WPCē ȧ-%ڌQN;˶ F}"NU5'}r<[L:rE_xij+'P,C@V #nh+3zgռ>1+RdHk'* cp؁r3C3JP ɈBF #]؏@:6WT3u |)#sm-)U>>| 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0f 0H 0' 0 0 0! 0" 0p# 0F$ 0% 0% 0& 0' 0( 0o) 0G* 0+ 0+ 0, 0lg- 0- 0u. 0/ 0</ 0|0 0}0 0:1 0+<1 0Y1 0</2 0<k2 0a2 0n3 0!B&4 0h4 0<4 07,5 0I5 0-7 07 0~J8 08 99 0: 1e; 7; &;5< (R<z< "<< @<%= ,:= f= <=#= 4= B> 0 C6>y>UA "D:2D "lD0D "D9D E 3E $QEuE .E:E ,E7%F 6\F FF "sJqJ (Kd.KU>K  K5K %L ?L "WL@yL &LL L 2MKM jM *M *M(M *N'*NU.QN 4N,N ,N " O--O ZOU.tO "O/O "O5P JP 8dP.P ,P(P 2Q+PQU*{Q (QIQ R 0R JR <dR&R &R $R $S 04S $dSS .S .S ,T:,T $fT $T .T .Tt U .~W .W W WX >\$\ .] ,3]_]U@] &"^H^?e^ 0lBl .m3Dm .wm3m 2m5 n *?n *in :n"n 2n 2!o .So .oBo $o8pU*Mp wp $pp Dp-q 6@q vq *qq  q .q-r .Lr=zr 0r<r "#sEs ,`ss 8 t!Dt 0et5t 8t!u &#u  Iu iuu &hx9x (x 8x &'y6My .y6y  y "z3)z \z2zz &z/z { {5{  1 &)<O 0? "N  j6  $ցZ &THz &‚H 0 $LHp &3ރ 0BA &:^U8A &y7 (֋4 *2;\U8 &όB 0:7  q 0(~   ώ 0 ߎ#UN^ %M(Nޒ 1u 72U^ w4 m\  `&Times New Roman' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA E Kotler0E Kotler .   2M+J 0_level1  , 5+4 44` hp x 523  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2J+J 0_level2  X 2(` ` ` hp x 223  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2J+J 0_level3   2( hp x 223  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2G+J 0_level4   /% hp x /23  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2G+J 0_level5   /% hp x /23  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2D+J 0_level6   ," hp x ,23  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2D+J 0_level7  4 ,"< <<hp x ,23  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2A+J 0_level8  ` )h hhp x )23  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2A+J 0_level9   ) p x )23  ..  2( ` hp x 2  2MJ 0_levsl1  , 5+4 44` hp x 523  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2JJ 0_levsl2  X 2(` ` ` hp x 223  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2JJ 0_levsl3   2( hp x 223  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2GJ 0_levsl4   /% hp x /23  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2GJ 0_levsl5   /% hp x /23  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2DJ 0_levsl6   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2DJ 0_levsl7  4 ,"< <<hp x ,23  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2AJ 0_levsl8  ` )h hhp x )23  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2AJ 0_levsl9   ) p x )23  Ԁ  2( ` hp x 2  2MJ 0_levnl1  , 5+4 44` hp x 523   2( ` hp x 2  2JJ 0_levnl2  X 2(` ` ` hp x 223   2( ` hp x 2  2JJ 0_levnl3   2( hp x 223   2( ` hp x 2  2GJ 0_levnl4   /% hp x /23   2( ` hp x 2  2GJ 0_levnl5   /% hp x /23   2( ` hp x 2  2DJ 0_levnl6   ," hp x ,23   2( ` hp x 2  2DJ 0_levnl7  4 ,"< <<hp x ,23   2( ` hp x 2  2AJ 0_levnl8  ` )h hhp x )23   2( ` hp x 2  2AJ 0_levnl9   ) p x )23   2( ` hp x 2  64 '4Heading 1       XXX 6 4Heading 2       6B 54Heading 3        XXX 6! 4Heading 4       6H 84Heading 5        XXX <:Default Para.'' ,Title     XXX 0> .Footer  >4X` hp x >:8Page Number622 4Body Text    XXX64Hyperlink    64pmterms31 64pmterms21 8kn 6Block Text X X   /%` ` ` hp x/     2( ` hp x 2XXX< :Footnote TexXXX<:Footnote Ref:'' 8Body Text 2     XXX 64pmterms11 <>> :Body Text I1 X     XXX X <s :Body Text In ,   5+ ` hp x 5  \RX` hp x \XXX , :'' 8Body Text 3XXX:4'8TOA Heading d XXX0'' .Style1XXX<MJ:Table of Aut 8  5+ ` hp x 5  2( ` hp x 2 8    8R)..      XXXXXXXX  %!  X!  %  (2R$ !..      XXXXXXXX   35;AGMSY_11.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.9 i.<124 S.Ct. 25314 +Blakelyv.Washington(2004)124S.Ct.2531>PA ADC 288.513 Pen.Code288.5@PA ADC 28813 Pen.Code288BPENAL CODE section 1203.0667 PenalCodesection1203.066DPA ADC 1203.06613 Pen.Code1203.066FPENAL CODE section 667.617 PenalCodesection667.61PENAL CODE section 667.61 d($      !..      XXXXXXXX  <( ` hp x X<,XX    ,  -  N,  1  -J  ݀Byusingpictures,T.indicatedthatamansprivateishispenis.Shecircled  thefemalesgenitalareatoindicateawomansprivate.(Peo.Exh.1&2;RT  229;SeeCT949!950.)XXN  !..      XXXXXXXX  <( ` hp x X<,XX    ,  -  N,  2  -J  ݀BaldemarSanchez(Blondie)assertedhisrighttoremainsilentunderthe  FifthAmendmentoutsideofthepresenceofthejuryanddeclinedtotestify.  (RT632.)XXNM515 U.S. 5064 0UnitedStatesv.Gaudin(1995)515U.S.506,510O397 U.S. 3584 &InreWinship(1970)397U.S.358,364Q530 U.S. 4664 /Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,479530 U.S. 466124 S.Ct. 2531UPA ADC 117013 Pen.Code1170W196 Cal.App.3d 3804 0Peoplev.Jackson(1987)196Cal.App.3d380,391Y5 Cal.App.4th 4824 -Peoplev.Leung(1992)5Cal.App.4th482,508[PENAL CODE section 6697 PenalCodesection669  !..      XXXXXXXX  <( ` hp x X<  -  NhX  3  -  ݀TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtisconsideringBlakelyseffectonboth  federalandstatesentencingschemes.