (b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#*## (_10    x23  Ԁ  x  (   &_9     x23  Ԁ   x  (;; &_8  /% ` hp x/23  /% ` hp x/  (AA &_7   ) hp x)23  ) hp x)   (22 &_6  &hp x&23  &hp x&  (// &_5 ` #hhp x#23  #hhp x# ` ((3$ !      0  (,, &_4   p x 23   p x  ()) &_3  p x23  p x  (&& &_2 h pp x23  pp x h (## &_1    x23    x  &   $_     x23     x  =1 Pn11p}.bk53|xUhttp://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=56318&div=3(O$  $$    6    _XXTheappellantinVeraarguedonappealthatthetrialcourterredwhenitconducted  acourttrialonthetruthofpriorprisontermallegationswithoutfirstobtaininganexpress,  personalwaiverofappellantsrighttoajurytrialonthatquestionunderPenalCode  sections1025and1168.(  Vera,15Cal.4thatp.274.)0EGMSY_ekqAutoList16A.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.0UEGMSY_ekqAutoList181.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.0EkCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.a.1.1.1.1.1.5 Cal.4th 12030EEGMSY_ekqAutoList23a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. d0EGMSY_ekqAutoList291.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.0EGMSY_ekqAutoList30A.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.(eEGMSY_ekqAutoList251.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.h55 Cal.2d 11STATE CASES(;3$2#  0  .3  0   p !USUS.,  _Nealv.StateofCalifornia(1960)55Cal.2d11,19 O !USUS.,  _en.Code669,55 Cal.2d 1105EGMSY_ekqAutoList221.1.a.1.1.1.1.1.38 Cal.App.4th 427  $$    7    _XXInSampletheThirdDistrictCourtofAppealheldtwoissuesarisingunder  _Blakely_forfeitedforfailuretoenteranobjectionattrial. (Id.,atpp.11,13.) Sample  purportedlyfollowedtheopinionoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin  UnitedStatesv.  Cotton(2002)535U.S.625andreasoned,interalia,thatsincetheevidenceofthefacts  onwhichthecourtreliedtoimposeanuppertermwereoverwhelming,the  _Blakely_/_Apprendi_issueswerebarred.(Sampleatp.11.)Inappellantscase,bycontrast,   asdiscussed,supra,therewasnotoverwhelmingevidenceofmostofthefactorson   whichthetrialcourtreliedtoincreaseappellantssentence.Inanycase,theopinionofa   courtinanotherdistrictisnotbindingonthiscourt(cf.AutoEquitySales,Inc.v.Superior   CourtofSantaClaraCounty(1962)57Cal.2d450,455),andappellantsubmitsthat   Sampleshouldnotbefollowedonthispointforallthereasonsandundertheauthorityset   out,supra,insubsections1and2intheinstantargument,includingtheopinionofthe   FourthDistrictCourtofAppealinPeoplev.George,supra,   _http.courtinfo.ca.gov_/opinions. h #XXS#8 Cal.4th 441PA ADC  1170.1 !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Ali(1967)66Cal.2d277,281530 U.S. 466iPA ADC  669REGULATIONS101 Cal.App.3d 122 !USUS.,  _Peoplev._Calvert_Ԁ(1993)18Cal.App.4th1820,183839 Cal.App.4th 1546 O !USUS.,  _Pen.Code66966 Cal.2d 277CASES !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Hanson(2000)23Cal.4th355,359Document1zzSDUNumber1723 Cal.4th 355CASES42EmphasisDocument1zzSDUNumber30 !XXUSUS.,  __eople_Ԁv.Marchand(2002)98Cal.App.4th1056,1061;397 U.S. 3582004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7581 !USUS.,  _Peoplev.Shaw(Sept.15,2004,C043228)򀀀Cal.App.4th򀀀[2004WL2053260124 S.Ct. 253142004 WL 2053260CASES2004 WL 1402697PA ADC  669REGULATIONS=530 U.S. 466FEDERAL CASES  !XXUSUS.,  _ USUS.,  Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,490 USUS.,  Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530  U.S.466,490Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,4901 Cal.4th 56  $$    1    _XXXXXXAppellantassumes,arguendo,thatthisCourtconcludesthattheimpositionof  consecutivesentencesonappellantdidnotviolatesection654(see g ArgumentIV,supra).#S##XXr#59 Cal.App.4th 1333 h !USUS.,  _JudicialCouncil.(Pen.Code1170 j !XXUSUS.,  _24S.Ct.2531;w124 S.Ct. 2531CASES _ !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Ernst(1994)8Cal.4th441,448z8 Cal.4th 441CASES !USUS.,  __Almendarez_ԄTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224|523 U.S. 224CASES !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Cahill(1993)5Cal.4th478,493,501508 U.S. 275oPA ADC  1170REGULATIONS2004 WL 2053260386 U.S. 18USCA CONST Amends. VI x !XXUSUS.,  _Cal.Const.,Art.1,16CA CONST Art. 1,  16STATUTES !XXUSUS.,  _2004DailyJournal_D.A.R._Ԁ7581 X !USUS.,  _Pen.Code654,669PA ADC  654, 669REGULATIONS p !USUS.,  _InreWalters(1995)39Cal.App.4th1546,1552155339 Cal.App.4th 1546CASES i !USUS.,  _Peoplev.Caudillo(1980)101Cal.App.3d122101 Cal.App.3d 122CASESBlakely v. Washington, supra, 159 L. Ed. 2d at p. 41318 Cal.App.4th 1820CASES !USUS.,  _Peoplev._McLeod_Ԁ(1989)216Cal.App.3d585,590530 U.S. 466Apprendi, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 414 !XXUSUS.,  _UnitedStatesv.Cotton(2002)535U.S.625535 U.S. 625CASES98 Cal.App.4th 1056CASES !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.WilliamsӀ(1998)17Cal.4th148,161162,fn.6PA ADC  1170PA ADC  664~5 Cal.4th 478CASES54 Cal.2d 442478 U.S. 5702004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7581CASES k !XXUSUS.,  _2004WL14026972004 WL 1402697CASESy530 U.S. 466CASES216 Cal.App.3d 585CASES X !USUS.,  Peoplev.Sykes(2004)120Cal.App.4th1331447 U.S. 343120 Cal.App.4th 1331CASES120 Cal.App.4th 133117 Cal.4th 148CASES !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Anderson(1994)26Cal.App.4th1241,124926 Cal.App.4th 1241CASES535 U.S. 625 !XXUSUS.,  _Johnsonv.UnitedStates(1997)520U.S.461520 U.S. 461CASES !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Vera(1997)15Cal.4th269,27627715 Cal.4th 269CASES !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev._Valladoli_Ԁ(1996)13Cal.4th590,60613 Cal.4th 590CASES !XXUSUS.,  __eople_Ԁv.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580,589,fn.55 Cal.4th 580CASES17 Cal.4th 14826 Cal.App.4th 124115 Cal.4th 269 _478 U.S. 570CASES !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev._Avalos_Ԁ(1984)37Cal.3d216,23337 Cal.3d 216CASES5 Cal.4th 580 _54 Cal.2d 442CASES !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Cruz(1995)38_Cal.App_.4th427,43343438 Cal.App.4th 427CASESPeople v. Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1022-1023 !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Marks(1991)1Cal.4th56,77,fn.201 Cal.4th 56CASES _17 Cal.4th 800CASES !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev._Abbaszadeh_Ԁ(2003)106Cal.App.4th642,648649#106 Cal.App.4th 642CASES106 Cal.App.4th 642 !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev._Birks_Ԁ(1998)19Cal.4th108,116,fn.6 p $$    2    _XXAppellantassumessolelyforthisargument,withoutconceding,thattherewas  sufficientevidenceofeachoftheoffensesandthatappellantsconvictionswere  otherwisevalid.#XXS#)19 Cal.4th 108CASES  $$    3    _Section654providesasfollows,inpertinentpart: (a)Anactoromissionthatis  punishableindifferentwaysbydifferentprovisionsoflawshallbepunishedundertheprovision  thatprovidesforthelongestpotentialtermofimprisonment,butinnocaseshalltheactor  omissionbepunishedundermorethanoneprovision.  $$    4    _Section669providesasfollows,inpertinentpart: Whenanypersonisconvictedoftwo  ormorecrimes...thesecondorothersubsequentjudgmentuponwhichsentenceisorderedto  beexecutedshalldirectwhetherthetermsofimprisonmentoranyofthemtowhichheorsheis  sentencedshallrunconcurrentlyorconsecutively.  $$    5    _Rule4.425providesasfollow: Criteriaaffectingthedecisiontoimposeconsecutive  ratherthanconcurrentsentencesinclude:    (a)[Criteriarelatingtocrimes]Factsrelatingtothecrimes,includingwhetherornot:  Ѐ0  (1)Thecrimesandtheirobjectiveswerepredominantlyindependentofeachother.t(#(#   (2)Thecrimesinvolvedseparateactsofviolenceorthreatsofviolence. `   (3)Thecrimeswerecommittedatdifferenttimesorseparateplaces,ratherthanbeing L  committedsocloselyintimeandplaceastoindicateasingleperiodofaberrantbehavior. 8    (b)[Othercriteriaandlimitations]Anycircumstancesinaggravationormitigationmay $ t beconsideredindecidingwhethertoimposeconsecutiveratherthanconcurrentsentences,  ` except  L    (_i_)afactusedtoimposetheupperterm,  8    (ii)afactusedtootherwiseenhancethedefendantsprisonsentence,and $    (iii)afactthatisanelementofthecrimeshallnotbeusedtoimposeconsecutive   sentences.(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/titlefour/title453.htm.) !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Turner(1990)50Cal.3d668,703250 Cal.3d 668CASES50 Cal.3d 668 !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Sample(Sept.13,2004,C044445)򀀀Cal.App.4th򀀀[2004WL2027285  $$    8    _  XXXXXXChapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18#c##XX#.52004 WL 2027285CASES466 U.S. 668 !XXUSUS.,  __uyler_Ԁv.Sullivan(1980)446U.S.335,343;:446 U.S. 335CASES !XXUSUS.,  _Hardingv.Davis(11thCir.1989)878F.2d1341,13441345<878 F.2d 1341CASES43 Cal.3d 171 !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Pope(1979)23Cal.3d412,422?23 Cal.3d 412CASES !XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Borba(1980)110Cal.App.3d989,997A110 Cal.App.3d 989CASES n !XXUSUS.,  _Pen.Code208CPA ADC  208REGULATIONS !XXUSUS.,  _   AppellantsOpeningBrief  _Blakely_ԀIssue:ImpositionofUpperTerm;ConsecutiveSentences   Jurytrial;recidivist&nonrecidivistfactors;addresseswaiver,prejudice,and   arguesremandwouldviolatedouble_jeopardy___    ---------------------   Posted:9/29/2004   Peoplev.Hughes, #_#41 2O  5  A10438062O  7  (1stDist.;Div.3)   Author:Irene_Kiebert_    _V.  0 @ 0@` (#(#THEIMPOSITIONOFANUPPERTERMANDCONSECUTIVESENTENCES  WITHOUTJURYFINDINGS#N#ԀTOSUPPORTTHEMVIOLATEDAPPELLANTS  RIGHTSTOJURYTRIALANDDUEPROCESSUNDERTHEFEDERAL  CONSTITUTION   ~  <(03"g3"  g32  A  .3  0    AppellantWasEntitledUndertheSixthandFourteenthAmendmentsto   HaveaJuryDeterminetheExistenceofFactsUsedtoJustifyanUpperTerm    andConsecutiveSentences## g3L݌ (#(# Ќ    Thetrialcourtsentencedappellanttotheuppertermofnineyearsforattempted   murderandorderredthesentencesonallcountstorunconsecutively.(RT12081209,   CT622.)  ! ! @(U80<   Appellantsubmitsthatboththeimpositionofanuppertermfortheattempted  murdercountandtheimpositionofconsecutivesentencesforothercounts,violatedhis  federalconstitutionalrightsbecausetheywerebasedonfactualdeterminationsmadeby  thejudgeandappellantdidnotwaivehisrighttohaveajurydeterminetheexistenceof  thosefactsbeyondareasonabledoubt .f   1      ׀ (  U.S.Const.,Amends.VI,XIV;  Cal.Const.,Art.  1,16;Blakelyv.Washington(2004)򀀀U.S.