(UnitedStatesv.Booker(7thCir.2004)  375F.3d508cert.granted,73U.S.L.W.3074(U.S.Aug.2,2004)B  C   ] B  C  Ԁ(No.04  104),andUnitedStatesv.Fanfan(D.Me.June28,2004)No.0347,2004WL   1723114B  C   _ B  C  .)XXNaX} XXX^375 F.3d 5084 gUnitedStatesv.Booker(7thCir.2004)375F.3d508cert.granted,73U.S.L.W.3074(U.S.Aug.2,2004)`2004 WL 17231144 ZNo.04-104),andUnitedStatesv.Fanfan(D.Me.June28,2004)No.03-47,2004WL17231140 $&Times New Romanc477 U.S. 794 +McMillanv.Pennsylvania(1986)477U.S.79397 U.S. 358477 U.S. 79g523 U.S. 2244 6Almendarez-Torresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224i18 USCA 13267 18U.S.C132618 USCA 1326l18 USCA section 13267 18U.S.Csection1326523 U.S. 22418 USCA section 1326pNJ ST 2C:39-4a7 N.J.Stat.Ann.2C:39-4arNJ ST 2C:39-3a7 N.J.Stat.Ann2C:39-3a $VerdanauNJ ST 2C:43-6(a)(2)7 "N.J.Stat.Ann2C:43-6(a)(2)NJ ST 2C:43-6(a)(2)x536 U.S. 5844 #Ringv.Arizona(2002)536U.S.584536 U.S. 584 $Verdana|497 U.S. 6394 %Waltonv.Arizona(1990)497U.S.639~536 U.S. 5454 +Harrisv.UnitedStates(2002)536U.S.545536 U.S. 545WA ST 9A.20.021(1)(b)7 $Wash.Rev.Code9A.20.021(1)(b)WA ST 9.94A.3207 Wash.Rev.Code9.94A.320WA ST 9.94A.210(2)7 !Wash.Rev.Code9.94A.210(2)%2A`Arial143 Wash.2d 2884 ?Statev.Gore(2001)143Wn.2d288,315-316,21P.3d262,277523 U.S. 224523 U.S. 224PA ADC 11703 PENAL CODE section 11707 3).)PenalCodesection1170196 Cal.App.3d 3805 Cal.App.4th 4825 Cal.App.4th 482WA ST 9A.20.021(1)(b)PA ADC 66913 Pen.Code669PENAL CODE section 669PENAL CODE section 66961 Cal.App.2d 1774 0Peoplev.Radovich(1943)61Cal.App.2d177,17961 Cal.App.2d 17761 Cal.App.2d 177PENAL CODE section 669PENAL CODE section 669 j !..      XXXXXXXX  9%` ` ` hp xX9,XX    ,  -  N,  4  -G  ݀The1943Amendment:added"whetherwithorwithoutpossibilityofparole"  intheprovisointhefirstsentence.XXNPENAL CODE section 669PENAL CODE section 669SearchTermSDU_3  !..      XXXXXXXX  <( ` hp x X<,XX    ,  -    5  -J  ݀NԀSeealsoPenalCodesection1203.2aB  C    B  C  Ԁwhichwasenactedtoprevent  inadvertentconsecutivesentencesthatwoulddepriveadefendantofthe  benefitofPenalCodesection669B  C    B  C  ,providingthatsentencesshallbeconcurrent  unlessajudgeordersotherwise.(Peoplev.Ruster(1974)40Cal.App.3d865,  870;overruledonothergroundsinInreHoddinott(1996)12Cal.4th992,  1005B  C    B  C  .)XXNX} XXXPENAL CODE section 1203.2a7 PenalCodesection1203.2aPENAL CODE section 66940 Cal.App.3d 8654 yPeoplev.Ruster(1974)40Cal.App.3d865,870;overruledonothergroundsinInreHoddinott(1996)12Cal.4th992,1005 $(Times New Roman,PA ADC 117013 Pen.Code1170 5 !..      XXXXXXXX  <( ` hp x X<,XX    ,  -  N,  6  -J  ݀CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule4.421listthefollowingfactorsin  aggravation:,+݌  ЌXXN  ,XX  ,  N(a)(1)Thecrimeinvolvedgreatviolence,greatbodilyharm,threatofgreat  bodilyharm,orotheractsdisclosingahighdegreeofcruelty,viciousness,or  callousness;(2)Thedefendantwasarmedwithorusedaweaponatthetime  ofthecommissionofthecrime;(3)Thevictimwasparticularlyvulnerable;(4)   Thedefendantinducedotherstoparticipateinthecommissionofthecrimeor   occupiedapositionofleadershipordominanceofotherparticipantsinits   commission;(5)Thedefendantinducedaminortocommitorassistinthe x  commissionofthecrime;(6)Thedefendantthreatenedwitnesses,unlawfully q   preventedordissuadedwitnessesfromtestifying,subornedperjury,orinany j  otherwayillegallyinterferedwiththejudicialprocess;(7)Thedefendantwas c  convictedofothercrimesforwhichconsecutivesentencescouldhavebeen \  imposedbutforwhichconcurrentsentencesarebeingimposed;(8)The U  mannerinwhichthecrimewascarriedoutindicatesplanning,sophistication, N  orprofessionalism;(9)Thecrimeinvolvedanattemptedoractualtakingor G damageofgreatmonetaryvalue;(10)Thecrimeinvolvedalargequantityof @ contraband;(11)Thedefendanttookadvantageofapositionoftrustor 9 confidenceto,݌ 2 ЌXXN  ,XX    ,g   NԀcommittheoffense. +{ Ё,g ݌̌XXN  ,XX    ,]   N(b)Factsrelatingtothedefendant,includingthefactthat: m  (1)Thedefendanthasengagedinviolentconductwhichindicatesaserious  dangertosociety;(2)Thedefendant'spriorconvictionsasanadultorsustained  petitionsinjuveniledelinquencyproceedingsarenumerousorofincreasing  seriousness;(3)Thedefendanthasservedapriorprisonterm;(4)The  defendantwasonprobationorparolewhenthecrimewascommitted;(5)The  defendant'spriorperformanceonprobationorparolewasunsatisfactory.(Subd   (b)asamendedeffectiveJanuary1,1991.)   Ё (c)Anyotherfactsstatutorilydeclaredtobecircumstancesinaggravation.XXN202 Cal.App.3d 11544 8Peoplev.Quinones(1988)202Cal.App.3d1154,1159-1160155 Cal.App.3d 5394 )Peoplev.Smith(1984)155Cal.App.3d539146 Cal.App.3d 7296 )Peoplev.Young(1983)146Cal.App.3d729120 Cal.App.4th 13314 +Peoplev.Sykes(2004)120Cal.App.4th1331120 Cal.App.4th 1331120 Cal.App.4th 1331PENAL CODE section 667.67 PenalCodesection667.6PENAL CODE section 667.6PENAL CODE section 667.6PENAL CODE section 669165 Cal.App.3d 2144 8Peoplev.Ramirez(1985)165Cal.App.3d214,219-22034 Cal.3d 3354 .Peoplev.Belmontes(1983)34Cal.3d335,347%2A`ArialPA ADC 288PA ADC 28813 Pen.Code288436 PENAL CODE section 667.617 #CT436.)PenalCodesection667.61PENAL CODE section 2887 PenalCodesection288PA ADC 667.6113 Pen.Code667.61PA ADC 667.61PENAL CODE 667.67 PenalCode667.640 Cal.App.4th 3584 3Peoplev.Valenzuela(1995)40Cal.App.4th358,36520 Cal.App.4th 10294 2Peoplev.Dixon(1993)20Cal.App.4th1029,1037PA ADC 66913 Pen.Code66920 Cal.App.3d 6594 vPeoplev.Morris(1971)20Cal.App.3d659,667overruledonothergroundsinPeoplev.Duran(1976)16Cal.3d282,292PENAL CODE section 11707 PenalCodesection1170201 Cal.App.3d 10554 +Peoplev.Arviso(1988)201Cal.App.3d1055PENAL CODE section 11687 PenalCodesection116840 Cal.App.4th 358PA ADC 667.61PA ADC 288.5  !..      