򀀀,1 x 24S.Ct.2531;  2004DailyJournal   D.A.R.7581;  2004WL1402697] < ;##   Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,490#e # ; "   { Peoplev.Ernst(1994)8Cal.4th441,448[waiverofjurytrialmustbeexpresslymadeon $  therecord].)# #  &!"   ##Further,theappellantssentenceviolatesthedueprocessclauseofthefederal (#$ constitutionunder  Hicksv.Oklahoma,supra,447U.S.343,wheretheUnitedStates  SupremeCourtdeclaredthatwhere"aStatehasprovidedfortheimpositionofcriminal  punishmentinthediscretionofthetrialjury...[t]hedefendant...hasasubstantialand  legitimateexpectationthathewillbedeprivedoflibertyonlytotheextentdeterminedby   thejuryintheexerciseofitsstatutorydiscretion[citation],andthatlibertyinterestisone   thattheFourteenthAmendmentpreservesagainstarbitrarydeprivationbytheStates."   (  Id.,atp.346.)#J#     ";"  ;,0  2U  1  .3  0` (#(#  UnderApprendiandBlakelytheFederalConstitutionRequiresaJury  DeterminationofAnyFactsUsedtoImposeaSentenceGreaterthan  ThatAuthorizedbytheJurysVerdictAlone## ;,Y݌` (#` (# Ќ     ##In  Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466##Ԁthedefendantwasconvictedina  NewJerseystatecourtofseconddegreepossessionofafirearmandthirddegree  unlawfulpossessionofabomb,whichcarriedspecifiedpenaltyranges.(  Id.,atpp.469  470.)Inaddition,statelawprovidedthatasentencehigherthanthespecifiedrange  couldbeimposedifanoffensehadbeencommittedfora biasedpurpose;i.e.,ifthe  offensequalifiedunderahatecrimesentenceenhancementstatute.(  I  bid.)The   sentencingjudgeheldanevidentiaryhearing,determinedthatoneofthefirearm " possessioncrimesqualifiedforthehatecrimeenhancementandsentencedMr.Apprendi $  accordingly,whichresultedinasentence10yearslongerthancouldhavebeenimposed &!" intheabsenceofthe biasedpurposefinding.(  I  d.,atpp.470,471.) (#$   Mr.Apprendichallengedtheconstitutionalityofthestatelawprocessfor *%& determiningtheexistenceofracialbiasunderthissentencingscheme,assertingthathe ,'( hada constitutionalrighttohaveajuryfindsuchbiasonthebasisofproofbeyonda  reasonabledoubt....(  Id.,atpp.475476.)TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtagreed.  (  I  d.,atp.497.)    JusticeStevens,writingforthemajorityinApprendi,observedthat, [t]hehistoric   linkbetweenverdictandjudgmentandtheconsistentlimitationonjudgesdiscretionto   operatewithinthelimitsofthelegalpenaltiesprovidedhighlightthenoveltyofa   legislativeschemethatremovesthejuryfromthedeterminationofafactthat,iffound,   exposesthecriminaldefendanttoapenaltyexceedingthemaximumhewouldreceiveif  punishedaccordingtothefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictalone.(  Id.,atpp.482483,  footnoteomitted,italicsinoriginal,underliningadded.)Thus, [i]fadefendantfaces  punishmentbeyondthatprovidedbystatutewhenanoffenseiscommittedundercertain  circumstancesbutnotothers,itisobviousthatboththelossoflibertyandthestigma  attachingtotheoffenseareheightened;itnecessarilyfollowsthatthedefendantshould  not!atthemomenttheStateisputtoproofofthosecircumstances!bedeprivedof  protectionsthathave,untilthatpoint,unquestionablyattached.(  Id.,atp.484.)     Citingitsopinionin } AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224 " whichinturnwasgroundedintheprinciplesenunciatedin  InreWinship,supra,397U.S. $  358,the##highcourtspecifiedthatthoseprotectionsinclude dueprocessandassociated &"" juryprotectionsinthecontextofsentencing.(  Apprendi,supra,530U.S.atp.484.) ($$   TheApprendimajorityconcludedthat [o]therthanthefactofapriorconviction, *&& anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximum ,(( mustbesubmittedtoajury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt.(  Id.,atp.491.)  Rejectingananalyticalapproachthatparsesthemeaningofphrasessuchas intent,   motive, elementand sentencingfactor,thecourtemphasizedthat therelevant  inquiryisonenotofform,butofeffect!doestherequiredfindingexposethedefendantto   agreaterpunishmentthanthatauthorizedbythejurysguiltyverdict?(  Id.,atp.494,   footnoteomitted.)ThehighcourtremandedApprendiscaseforresentencing.(  Id.,atp.   497.)     Initsrecentopinionin  Blakelyv.Washington,supra,򀀀U.S.򀀀, 8 124S.Ct.  2531; 3 2004DailyJournalD.A.R.7581; : 2004WL1402697]# ##theUnitedStatesSupreme  CourtappliedandfurtherelucidatedtheconstitutionalprinciplesexplainedinApprendi.    InBlakelythedefendanthadpledguiltytokidnap,andthefactsadmittedinhis  pleasupportedasentencewithintherangeof49to53months.( : Id.,򀀀U.S.atp.򀀀  [ 8 124S.Ct.atp.2534].)Thesentencingjudgeinitiallyimposedasentenceof90months,  whichwashigherthanthestandardrangetermrecommendedbythestate,onthebasis  thatthevictimstestimonyhadestablisheedthatthecrimewascommittedwithdeliberate   cruelty,andsuchafactorwasidentifiedbystatestatuteasagroundforimposingahigher " sentenceinadomesticviolencecase.( 8 Id., $  ЀU.S.atp.