XXXXXXXX    X,XX    ,  -    7  -,  ݀NThejurydidfindthatthedefendantcommittedthecontinuoussexualabuse  byforce,duressandviolence,however,therewasnofindingof great violence  ofrequiredbyCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule4.421(a).(CT373.)XXN28 Cal.4th 5434 /Peoplev.Rodriquez(2002)28Cal.4th543,54620 Cal.App.4th 1029PENAL CODE section 1203.06627 Cal.4th 7354 ,Peoplev.Mancebo(2002)27Cal.4th735,742226 Cal.App.3d 6694 ,PeoplevFernandez(1990)226Cal.App.3d669PA ADC 667.61508 U.S. 2754 )Sullivanv.Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275527 U.S. 14 (Nederv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.118 Cal.4th 4704 %Peoplev.Flood(1998)18Cal.4th470527 U.S. 118 Cal.4th 470  !..      XXXXXXXX  K7X` hp x %XKx  ~^X` hp x %'0*,.8135@8:<H?ACXXX ~NXX  8  Supportforthisapproachisfoundbyanalogizingtotheineffective x assistanceofcounselcontext,whereadefendantcomplainingabouterroneous q adviceinconnectionwithhisorheracceptanceofapleaofferneedshowonly j thatheorshewouldhavegonetotrialbutforthebadadvice,notthatheorshe c wouldhaveprevailedatsuchtrial.(Hillv.Lockhart(1985)474U.S.52,59B  C    B  C  .) \  Therighttoajurytrialissoinviolablethatusualnotionsofharmlesserror U  analysisdonotapplytoit.XXN474 U.S. 524 'Hillv.Lockhart(1985)474U.S.52,5926 Cal.4th 3164 2Peoplev.Sengpadychith(2001)26Cal.4th316,32491 Cal.App.4th 11974 5Peoplev.Scott(2001)91Cal.App.4th1197,1209-1211234 F.3d 4834 DUnitedStatesv.Garcia-Guizar(9thCir.2000)234F.3d483,488-489386 U.S. 184 ,Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,24527 U.S. 15 Cal.4th 5804 P Citations.](Peoplev.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580,589,fn.513 Cal.4th 5904 > Peoplev.Valladoli(1996)13Cal.4th590,60615 Cal.4th 2694 > Peoplev.Vera(1997)15Cal.4th269,276-2775 Cal.4th 58054 Cal.2d 4424 > Peoplev.Holmes(1960)54Cal.2d442,443-44417 Cal.4th 8004 )Peoplev.Hill(1998)17Cal.4th800,820106 Cal.App.4th 6424 8Peoplev.Abbaszadeh(2003)106Cal.App.4th642,648-64919 Cal.4th 1084 0Peoplev.Birks(1998)19Cal.4th108,116,fn.6 T !..      XXXXXXXX  ?+ ` hp x X?  X  -  NhX N  9  -  N SeePeoplev.Martinez(2003)31Cal.4th673,700B  C     B  C  Ԁ(Apprendidoesnot  requireapplicationofreasonabledoubtstandardtojurydeterminationoftruth  ofaggravatingcircumstanceincapitalcase);Peoplev.Goodridge(2001)2001  WL1656604B  C     B  C  Ԁat78(Apprendidoesnotapplytofactsusedtoimposeupper  termundertheDSL);Peoplev.Nelson(1978)85Cal.App.3d99,101101B  C    B  C  Ԁ(no  righttoproofbeyondareasonabledoubtonaggravatingfactorsusedtoimpose   upperterm).(AppellantcitestheunpublisheddecisioninGoodridge,notas   controllingauthority,buttodemonstratethatpriortoBlakelythelegal   landscapemadeApprendichallengestoCaliforniasDSLfutile.)N@ x XFXXXXXF\  ` GoudyOlSt BT 31 Cal.4th 6734 -Peoplev.Martinez(2003)31Cal.4th673,7002001 WL 16566044 *Peoplev.Goodridge(2001)2001WL165660485 Cal.App.3d 994 1Peoplev.Nelson(1978)85Cal.App.3d99,101-101\  ` GoudyOlSt BT17 Cal.4th 1484 8Peoplev.Williams(1998)17Cal.4th148,161-162,fn.6(2W$ !..      XXXXXXXX  XXX  0  4($6713#|x($..      XXXXXXXXHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)"i)-1 i1:i+00-U !..      XXXXXXXX  _       6XX8XXdd87$NXX     $e  INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA$e݌  Ќ  XXN  NXX <(  hp x X<PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA,No.126182  E( ` hp x  X E `     h      p CourtofAppealNo. F     `     h      p F042592   ?(  hp x X ?   PlaintiffandRespondent,   p TulareCounty x  F         h      p No.79557 x  E( ` hp x  X Evs. q    KEVINMICHAELBLACK, c   `  DefendantandAppellant. U  _______________________________________/ N  NN      &    APPELLANTSOPENINGBRIEFONTHEMERITS+  Ԍ @ Ќ  NN    '@"NN      &  "  ISSUESPRESENTED"  jԌ 2 Ќ  NN   '2 9 (03"""  ,B+4 44` hp x X B  X,  B%` ` hp x 444` X B 2  1  .3   `   WhateffectdoesBlakelyv.Washington(2004)124S.Ct.2531B  C   ; B  C   $t [ Blakely]haveonthevalidityofthedefendantsupperterm f sentence? ݌ X Ќ X$ X ` ` X $   ""  ,B+4 44` hp x X B  X,B%` ` hp x 444` X B 2  2  .3   `   WhateffectdoesBlakelyhaveonthetrialcourtsimpositionof J consecutivesentences? ݌ < Ќ X$ X ` ` X $   2NN    2  STATEMENTOFTHECASE2.݌ #   ЌNN  2NN    6 ` Vp x X 62   ` OnFebruary7,2002,thedistrictattorneyfiledanamended %!" informationchargingappellantincountonewithcontinuoussexualabuse. '#$ (Pen.Code288.5B  C   = B  C  )andincountstwoandthreewithlewdandlascivious )$&  conduct(Pen.Code288B  C   ? B  C  ,subd.(a).)2f݌ +&( 6 6 6  ьNN  2NN  H( ` hp x ` VX H2   ` Itwasallegedastocountonethatappellantcommittedtheoffense   byuseofforce,duressormenacewithinthemeaningofPenalCodesection  1203.066B  C   A B  C  ,subdivision(a)(1)andthatappellanthadsubstantialsexual  conductwithavictimundertheageof14.(Pen.Code1203.066B  C   C B  C  ,subd.   (a)(8).)Itwasallegedtoallcountsthatappellantcommittedspecified x  sexualactswithmorethanonevictimwithinthemeaningofPenalCode j  section667.61B  C   E B  C  ,subdivision(b)and1203.066,subdivision(a)(7).(CT102 \  !107.)2o݌ N  ЌNN  2NN  2@   ` AppellantwasarraignedonFebruary8,2002,pleadednotguiltyand @ deniedthespecialallegations.(CT108.)2@݌ 2 ЌNN  2NN  2   ` AppellantsjurytrialwascalledonNovember4,2002butultimately $t traileduntilNovember12,2002.(CT220!223,262.)2݌ f ЌNN   ` OnNovember22,2002,thejuryfoundappellantguiltyofallcounts X andspecialallegations.