򀀀[ 8 124S.Ct.atp#D)#.2535].)Mr.Blakelyobjectedandthejudgethen &"" heldanevidentiaryhearing,afterwhichheissuedfactualfindings,againdeterminedthat ($$ thecrimewascommittedwithdeliberatecruelty.( 8 Id.,򀀀U.S.atp.򀀀[ 8 124S.Ct.at *&& p#-#p.25352536.].)#N/#Ԁ ,((   JusticeScalia,writingforthemajority,appliedtheApprendirulethat ...any  factthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummust  besubmittedtoajury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt[]toMr.Blakelyscase.  ( 8 Id.,򀀀U.S.atp.򀀀[ 8 124S.Ct.atp#/#.#1#2536].)     TheBlakelycourtexplainedthat therelevantstatutorymaximumisnotthe   maximumsentenceajudgemayimposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,butthemaximum   hemayimposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.Whenajudgeinflictspunishmentthat   thejurysverdictalonedoesnotallow,thejuryhasnotfoundallthefactswhichthelaw  makesessentialtothepunishment,[]andthejudgeexceedshisproperauthority.( 8 Id.,򀀀  ЀU.S.atp.򀀀[ 8 124S.Ct.atp# 2#.#5#2537],italicsinoriginal,citationto1J.Bishop,  CriminalProcedure(2ded.1872)87,p.55omitted.)    ThehighcourtmajoritythereforeheldthatinMr.Blakelyscase,thejudgecould  notconstitutionallyincreasethesentencebasedonthefindingofdeliberatecruelty,even  thoughsuchanincreasewasauthorizedbystatute,becausetheenhancedsentence  exceededthemaximumthatthejudgecouldimposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.( 8 Id.,   򀀀U.S.atp.򀀀[1 8 24S.Ct.atp#L5#p.25372538].)#M8#ThesentenceimposedonMr. " BlakelyviolatedhisSixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrialandwasinvalid.( 8 Id.,atp. $  2538.) &""  l(508@! ! "g3"     g3/:25  2  .3  0 `   TheImpositionofConsecutiveSentencesonAllCountsinAppellants ($$ CaseViolatestheFederalConstitutionUnderApprendiandBlakely g3/::݌)$%` (#` (# Ќ  \: n:  Inthecaseatbar,thetrialcourtorderedthatthesentencesimposedagainst +&' appellantforattemptedmurder,kidnap,batterywithseriousbodilyinjury,terrorist -() threats,falseimprisonment,anddissuasionofavictim,mustbeservedconsecutively,  amountingtoatotalof16yearsinstateprison.-   2      ׀(CT622;RT12081209.)#8#    UnderApprendi,thequestionwithregardtoconsecutivesentencingis:Doesthe  findingofseparateanddistinctpurposesbehinddifferentcrimescommittedagainsta   singlevictimexposeappellanttoagreaterpunishmentthanthatauthorizedbythejurys   verdicts?Inappellantscase,theanswerisclearly,yes.(Cf. 9 Peoplev.Shaw(Sept.15,   2004,C043228)򀀀Cal.App.4th򀀀[2004WL2053260,p.4][consecutivesentencesnot   barredunderBlakely/Apprendiwherejuryverdictsreflectedjuryfindingsofseparate  crimesagainstdifferentvictims].)Here,thejurysverdictaloneauthorizedaconcurrent  sentence,andagreaterpunishmentcouldbeimposedonlyafterarequiredfindingbythe  sentencingcourtofseparateintentsandobjectivesofeachoffensewhosesentencewasto  beimposedconsecutively.(  Pen.Code654,669; k Nealv.StateofCalifornia,supra,55  Cal.2datp.19.) # >#  ""   aC0  0` (#(#25  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#  CaliforniaLawCreatesaPresumptionofConcurrent  SentencingandConsecutiveSentencesMayBeImposedonly  afterAdditionalFindingsbytheSentencingJudgeaCC݌  (# (# Ќ  C C  Sections654and669#-C#Ԁcreateapresumptionthatsentenceswillbeimposed " concurrently,sinceatrialcourtmayimposeconsecutivesentencesonlyonthebasisof $  specificfindingswhichjustifydoingso.(  InreWalters(1995)39Cal.App.4th1546, &!" 15521553[rule669requiresconcurrentsentenceinabsenceofexpressorder (#$ otherwise].)    Section654prohibitstheimpositionofseparatepunishmentsforasingleoffense,  and#E#Ԁalsoprovidesthatwherethedefendanthasbeenconvictedofmultipleoffenses,the  offensecarryingthelongestprisontermwillbethesentenceimposed./   3      ׀# H# f ԀHowever,as   discussed,  supra,inArgumentIV,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthaslongheldthat,    Whetheracourseofcriminalconductisdivisibleandthereforegivesrisetomorethan   oneactwithinthemeaningofsection654dependsontheintentandobjectiveofthe   actor.Ifalloftheoffenseswereincidenttooneobjective,thedefendantmaybepunished  foranyoneofsuchoffensesbutnotformorethanone.( k Nealv.StateofCalifornia,  supra,55Cal.2datp.19#xI#;see Q P Q eoplev.Latimer,supra,#KL#5Cal.4thatpp.12161217.)#L#    Section6690@   4      ׀providesthat,wheretherearemultipleconvictions,thesentencing  courtmayorderthesentencesforthoseconvictionstorunconcurrentlyorconsecutively  andmustissueanorderstatingitssentencingchoice.Thestatuteexplicitlystatesthat,  wherethesentencingcourtfailstomakethisdetermination, thetermofimprisonmenton  thesecondorsubsequentjudgmentshallrunconcurrently.( ; P  en.Code669,   underliningadded.)In  Peoplev.Caudillo(1980)101Cal.App.3d122,wherethe " sentencingcourthadfailedtomakeanexplicitorderforconsecutivesentences,#2M#Ԁthe  reviewingcourtamendedtheabstractofjudgmenttoindicatethatthesentenceswereto  runconcurrently.(  Id.,atpp.125127;seealso  InreWalters,supra,39Cal.App.4that  pp.15521553#P#.)#WR#   #R#  Further,ithaslongbeenheldthat, [t]hesentencingcourtisrequiredtostateits   reasonsforimposingconsecutivesentencesandaremandforresentencingisproperwhen   thecourtfailstostatereasonsforitssentencingchoice.