(CT372374.) J  ` OnJanuary9,2003,thecourtgrantedthedistrictattorneysmotion < todismissthePenalCodesection667.61B  C   G B  C  Ԁallegationastocountone. !. Appellantwassentencedtotheaggravatedtermof16yearsoncountone #   (continuoussexualconduct).Thecourtimposedconsecutive15yeartolife %!" termsoncountstwoandthree(lewdandlasciviousconduct.)(CT436! '#$ 437.)Thetotaltermwas46yearstolife. )$&  ` NoticeofappealwastimelyfiledonMarch6,2003.(CT820.) +&(  ` ApetitionforRehearingwasfiledonJune17,2004. -(*  ` OnJune28,2004,thecourtmodifiedtheopinionwithoutchanging  thejudgmentanddeniedthepetition.   ` ThisCourtgrantedreviewonJuly28,2004.    STATEMENTOFFACTS   2NN    2   ` T.,thedaughterofRickyRichardsonandMelanieBlackwasborn x  onFebruary9,1992andwas10yearsoldatthetimeoftrial.(RT213.)Her j  parentsdivorcedin1994.(RT433!434.)MelanielivedwithGilbertZayas \  from1993through1998.(RT761.)Theirrelationshipwasvolatileand N  physicallyviolentandT.witnessedmanyofthefights.(RT492,762! @ 763.)T.accusedZayasofmolestingher,butlaterrecanted.(RT284285, 2 299300,492,764765.)T.toldMelaniethatshedreamedthataghostwas $t inherroom,andtheghosttouchedher.(RT548!549.)SoonafterT.made f herallegations,ZayasandMelanieseparated.(RT286.)Melaniebeganto X livewithappellantinMay1999andtheymarriedinJanuary2000.(RT J 432.)24݌ < ЌNN  'NN    '#   ` Melanieandappellantlivedat432ParkViewinTularewithT.and !. twoyoungerchildren.(RT231,233.)Eachchildhadhis/herownbedroom. #   (RT233.)RichardsonandhiswifeAprillivednearby.(RT357!358.) %!" Duringthe2000!2001schoolyear,whenT.wasinthethirdgrade,T. '#$ spenteveryotherweekwitheachcouple.(RT222,354.)'##݌ )$& Ќ  NN  'NN    '-&   ` LikethesituationwithZayas,Melanieandappellantfought +&( frequently!sometimesinfrontofT..(RT274!276,279.)Attimes,the -(* policecame.(RT284.)Itwasoneofthethingsthatshelikedtheleastabout  livingwithappellant.(RT279.)'-&&݌  Ќ  NN  H l<`    ` Whenshewasmidwaythroughthirdgrade,T.awokeonenight  around2:30a.m.(RT224!225.)Melaniewasatwork.T.wasundressed,   lyingsupineonthebed.Appellantwaslyingontopofherandholdingher x  armsbyhersides.(RT226!227,230231.)Hisprivatewasinsideher j  private.(RT228.)-  J I  1     -*r  ݀Ithurt.(RT230.)AssoonasT.awoke,appellantmoved \  offofher.HetoldT.nottotellanyone.(RT230.) N  'NN    'S+   ` Anothertime,duringthesummerfollowingthirdgrade,T.wentinto @ herbedroomtochangeforbedbeforejoiningtheothersinthelivingroom 2 towatchavideo.(RT233235.)AppellantwalkedintoT.sbedroomwhile $t shewaschangingandpushedheronthebed.(RT236.)Appellanttookhis f clothesoffandtriedtotouchher,butT.said, Noandhithim.Shewent X intohersistersroomtofinishchanging.(RT238.)'S++݌ J Ќ  NN  'NN    '_.   ` Duringthesummerbetweenthirdandforthgrade,whenT.wasin < Melaniesbedroomandlyingonthebed,appellantundressedT.,climbed !. ontopofherandtouchedherprivatewithhisprivateandmovedupand #   down.(RT244.)T.triedtostruggleandaskedhimtostop.(RT240!241.) %!" AppellantheldT.shandswithonehandandcoveredhermouthwiththe '#$ other.(RT242!243.)'_..݌ )$& Ќ  NN   ` Afterhestopped,T.waitedinherbedroomforMelanietocome  homeandtoldherabouttheincident,butMelaniedidntbelieveher.(RT  244!245.)  'NN    ''2   ` T.statedthatwhenshewasinherroomwhenshewaseightornine,   shesawstuffcomingoutofappellantsprivateandgoonherHelloKitty x  purpleblanket.Appellantwashedtheblanketafewdayslater.(RT246! j  247,609,611.)''22݌ \  Ќ  NN  'NN    'I4   ` AroundJuly4,2001,T.fellasleeponthelivingroomsofawhile N  watchingamovie.(RT249.)Whenshewokeup,shewasonMelaniesbed. @ (RT249.)T.sclotheswereonthefloorbythebed.(RT250.)Appellant 2 wasonthebedbesideher.(RT250.)Itwaslikeadream,butshethought $t thathehadbeenontopofherandputhisprivateinherprivate.(RT251 f 252.)Somethingcameoutofappellantsprivateandwentontothegreen, X tiedyedblanket.(RT252!253,304.)'I44݌ J Ќ  NN  'NN    '7   ` InFebruary,T.experiencedalittlebitofvaginalbleeding.(RT253, < 444.)Melaniethoughtthatshemighthavestartedhermensesorthatshe !. mayhavefallenonatoy.(RT445446.)EarlierMelanietoldpolicethatit #   mighthavebeenfromabikeaccident.(RT601.)'77݌ %!" Ќ  NN  'NN    '9   ` InJune2001,T.firsttoldMelaniethatappellanthadbeenmolesting '#$ her,butMelaniedidnotbelieveher.(RT258,439.)Melanieconfronted )$& appellantwiththeaccusation,buthedeniedit.(RT441442.)Appellant +&( andMelaniewerehavingmaritalproblemsandMelanietoldT.thatshe -(* wouldmakesurethatshewasnotaroundappellant.Appellantmovedout  fortwotothreeweeks.(RT442!443.)Becauseappellantwasthethird  personthatT.claimedhadmolestedher,Melaniewantedtimetoconsider  howtohandlethesituation.(RT442.)'99:݌   Ќ  NN  'NN    '=   ` Whenappellantreturned,MelaniecontactedRichardsonandalerted x  himtotheallegations.Theyagreedtomeetthenextday.(RT443.)'==݌ j  Ќ  NN   ` InAugust2001,T.wasatRichardsonandAprilshouse.T.was \  upsetbecausealthoughshehadchosentostaywithMelanieduringthe N  schoolyearandRichardsonduringthesummer,nowshewantedtoresume @ the50/50custodysplit.XXNԀ(RT343,524,557.)NXXShediscussedproblems,other 2 thanthemolestationthatshewashavingwithappellant.(RT522.) $t RichardsoncalledMelanieandinthecourseofthatconversationlearned f aboutT.sallegations.(RT522!523.)XXNԀNXXԀT.wentintoRichardsonsbedroom X andbegantocryandRichardsonaskedApriltotalkwithMelanie.