(  Peoplev.Calvert(1993)18   Cal.App.4th1820,1838[citationsomitted];seealso  Peoplev.McLeod(1989)216  Cal.App.3d585,590.)#R#Ԁ    Rule4.4251   5      ׀setsoutcriteriatoguidethesentencingcourts decisiontoimpose  consecutiveratherthanconcurrentsentences,andwhensentencingadefendantunder  Californiasdeterminatesentencingscheme,thecourt shallapplythesentencingrulesof  the  JudicialCouncil.(Pen.Code1170,subd.(a)(3).)#,theCourtofAppealinthe ! FourthDistrictheldthatBlakelyappliestotheimpositionofuppertermsunderCalifornia # sentencinglaw.(Id.,atp.21.)Theopinioniswellreasonedandshouldbefollowedin %!! appellantscase. '##   #:#InPeoplev.Sample,supra,򀀀Cal.App.4th򀀀[2004SL2027285]theupper )%% termwasbasedononlytwofactors:defendantsprobationarystatusandtheplanningand +'' sophisticationofthecrimes.(Id.,atp.11.)Thereviewingcourtthoughtthat,sincethere -)) wasoverwhelminganduncontrovertedevidenceofonefactor,andsinceonefactoris  sufficienttosupportanuppertermsentence,thataspectofthesentencedidnot seriously  affectthefairness,integrity,andpublicreputationofthejudicialproceedingsand  thereforetheBlakelyissuewithregardtoitwasforfeitedunder  UnitedStatesv.Cotton   (2002)535U.S.625.(Id.,atp.11;seediscussionofCottoninsectionB,below.)The   courtalsofoundbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthetrialcourtwouldhaveimposedthe   uppertermbasedonthepriorconvictionsifithadanticipatedthedecisioninBlakely.By   implication,then,theSamplecourttooktheviewthat planningandsophisticationwasa  factorthatrequiredajurydeterminationunderBlakelyandApprendi.#賈#ԀAssuming,  arguendo,thattheSamplecourtssubstitutionofitsowndiscretionforthatofthe  reviewingcourtwasproper,itsreasoningcannotbeappliedtoappellantscase,where  appellantspriorconvictionwasonlyoneofsixfactorsusedtojustifytheupperterm.    #U# R(E88_ ""   0  0` (#(#2E  a  .3  0 ` (#` (#  TheJuryVerdictAloneAuthorizedaMaximumSentenceof  SevenYearsforAttemptedMurder.  ݌ (# (# Ќ     Sinceappellantsjuryfoundthattheattemptedmurderwasnotcommitted ! deliberationandpremeditation,hissentenceonthatcountcouldonlybea##Ԁprisontermof # five,sevenornineyears.(  Section664,subd.(a).) % !   UndertheCaliforniadeterminatesentencinglaw,wherethesentencing statute '"# specifiesthreepossibleterms,thecourtshallorderimpositionofthemiddletermunless )$% therearecircumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime....(  Pen.Code1170, +&' subd.(b).)Further, Thecourtshallsetforthontherecordthefactsandreasonsfor -() imposingtheupperorlowerterm.(  Ibid.)#Z# And, Thecourtshallstatethereasonsforits  sentencechoiceontherecordatthetimeofsentencing....(  Pen.Code#9#Ԁ1170,subd.  (c).)    Asamatterofblackletterlaw,then,thejurysverdictaloneauthorizedamiddle   termsentenceforattemptedmurder,whichwassevenyears.   ! !""  r0  0` (#(#2E  b  .3  0 ` (#` (#  AppellantsSentencewasIncreasedontheBasisofFactors   FoundbytheCourtandWhoseExistenceWasNever   DeterminedbytheJuryr݌  (# (# Ќ    Thejudgeinappellantscasesentencedhimtothe aggravatedtermofnineyears  instate prisononCountOne,attemptedmurder.(RT1208.)Thecourtexplained:  0   ` Thefactorsinaggravationbeingthefactthatyoudisplayedviciousness,  crueltyorcallousness;yourviolentconductindicatesthatyoureaseriousdanger  tosociety.Youhavenumerouspriorconvictions.Youwereonagrantof  conditionalsentencewhenthecrimeswerecommitted.Yourperformanceon  probationgenerallyhasbeenunsatisfactory.You!inregardstoseriousfelony  counts,incounts!offenses,inCountsOne,TwoandFour,youbound,confined   andgaggedthevictimwithinthemeaningofPenalCodesection1170.84."(#(# 0   ` Therefore,theCourtselectstheaggravatedtermandwouldimposealso $  theaggravatedtermofalltheothercountsonwhichyouwerefoundguilty.&""(#(# (RT1208.) ($$   Thus,thefactsusedtoincreaseappellantssentencefromthemiddletermofseven *&& yearsforattemptedmurdertotheuppertermofnineyearsweredeterminedsolelybythe ,(( court.Noneofthemwasdirectlyorindirectlydeterminedbythejury.Thisaspectof  appellantssentencethereforeviolatesthefederalconstitutionunderBlakelyand  Apprendi.(See  Peoplev.Sykes#+#,supra,##120Cal.App.4thatp.1345[factsaffecting  %  appropriatesentencewithintherangeofpotentialtermsforeachoffensesubjectto   BlakelyandApprendi#k#].)    (88R! ! "g3"  g3_2  B  .3  0    ##TheIssueoftheConstitutionalityofAppellantsSentenceisCognizableon   Appealg3_݌ (#(# Ќ    Appellantdidnotobjectattrialtotheimpositionoftheuppertermforattempted   murderorofconsecutivesentencesonthefederalconstitutionalgroundsonwhichhe  nowrelies. Appellantwasnotrequiredtoenteranobjectionsincehissentenceviolated  hisfundamentalconstitutionalrightsandinanycaseanobjectionwouldhavebeenfutile.  (Seeauthoritiescited,below.)    TheerrorsarealsocognizableonappealsincethisCourthasthediscretionto  reviewerrorsofconstitutionaldimensionevenintheabsenceofanobjection.(  Peoplev.  Shaw,supra,򀀀Cal.App.4th򀀀[2004SL2053620];P  eoplev.Marchand(2002)98  Cal.App.4th1056,1061;##Ԁseealso  Peoplev.WilliamsӀ(1998)17Cal.4th148,161162,fn. ! 6;seealso  Peoplev.Anderson(1994)26Cal.App.4th1241,1249.)#ﮣ#   #   Appellantnotesthatin  UnitedStatesv.Cotton,supra,535U.S.625theUnited % ! StatesSupremeCourtinvokedthefederalcourts plainerrordoctrinetoreview '"# Apprendierrorinspiteofthefailuretoobjectattrialtoafaultyindictment.InCottonthe )$% highcourtcited  Johnsonv.UnitedStates(1997)520U.S.461fortherulethatApprendi +&' errorrequiresanobjectioninthetrialcourt.Johnson,however,explicitlydistinguished -() seriousconstitutionalerrorarisinginstatecriminalproceedingsfrom #、#directappealsfrom  judgmentsofconvictioninthefederalsystem#ܧ#whicharesubjecttotheFederalRulesof  CriminalProcedureandthereforerequireanobjectionunderthoserules.Appellant  submitsthatneitherCottonnorJohnson,therefore,precludethereviewoftheserious   constitutionalerrorinappellantscasearisingfromastatecourtconviction.    //   ! ! G(Ek08"g3"    g32Ek  1  .3  0 `   NoObjectionatTrialWasNecessarytoPreserveanIssueBasedona   FundamentalConstitutionalRight g3.݌` (#` (# Ќ    Noobjectionattrialwasnecessarytopreservetheinstantissuesincethe  sentencingerrorsviolatedappellantsfundamentalconstitutionalrighttoajurytrial.  (  Peoplev.Vera(1997)15Cal.4th269,276277;seealso  Peoplev.Valladoli(1996)13  Cal.4th590,606[nowaiverofissueofdoublejeopardyforpostverdictamendmentofan  informationtoaddpriorconvictions];P  eoplev.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580,589,fn.5  [nowaiverofissueofrighttojurytrialwherejurydischargedbeforeadjudicationofprior  convictions];seealso#s#  Peoplev.Williams,supra,17Cal.4thatpp.161162,fn.6 ! [appellatecourtmayreviewtrialerrorinabsenceofobjection];  Peoplev.Anderson, # supra,26Cal.App.4thatp.1249[same].)#n#  % !   UnderBlakelyandApprendiandthestatutesandrulescitedintheinstant '"# argument,thequestionsofwhethertoimposeanuppertermforattemptedmurderand )$% consecutivesentencesshouldhavebeendecidedbythejurysdiscretion.Thetrial +&' courtsusurpationofthejurysroleviolatedappellantsfundamentalconstitutionalrights -() tosubstantivedueprocessandtrialbyjuryandnoobjectionattrialwasrequiredto  preservetheissueforappeal.(See  Peoplev.Vera(1997)15Cal.4th269,276277;  #ǰ#  Sullivanv.Louisiana,supra,508U.S.atp.#ҳ#Ԁ280;seeR  osev.Clark(1986)478U.S.570,  578#V#.)     In  Peoplev.Vera,supra,15Cal.4th269theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthat   appellanthadwaivedtheissueoftheconstitutionalityofhissentenceenhancements   basedonpriorconvictions.3   6      ׀(  Id.,atp.281.)TheVeraCourtacknowledgedthat:   0   ` Notallclaimsoferrorareprohibitedintheabsenceofatimelyobjection  inthetrialcourt.Adefendantisnotprecludedfromraisingforthefirsttimeon  appealaclaimassertingthedeprivationofcertainfundamental,constitutional  rights.(See  Saunders,supra,5Cal.4thatp.592[pleaofonceinjeopardy];P  eople  v.Holmes(1960)54Cal.2d442,443-444[ Cal.Rptr.871,353P.2d583]  [constitutionalrighttojurytrial];cf.  Peoplev.Walker,supra,54Cal.3datpp.  1022-1023[nonconstitutionalnatureofclaimthattrialcourtfailedtoadviseof  consequencesofguilty%  pleasubjectsdefendant'sclaimtorulethaterroriswaived   absenttimelyobjection].)"(#(# (P  eoplev.Vera,supra,15Cal.4thatpp.276277.)Thecourtexplained,however,that $  becausethejurytrialrightatissueinVerawasderivedonlyfromastatestatuteandnot &"" thestateorfederalconstitutions,Mr.Veracouldnot claimhewasdeprivedofthe  constitutionalrighttojurytrialonthepriorprisontermallegations.(  Id.,atp.277,italics  inoriginal.)Therefore,thefailuretoobjectattrialwaivedtheissue.Sinceappellants  claimispreciselythathewasdeprivedofhisconstitutionalrighttojurytrialonthe   factorsusedtoimposeanuppertermandconsecutivesentences,theholdinginVerais   inapplicabletothecaseatbar. h      Additionally,appellantwasnotobligedtoobjectinordertoinvokethe   constitutionalprotectionagainstdoublejeopardy,whichisoneoftheprinciplesonwhich  herelies,post.(  Peoplev.Marks(1991)1Cal.4th56,77,fn.20.)  //   Z(80G! ! "g3"    g3e2  2  .3  0 `   AnObjectionWouldHaveBeenFutileattheTimeofAppellantsTrial g3e݌` (#` (# Ќ    Anobjectionattrialisnotnecessarytopreserveanissueforappealwheresuchan  objectionwouldhavebeenfutileatthetimeoftrial.(  Peoplev.Hill(1998)17Cal.4th  800,820[prosecutorialmisconduct]; % Peoplev.Abbaszadeh(2003)106Cal.App.4th642,  648649[judicialmisconduct].)Thisprinciplealsoapplieswherethestatutoryorcase   lawbindingthetrialcourtatthetimewouldhaveprecludedtheclaim.(SeePe ' oplev. " George,supra,http.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions[pp.1819];seealso## . Peoplev.Birks(1998) $  19Cal.4th108,116,fn.6[nowaiverwherelowercourtwasboundbyhighercourton &!" issue]; 3 Peoplev.Turner(1990)##50Cal.3d668,703[nowaiverwheretrialcounselcould (#$ nothaveforeseenchangeinlawofevidence]##.)#S#Ԁ##Ԁ *%&   AppellantstrialtookplaceinAugust2003andtheBlakelyopinioncamedownin ,(( June2004.AstheFourthDistrictCourtofAppealpointedoutinPeoplev.George,  beforeBlakelybothstateandfederalcaselawhadheldthattheconstitutiondidnot  requireajurytrialfortheimpositionofconsecutivesentences,and [n]opublishedcase  inCaliforniaheldthatadifferentruleappliedinconnectionwiththeimpositionofan   uppertermsentence.( 4 Peoplev.George,supra,http.