(RT261, J 525526.) <  ` AprilaskedMelanieifappellanthadtouchedherininappropriate !. ways.T.screamed,kickedherlegsandsaidthatshewasgoingtogetinto #   trouble,buttoldAprilthatappellanthadtouchedherwithhisprivate,(RT %!" 536.)Sheexplainedthatshehadaholebetweenherlegsandthathad '#$ appellantputhisprivateinpartway.(RT527.)T.toldAprilthatwhenshe )$& informedMelanieoftheincident,Melanieandappellanttoldherthatshe +&( musthavebeendreaming.(RT529.)AppellantwarnedT.thatifshetold -(* anyone,hewouldgotoprisonandbebeatentodeath.(RT349,529.)  Richardsoncalledthepolice.(RT346.)   ` Overthenextfewweeks,T.toldAprilthatappellanthadrapedher  whileshewasintheshower.(RT530.)T.alsorelatedthatappellanthad   touchedhergirlfriendsataparty.(RT347,530.) x   ` Approximately6monthsearlier,twiceT.toldAprilthatshewas j  hurting downthere.(RT531.)OnceAprilnotedthattheareawasredand \  askedMelanieifT.hadusedanirritantsuchasbubblebath.Thesecond N  timeT.exhibitedarashontheinsideofherlegsandwasreferredtoan @ allergist.(RT531!532.) 2  ` T.saidoncethatappellantpickedherupwhenshewasinthegarage, $t tookherintothehouseandrapedher.Sometimesappellantcameintoher f bedroom,pickedherupandputheronhermomsbed.(RT532.)Shesaid X thattheseincidentsoccurredduringtheyearthatshewasinthirdgrade. J (RT533.) <  ` Afterthetelephonecall,Richardsonwenttowork.T.wasupsetand !. wantedhergrandmaandPapa.(RT534.)T.sAuntChristy,andher #   babysitterBaldamerSanchez,towhomT.referredasPapa,cametothe %!" house.(RT534.) '#$  ` Evenbeforethepolicewerecalled,AprilnoticedchangesinT..T. )$& lostweightandhergradesdropped.Shecriedeasily,haddifficultysleeping +&( andappearedagitated.T.spediatriciangaveherantianxietymedication -(* andshebegantoseeacounselor.(RT351,537!540,552.)Richardson  couldnotrecallchangesinT.sbehavior.(RT351.)   ` Tenyearoldtwins,A.andH.wereclassmatesofT.whentheywere  inthe3rdor4thgrade.(RT379,382383,401.)Bothgirlswenttoabirthday   slumberpartyatT.shouseandthenreturnedtothehouseafewdayslater x  foranothersleepover.(RT383,404,406,424.)Atfirsttheyplayed j  outside,butafterMelanieleftT.andanotherfriend,Lisaundressedand \  encouragedthetwinstostrip.(RT384!386,391,393,405.)Appellanttold N  thegirlsthattheycouldundress,orsaybadwordsinhispresence.(RT @ 393394,405.) 2  ` Thekidsranthroughthehouseandappellanttriedtopickthemupto $t stopthemfromrunning.(RT407,416,593.)Theywentintotheliving f roomandappellantaskedthegirlstositonhislapastheywatchedTV.(RT X 407.)Hewasdressed.(RT396.)Herubbedtheirlegs,butdidnottouch J their privates.(RT387!390,409.)Afterafewminutesthegirlswent < intoT.sroomanddressed.(RT390,411.) !.  ` A.andH.firstsaidthatappellanttoldthemnottotell.(RT391,411) #   However,H.thencorrectedhertestimonyandsaidthatitwasLisawhotold %!" thekidsnottotell.(RT418,420.) '#$  ` Afterappellantwasarrested,thepolicecontactedA.andH.smom, )$& LaraeTallonandtoldherthatherkidsmayhavewitnessedamolestation. +&( (RT424!426.)Tallontalkedtothekids.(RT431.) -(* ` ` InAugust2001,T.,A.andH.wereinterviewedbytheMrs.Anthony  oftheChildAbuseResponseTeam.(CART.)(RT584585.)Mrs.  AnthonyworksfortheDistrictAttorneysOffice.(RT581.)Detective  GaleWatsonwatchedthoseinterviewsthoughatwowaymirrorand   interviewedthechildrenhimself.(RT579!580.)A.toldtheinterviewer x  thatappellantdidnttouchherprivatespot,buthewasgettingkindofclose. j  (RT588.)WhenH.wasaskedwhyshedidnttellhermom,replied, Ithink \  hesaiddonttellanybody.IthinkLisa,LisaandT.saiddonttellanybody. N  So,thatswhyIdidnttellanybody.(RT591.) @  ` InitiallyWatsonstatedthatheknewBaldemarSanchezbecauseboth 2 weremembersofthesameveteransorganization.(RT604,629.)Watson $t didnottalktoSanchezabouttheBlackinvestigation.(RT604.)Watson f knewthatthepolicewereinvestigatingSanchez,butwasnotinvolvedin X that.(RT629!630.)WatsonwasunawarethatT.hadpreviouslyaccused J SanchezandZayasofmolestingher.(RT621623.)-  K I  2     -Ynow   <  ` Thenextday,Watsontestifiedthatalthoughtherewasapersonin !. theveteransorganizationnamedBaldemarSanchezwhowasnicknamed #   Blondie,itwasnotthesamepersonwhowasbeinginvestigatedbythe %!"  police.(RT668.) '#$  ` AppellantscousinJessicaMayfieldrelatedthatwhenshewas13   yearsold,shewentswimmingwithappellant.(RT316!318.)Appellant  threwheraroundandtouchedher byplacesthatheshouldnthavetouched  [her].(RT318.)Shedidntthinkanythingofitatthetime.(RT318.)    ` Whentheyreturnedtoappellantsapartment,appellantaskedherto x  tryonadressthatappellantswifeplannedtogivetoMayfield.(RT318.) j  AppellantcameintotheroomasMayfieldwaschangingandtouchedher \  breast.(RT320.)Mayfieldtoldappellanttoleave.(RT320!321.)When N  Mayfieldreturnedtothelivingroom,appellanttoldhertotakeashowerto @ washthechorineoutofherhair,butsherefused.(RT321.)Later,appellant 2 followedMayfieldintothegarageandgrabbedherbreast.(RT321.) $t  ` AppellanttoldMayfieldnottotellandpromisedtobuyherclothes f forhighschoolorgiveheracar.(RT322323.)Mayfieldtoldherparents X whathadhappened.(RT323.)Herdadspokewithappellantandappellant J apologized.(RT323.) <  ` Appellanthadbeendrinkingonthedayofthatincident.(RT326.) !. !        &  !a  DefenseCase!aa eraԌ #   Ќ      XXN'#a   ` NXXSandraKnudson,anursepractitionerwasemployedfor15yearsas % " coordinatoroftheUniversityMedicalCentersChildSexualAbuse '"$ EvaluationProgram.(RT679!680.)Sheexaminedthephotographs )$& providedbytheDistrictAttorneysOfficeandT.smedicalreportsfrom +&( HanfordanddidnotseeanyevidenceofoldornewtraumatoT.sgenital w-(* oranalareas.