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions   [p.19].)AsinGeorge,itwouldhavebeenpointlessatthetimeofappellantstrialto   demandajurytrialorareasonabledoubtstandardonthedeterminationoffactorsto   supporttheimpositionofanuppertermorconsecutivesentences.( 4 Ibid.)Theseissues  shouldthereforebereviewedbythisCourt.##Ԁ(Contra, 8 Peoplev.Sample#v#(Sept.13,2004,  C044445)򀀀Cal.App.4th򀀀[2004WL2027285]u   7      .)    3.0 ` IfanObjectionWasRequiredtoPreservetheIssueTrialCounsel  RenderedIneffectiveAssistance ` (#` (#   TheconstitutionalprinciplesonwhichBlakelyreliedweresetoutinApprendiand  otherUnitedStatesSupremeCourtopinionspredatingappellants2003trial.Thus,if  thisCourtdeclinestoreviewtheconstitutionalityofappellantssentenceforlackof  objectionattrial,thendefensetrialcounselsomissionconstitutedineffectiveassistance  ofcounsel,sinceanyreasonablycompetentcriminaldefenseattorneyshouldbefamiliar  withbasicconstitutionalprotectionsandSupremeCourtlawexplainingthem,andthereis   noconceivabletacticalreasonthatcounselwouldhavedeliberatelyfailedtoobjecttoa   greatersentencethanthatwhichcouldconstitutionallyhavebeenimposed.( 9 Stricklandv.   Washington(1984)466U.S.668,691692;C ; uylerv.Sullivan(1980)446U.S.335,343;    = Hardingv.Davis(11thCir.1989)878F.2d1341,13441345; > Peoplev.Ledesma(1987)  43Cal.3d171,215; @ Peoplev.Pope(1979)23Cal.3d412,422; B Peoplev.Borba(1980)  110Cal.App.3d989,997.)##   ^(08Z! !"g3"   g32  C  .3  0    AppellantsSentenceShouldbeReduced >g3S݌(#(# Ќ    Appellantssentencesmustbebasedonthejurysverdictsasmandatedbythe  SixthandFourteenthAmendmentsoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.Thegreatestterm  ofimprisonmentforanyofthecrimesofwhichappellantwasproperlyconvictedbythe  jury#;#Ԁwouldbefiveyears,whichisthemiddletermforkidnap.( D Pen.Code##208,subd.   (a).)Thejudgmentshouldthereforebemodifiedtosentenceappellanttofiveyearsin " stateprisonastheprincipalterm#=#,withthesentencesonallothercountstorun $  concurrently.( } P } en.Code#,#Ԁ1170.1,subd.(a).)Alternatively,ifthisCourtfindsthatthere &!" issufficientevidencetosustainappellantsconvictionofattemptedmurder,thenhis (#$ sentenceshouldbereducedtosevenyears,themiddletermforattemptedmurder,asthe *%& principalterm,withthesentencesonallothercountstorunconcurrently.## ,'(   1.0 ` DenialoftheRighttoaJuryTrialIsStructuralErrorThatIsNot  SusceptibletoHarmlessErrorReview ` (#` (#   Totheextentthattheimpositionofanuppertermononecountandconsecutive  sentencesonothercountsviolatedappellantsfundamentalrighttohaveajurydetermine   thefactsusedtoincreasehissentencebeyondthatauthorizedbythejurysverdictsand   findings,appellantssentencemustbereversedunderBlakelyandApprendi.      ##Withregardtotheimpositionoftheuppertermforattemptedmurder,appellant   acknowledgesthatthesentencingjudgeincludedappellantspriorconvictionsasoneof   sixfactorshefoundinaggravationofthesentence(RT1208),andthatunderexpress  languageinApprendiajurydeterminationisnotrequiredonthatfactor.(  Apprendi,  supra,530U.S.466,490.)Otherfactors,however,includedsuchheavyconsiderationsas  theviciousness,crueltyorcallousnessofthecrime,thecourtsconclusionthatappellant  wasadangertosociety,andthathisperformanceonprobationwas unsatisfactory.(RT  1208.)Inthesecircumstances,thisCourtcannotbeconfidentthatthejudgewouldhave  imposedthesamesentenceifhehadknownthathecouldnotconsidersuchotherfactors  becausetheywerenotfoundbyajurytoexist. !   Theuppertermontheattemptedmurdercountmustthereforealsobereversed. # (See  Peoplev.George,supra,slipopn.atpp.2223[remandwherejudgereliedonfive % ! factorstoimposeuppertermoneofwhichwastheequivalentofpriorconviction '"# finding]##;seealso  Peoplev.Avalos(1984)37Cal.3d216,233[reversalrequiredwhere )$% reviewingcourtcannotdeterminewhetherimproperfactorsweredeterminative];##seealso +&'   Peoplev.Cruz(1995)38Cal.App.4th427,433434[sentencetobesetasidewhere -() reasonablyprobablelessersentencewouldhavebeenimposediftrialcourthadknown  someofitsreasonsforgreatersentencewereimproper].)    ##T#.#heUnitedStatesSupremeCourthighlightedinBlakelythefundamentalnatureof  therightatissuehere:#q#"OurcommitmenttoApprendiinthiscontextreflectsnotjust   respectforlongstandingprecedent,buttheneedtogiveintelligiblecontenttotherightof   jurytrial.Thatrightisnomereproceduralformality,butafundamentalreservationof   powerinourconstitutionalstructure.Justassuffrageensuresthepeople'sultimatecontrol   inthelegislativeandexecutivebranches,jurytrialismeanttoensuretheircontrolinthe  judiciary.[Citations.]Apprendicarriesoutthisdesignbyensuringthatthejudge's  authoritytosentencederiveswhollyfromthejury'sverdict.Withoutthatrestriction,the  jurywouldnotexercisethecontroltheFramersintended."#=#(B s lakely,supra,򀀀U.S.at  p.򀀀[ 8 124S.Ct.atpp##.#|#25382539],underliningadded.)Thehighcourtemphasized  additionallythat,##"[t]hereisnotoneshredofdoubt,however,abouttheFramers'paradigm  forcriminaljustice:notthecivillawidealofadministrativeperfection,butthecommon  lawidealoflimitedstatepoweraccomplishedbystrictdivisionofauthoritybetween   judgeandjury.As  Apprendi__  ݀held,everydefendanthasthe  right__  ݀toinsistthatthe " prosecutorprovetoajuryallfactslegallyessentialtothepunishment.Underthe $  dissenters'alternative,hehasnosuchright.Thatshouldbetheendofthematter."