(RT682,685,687.)SheobservednoindicationthatT.had  beenpenetrated.(RT685.)Shedidnotfindanabsenceofhymenealtissue.  (RT704.)     ` Knudsonadmittedthatthereareclearsignsofabuseinonly9%of   thecasesandthepicturesdidnotprovethatT.hadnotbeenmolested.(RT x  703.) j     ` BaldemarSanchez,afriendofthefamilysandT.sbabysitter,drove \  T.toschoolandcaredforT.attimeswhenMelanieorRichardsonwereat N  work.(RT356,470.)HehadbeenT.sbabysitterforyearsandhadalso @ beenMelaniesbabysitterwhenshewasachild.(RT469.) 2  ` In1994,T.observedMelanieurinatingandaskedherwhypeepee $t cameoutofherpussy.(RT467.)WhenMelaniequestionedT.,T.saidthat f Sanchezhadtaughthertheword.(RT467.)ShealsorelatedthatSanchez X touchedherprivateandbutt.Melaniewenttothepolice.(RT468.)Fora J while,MelaniestoppedSanchezfromseeingT.,butSanchezresumed < babysittingafterthepolicetoldMelaniethattherewasnoevidencethat !. Sanchezhaddoneanythingimproper.(RT468!469.) #    ` SanchezboughtT.jewelryandclothes.WhenMelaniedidlaundryat %!" Sanchezhome,shefounddifferentchildrensclothingthere.(RT473! '#$ 474.) ` AlthoughSanchezdidnthaveMelaniespermissiontochangeT.s )$& clothesorunderwear,T.returnedhomeindifferentunderwearattimes.(RT +&( 474.) -(*  ` SanchezhaddailyaccesstoT..SanchezboughtT.presentsincluding  clothesandcandyandgavehermoney.(RT290.)Occasionally,T.spent  thenightatSanchezhome.(RT291.)SanchezboughtbathingsuitsforT.  andtheotherkidsandhadthemtryonthesuits.(RT291.)    ` Sanchezkeepsablanketinhiscar.(RT294.) x   ` ChristinaS.was29yearsoldatthetimeoftrial.(RT708.)Sanchez j  begantomolestherwhenshewas8or9.(RT710!711.)Sanchezwould \  letChristinaandherfriendsMelanieBlackandTaraM.drivehiscarwhile N  seatedonhislap.(RT712.)WhenChristinadrove,Sanchezgrabbedher @ vaginalarea.(RT712.)Hetookthegirlstothestore,boughtthemcandy 2 andgavethemmoneytogothefair.(RT714.)Whenthepolicecametothe $t housetoinvestigateSanchez,ChristinadeniedthatSanchezfondledher f becauseshedidntwanttogethimintotroubleandbecausetheotherkids X wouldbeangryifChristinasactionscausedtheflowofgiftstostop.(RT J 715!717.) <  ` SanchezbabysatTaraMsyoungdaughterTiffany.(RT725.)At !. times,SanchezpickedupTiffanyandtookherforicecream.Often,T. #   accompaniedSanchez.(RT725.)Whenherdaughterwas3,Tarawas %!" bathingher.Thelittlegirlrubbedacrayonbetweenherlegsandsaid, Papa '#$ doesthiswithascrewdriver.(RT727!728.)Aroundthesametime, )$& whenthechildreturnedfromSanchezhouseshehadtalcumpowder +&( aroundhervagina.(RT727.)TaraterminatedcontactwithSanchezandtold -(* himthathecouldnothelphimselftoherdaughter.(RT727!728.)Tara  reportedSanchezactionstothepolice.(RT725.)   ` WhenLisaS.wasyoung,Blondiewasherneighbor.(RT734.)  Blondietookherbowlingandgolfingandboughthercandy.(RT735!   736.)Whentheywerealone,Blondiefondledherbreastsandvagina.(RT x  736.)Thisoccurredwhenheplacedheronthewashingmachine,orinhis j  caroronthebed.(RT737.)Afterspeakingwiththedefenseinvestigator, \  LisaS.contactedthepolice. N   ` Duringthattimethattheylivedtogether,ZayasandMelaniewere @ physicallyabusivetoeachother.(RT755.)AfterheandMelaniehada 2 confrontation,T.accusedhimofmolestingher.(RT776.)T.watchedporn $t channelsonthecabletelevisionandappearedtobeengrossed.(RT766! f 767.)Thosechannelsshoweddepictionsofsexualintercourse.(RT767.) X  ` ZayasthoughtthatSanchezspenttoomuchtimewithT..WhenT. J returnedhome,shealwayshadagiftormoney.(RT769.) <  ` ThedefensearguedthatT.lackedcredibility.(RT843.)T.livedina !. homeinwhichthemenbeatMelanieandT.fabricatedincidentsofmolest #   toprotecthermom.(RT844.)T.saccountsoftheincidentstotheCART %!" interviewandhertrialtestimonywereinconsistent.(RT851.)Shedidnt '#$ knowwhatintercourseentailed.(RT844.)Shedescribedejaculateasgreen. )$&  (RT844.)Shedescribedthatsheandappellantwerelyingfacetoface +&( duringtheirencounters,whichwouldhavebeenphysicallyimpossible  giventheirsizedifference.(RT845.)    ` ThedefensecontendedthatAprildislikedMelanieandApril  influencedT.byrepeatedlydiscussingtheeventswithher.(RT847.)T.   claimedthatappellantrapedherwithouttouchingher.Inactuality,itwas x  Sanchezwhowastouchingher.(RT852.) j   ` Therewasnophysicalevidenceofrape.(RT854.)Ifanadultrapes \  an8yearold,itwouldbelikelythatherhymenwouldbetorn,butthatwas N  notthecase.(RT855.) @  ` A.andH.sstoriesdiffered.ItwasT.andLisawhotoldthekidsto 2 undress.Pattingthekidslegswasnothingmorethanaffection.(RT856! $t 857,859860.) f  ` ItwasSanchezpatternofbehaviorthatconnectedhimtoT..(RT X 864.)Hemolestedherin1994andhadasexualinterestinher.(RT865.) J Heshoweredherwithgifts.SanchezwasthereonthenightthatT.reported < therapeandonthemorningbeforethesleepover.T.couldntriskaccusing !. Sanchezofmolestationbutblameditonappellant.(RT865.) #     %!" NN      &  [  @..INTRODUCTION[ lԌ  Ќ  NN  XXN ` NXXItisaxiomaticthattheSixthAmendmentrighttoatrialbyjuryand  theDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmententitleacriminal  defendanttoajurydeterminationofeveryelementoftheoffensewith   whichheischargedonthebasisofproofbeyondareasonabledoubt. x  (UnitedStatesv.Gaudin(1995)515U.S.506,510B  C   L B  C  ;InreWinship(1970) j  397U.S.358,364B  C   N B  C  .)'  \   ` Historically,therewasnodifferentiationbetweenelementsofa N  crimeandfactorsthatatrialcourtcouldconsiderwhensentencinga @ defendant.Crimesweresanctionspecificandleftthejudgelittlesentencing 2 discretion,otherthanapardon.(Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S. $t 466,479B  C   P B  C  Ԁ[ Apprendi].)Howeversincethe1800s,therehasbeenashift f fromstatutesprovidingfixedtermsentencestothosegrantingjudges X discretiontosentenceanoffenderwithinfixedstatutoryorconstitutional J limits.(Id.atpp.481B  C   R B  C  Ԁ!482.)Thecourtsexerciseofdiscretionwas < commonlybasedonfactsdeterminedbythecourtbyapreponderanceof !. theevidence. #    ` However,sincetheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasissuedopinions %!" inApprendiandBlakelyv.Washington(2004)124S.Ct.2531B  C   S B  C  [ Blakely], '#$ thesentencinglandscapehaschangedbecausethesecasesmakeclearthat, )$&  Otherthanthefactofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenalty +&( foracrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedto -(* ajury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Apprendi,supra,530U.S.  466,477B  C   R B  C  .)Thestatutorymaximumisdefinedasthemaximumacourtmay  imposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.(Blakely,supra,124S.Ct.2531,  2537B  C   S B  C  .)    ` Mr.BlackmaintainsthatBlakelyandApprendiaffectCalifornias x  sentencingschemeintwosignificantways.First,becausethemidtermis j  thepresumptivechoicewhensentencingadefendantpursuantto \  CaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLaw,allfactsonwhichthe N  prosecutionorcourtreliestoimposetheaggravatedtermmustbetriedto @ thejuryandprovenbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Pen.Code1170B  C   T B  C  ,subd. 2 (a)(3)XXN;NXXPeoplev.Jackson(1987)196Cal.App.3d380,391B  C   V B  C  ;Peoplev.Leung $t (1992)5Cal.App.4th482,508B  C   X B  C  ;Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420,subd.(a).) f  ` Second,becauseconcurrentsentencesarethepresumptiveterm X pursuanttoPenalCodesection669B  C   Z B  C  ,andthecourtisrequiredtomake J findingsextrinsictothosefoundbythejuryinordertoimposea < consecutivesentence,allsentencingschemesthatgrantdiscretiontothe !. courttoimposetermsconsecutivelyfallwithintheApprendi/Blakely #   restrictionsaswell. %!"  ` Accordingly,thesesentencingschemesmust beimplementedina '#$ waythatrespectstheSixthAmendment.(Blakely,supra,atp.2540B  C   S B  C  .)-  \ I  3     -tere   )$& Ї!      &  !  XXNARGUMENT!  lהԌ  Ќ      'Y      &  ѕ  THESIXTHANDFOURTEENTHAMENDMENTSѕ lԌ | Ќ     TOTHEUNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTION'% b REQUIRETHEJURYTOFINDBEYONDA H REASONABLEDOUBTFACTSTHATARE . ~ USEDEITHERTOAGGRAVATEA  d DEFENDANTSSENTENCEORIMPOSE  J CONSECUTIVESENTENCES  0   A.NXXEvolutionOfTheBlakelyRuleXXN         ` NXX Forthepasttwodecades,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthas   struggledtocreateaconsistentrulethatconsideredboththelegislative }  prerogativetodefinetheelementsofcrimesandacriminaldefendants o constitutionalrights. a 'NN    '    ` InMcMillanv.Pennsylvania(1986)477U.S.79B  C   b B  C  ,[ McMillan],the S SupremeCourtcoinedtheterm sentencingfactor.McMillaninvolveda E challengetoaPennsylvanialawthatmandatedaminimumof5years 7 imprisonmentforenumeratedfeloniesifajudgefoundbyapreponderance )y oftheevidencethatthedefendantvisiblypossessedafirearmduringthe k commissionofaspecifiedoffense.  ' x݌  !] Ќ  NN  'NN    ']   ` Inconsolidatedcases,petitionersarguedthatstatutewas "O  unconstitutionalunderthe6thand14thAmendmentsbecause visible $A " possessionwasanelementofoffenserequiringproofbeyondareasonable &3"$  doubt.(InreWinship,supra,397U.S.358B  C   d B  C  .)Petitionersalsoarguedthat (%$& evenifvisiblepossessionwasnotanelement,dueprocessrequiredproof  beyondareasonabledoubt.']݌     NN   ` TheSupremeCourtdisagreedandheldthatatrialcourtcouldfinda  sentencingfactortobetruebyapreponderanceoftheevidencewithout   offendingtheConstitutionwhenthefindingdidnotsubjectadefendanttoa x  greaterpunishmentthanthatpermittedbylaw.(Id.atpp.88B  C   e B  C  ,91!93.) j   ` TheSupremeCourtrevisitedtheissueinAlmendarezTorresv. \  UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224B  C   f B  C  Ԁ[ AlmendarezTorres]andappearedto N  extendMcMillansholding.InAlmendarezTorres,thedefendantpleaded @ guiltytoaviolationofreenteringtheUnitedStatesafterhavingbeen 2 previouslydeported.(18U.S.C1326B  C   h B  C  ,subd.(a).)Healsoadmittedthathe $t hadsufferedthreepriorconvictionsforaggravatedfelonies.(Id.atp.227B  C   j B  C  .) f Subdivision(a)providesforasentenceofnomorethantwoyears X imprisonment.However,18U.S.Csection1326B  C   k B  C  Ԁsubdivision(b)(2)specified J thatadefendantcouldbesubjecttoimprisonmentforatermofupto20 < yearsifhewaspreviouslydeported subsequenttoaconvictionfor !. commissionofanaggravatedfelony.(AlmendarezTorres,supra,atp. #   226B  C   m B  C  .) %!"  ` Atsentencing,AlmendarezTorresassertedhecouldnotbe '#$ sentencedtotheaggravatedtermbecausetheindictmentmentionedneither )$& thecodesectionprovidingfortheaggravatedtermnorhisearlier +&( aggravatedfelonyconvictions. -(*  ` TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtrecognizedthatthedeportation  statutechangedthemaximumpenaltyforthecrime.Nonetheless,theCourt  concludedthatCongresshaspowertotreatapriorconvictionasa  sentencingfactor.