( 8 Id.,򀀀 &"" U.S.atp.򀀀[ 8 124S.Ct.atp.2543],italicsinoriginal,underliningadded.) ($$   Thus,totheextentthatappellantssentencewasbasedonfactsotherthanprior *&& convictionswhichwerenotdeterminedbythejury,andnotestablishedbeyonda ,(( reasonabledoubt,itwasunauthorizedandthereforeunconstitutional.( 8 Blakely,supra,#e#򀀀  ЀU.S.atp.򀀀[ 8 124S.Ct.atpp#B#.##25382539];  Sullivanv.Louisiana#,#Ԁ(1993)508U.S.  275##,# #280.)#Q#    Moreover,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtexplainedin | Peoplev.Ernst,supra,8   Cal.4th441,acasethatinvolvedtherighttoajurytrialonthequestionofguilt,that [i]t   haslongbeenestablishedthatthedenialoftherighttoajurytrialconstitutesa   structuraldefect[][sic]inthejudicialproceedings....( | Id.,atp.449,citing  Peoplev.   Cahill(1993)5Cal.4th478,493,501,and  Peoplev.Holmes(1960)54Cal.2d442,444.)##    Suchfundamentalerrorisnotsusceptibletoharmlesserroranalysisunder  Chapman6   8      oranyotherstandard:"Oncetheproperroleofanappellatecourtengagedin  theChapmaninquiryisunderstood,theillogicofharmlesserrorreviewinthepresent  casebecomesevident.Since,forthereasonsdescribedabove,therehasbeennojury  verdictwithinthemeaningoftheSixthAmendment,theentirepremiseofChapman  reviewissimplyabsent.Therebeingnojuryverdictofguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt,  thequestionwhetherthesameverdictofguiltybeyondareasonabledoubtwouldhave   beenrenderedabsenttheconstitutionalerrorisutterlymeaningless.Thereisnoobject,so " tospeak,uponwhichharmlesserrorscrutinycanoperate...."(  Sullivanv.Louisiana, $  supra,508U.S.atp.#k#Ԁ280[citationomitted];see  Rosev.Clark(1986)478U.S.570,578 &"" [denialofrighttojurynotsubjecttoharmlesserroranalysis].) ($$   Inappellantscase,therebeingnojuryfindingofmostofthefactsusedtoincrease *&& hissentence,thequestionwhetherthe samefindingswouldhavebeenrenderedabsent  theconstitutionalerrorisutterlymeaningless.##    #=#Appellantnotesthatin  UnitedStatesv.Cotton(2002)535U.S.625,thehighcourt  assumed,withoutdeciding,thatanApprendiviolationaffectsthedefendantssubstantial   rights,butfoundthattheerrorinthatcase##Ԁ didnotseriouslyaffectthe fairness,integrity,   orpublicreputationofjudicialproceedings.(  Id.,atpp.632633.)##ԀTheCottoncourt   basedthatconclusiononthefactthatthere,theissuewhichhadnotbeensubmittedtothe   jury!thequantityofdrugsinvolved!hadbeenestablishedattrialbyoverwhelmingand  controvertedevidence.(  Id.,atp.633.)    UnderCotton,then,reversalisrequiredforApprendierrorwhichaffectsthe  fairnessandintegrityoftheproceedings,i..e.atleastwheretherecorddoesnotestablish  byoverwhelminganduncontrovertedevidencethatthefactorsusedtoincreasethe  sentenceexisted.TheCottonrulethereforerequiresreversalofappellantssentence.##Ԁ    ThisCourtcannotspeculatethatajurywouldhavefoundanyfactorsindicating  greaterculpabilityforattemptedmurder,especiallyinlightoftheactualjuryfindingthat   theallegationofpremeditationanddeliberationwasnottrue.(CT593.)Norcanthis " Courtspeculatethatajurywouldhavefoundthattheoffensesofwhichappellantwas $  convictedwereindependentofeachotherandcommittedwithseparateintents,especially &"" inlightofthecircumstancesofthecasesupportingdefensecounselsargumentonthe ($$ pointandthe#E#Ԁfailureoftheprosecutortoargueitandofthetrialjudgetoconsiderit.#I#  (RT *&& 11821183,1200.)## ,((   InApprendiandBlakely,thejudgmentswerereversedandthecaseswere  remandedforfurtherproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththeopinions.(Blakely  v.Washington,  supra,򀀀U.S.򀀀,򀀀[ 8 124S.Ct.atp.2543];#R#   Apprendiv.NewJersey,  supra,530U.S.atp.497# # . )# #ԀThehighcourtdidnotapplyanykindofharmlesserror   analysisineithercase.     Accordingly,theuppertermandconsecutivesentences mustbereversed,and   appellantscaseshouldberemandedtothetrialcourtforimpositionofthesentence   authorizedbythejurysverdicts.Alternatively,intheinterestofjudicialeconomy,this  Courtshouldmodifyappellantssentencesothatthetotaltermofimprisonmentappellant  willserveisfiveyearsifhisconvictionofattemptedmurderisreversedandsevenyears  ifitisnot.    # # 2.0 ` RemandforResentencingWouldViolateStateandFederal  ConstitutionalProtectionsAgainstDoubleJeopardy 2` (#` (#   TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthaslongheldthatdoublejeopardyprinciplesbar  theimpositionofconsecutivesentencesonretrial,whereadefendantreceiveda  concurrentsentenceinitially.(  Peoplev.Ali(1967)66Cal.2d277,281,citedwith ! approvalin  Peoplev.Hanson(2000)23Cal.4th355,359.)Sincethejuryverdictsin # appellantscaseauthorizedonlyaconcurrentsentenceandatmostamiddletermfor %!! attemptedmurder,neitherconsecutivesentencesnoranuppertermmaybeimposedon '## remand.(Seealso @ Peoplev.Marks,supra,1Cal.4thatpp.7179[wherejuryfailedto )%% specifydegreeofmurderanddefendantdeemedconvictedoflesserdegreebyoperation +'' oflawunderSection1157,doublejeopardybarsretrialongreaterdegree].)##