(Id.,atp.247B  C   n B  C  .)   XXN ` NXXApprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466B  C   R B  C  Ԁandsubsequentcases x  appearedtolimittheholdingsinMcMillanandAlmandarezTorresby j  holdingthattherewereconstitutionallimitstoStatesauthoritytodefine \  awayfactsthatwerenecessarytoconstitutecriminaloffense.(Apprendi, N  supra,.atpp.486B  C   R B  C  Ԁ!487.) @  ` Apprendifiredshotsintothehomeofan AfricanAmericanfamily. 2 Initially,heclaimedthathefiredtheshotsbecausehedidnotwantablack $t familyinhispreviouslyallwhiteneighborhoodbutthenretractedthe f statement.Hepleadedguiltytotwocountsofseconddegreepossessionofa X firearmforanunlawfulpurpose(N.J.Stat.Ann.2C:394aB  C   o B  C  ),andone J countofthethirddegreeoffenseofunlawfulpossessionofanantipersonnel < bomb.(N.J.Stat.Ann2C:393aB  C   q B  C  .)UnderNewJerseylaw,Ns+ as  s+N ssecond !. degreeoffensecarriesapenaltyrangeof5to10years.(N.J.Stat.Ann #   2C:436(a)(2)B  C   t B  C  .)Followingahearingonthepurposeoftheshooting,the %!" courtfoundbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatApprendihad '#$ committedahatecrimeandenhancedApprendissentence.Apprendi )$& assertedthattheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentrequired +&( thejurytomakefactualdeterminationsbasedonproofbeyondareasonable -(* doubtbeforeanincreaseinthemaximumprisonsentencecouldbe  imposed.   ` TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtagreedandheldthattheDue  ProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentandadefendantsrighttoa   jurytrialasguaranteedbytheSixthAmendmentrequiredthat, Otherthan x  thefactofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrime j  beyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury,and \  provedbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Id.,atp.477B  C   v B  C  .) N   ` TwoyearslaterinRingv.Arizona(2002)536U.S.584B  C   w B  C  Ԁ[ Ring],the @ HighCourtreliedonApprendiandstruckdownanArizonastatutethat 2 permittedthetrialcourttofindcertainenumeratedfactorsinacapitolcase $t andsentenceadefendanttodeath.RingarguedthatArizona'scapital f sentencingschemeviolatedtheSixthAmendment'sjurytrialguarantee X becauseitpermittedthecourttofindfactsthatraisedthedefendant's J maximumpenaltyfromlifeimprisonmenttodeath. <  ` TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtrefusedtodistinguishthecapital !. sentencingschemefromothersituationsandinstead,quotingApprendi, #   recognizedthatallfactsthatincreaseadefendantsauthorizedsentence %!" mustbeproventoajurybeyondareasonabledoubt. '#$  X X<%` ` ` hp xX <Thedispositivequestion,wesaid,"isonenotofform,butof )$& effect."Id.,at494.IfaStatemakesanincreaseina *%' defendant'sauthorizedpunishmentcontingentonthefinding +&( ofafact,thatfactnomatterhowtheStatelabelsitmust ,') befoundbyajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.Seeid.,at482 -(* 483.Adefendantmaynotbe"exposed...toapenalty  exceedingthemaximumhewouldreceiveifpunished  accordingtothefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictalone."Id.,  at483;seealsoid.,at499(SCALIA,J.,concurring)("Allthe  factswhichmustexistinordertosubjectthedefendanttoa  legallyprescribedpunishmentmustbefoundbythejury.")   (Ring,supra,536U.S.584,602B  C   y B  C  .)   'NN    X X'L  'L݌̌  NN  'NN    'A   ` RingfoundWaltonNz+ Ԁz  z+N zv.Arizona(1990)497U.S.639B  C   { B  C  Ԁtobe q   irreconcilablewithApprendiandoverruledWaltontotheextentthatWalton c  allowedasentencingjudge,sittingwithoutajury,tofindanaggravating U  circumstancenecessaryforimpositionofthedeathpenalty.(Ringatp.608.) G 'A݌̌  NN   ` LaterthatyearinHarrisv.UnitedStates(2002)536U.S.545B  C   } B  C  ,the +{ CourtwasgivenanopportunitytooverruleMcMillan,butdeclinedtodo m so.TheHarriscourtfoundthatthedefendantcouldbesentencedtoa _ mandatoryminimumof7yearsbasedonthetrialcourtsfindingthathe Q brandishedaweaponinrelationtoadrugtraffickingoffense.Nonetheless, C theCourtlimitedtheholdinginMcMillan tocasesthatdonotinvolvethe  5 impositionofasentencemoreseverethanthestatutorymaximum... "' (Harris,supra,atp.563B  C    B  C  .) $ ! XXN ` NXXFinally,thisyeartheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecidedBlakelyv. & "# Washington,supra,124S.Ct.2531B  C   S B  C  ,appliedtheApprendiruletoastate (#% sentencingschemesimilartoCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLawand *%' clarifiedthemeaningofstatutorymaximum. ,')  ` InBlakely,thedefendantpleadedguiltytoseconddegreekidnapping  involvingdomesticviolenceandadmittedafirearmenhancement.Under  thelawoftheStateofWashington,seconddegreekidnappingisaclassB  felonythatcarriesamaximumsentenceoftenyears.(Wash.Rev.Code   9A.20.021(1)(b)B  C    B  C  .)However,WashingtonsSentencingReformAct[ Act] x  limitsthesentenceforkidnappingwithafirearmtoa"standardrange"of49 j  to53months.(Wash.Rev.Code9.94A.320B  C    B  C  .)TheActpermitsatrialcourt \  toimposeasentenceinexcessofthatrangeifitfinds substantialand N  compellingreasonstojustifyanexceptionalsentence.(Wash.Rev.Code @ 9.94A.210(2)B  C    B  C  .)Toimposean exceptionalsentenceatrialcourtmust 2 considerfactorsotherthanthosethatareusedincomputingthestandard $t rangesentencefortheoffense.Blakelywassentencedtoatermof90 f monthsbecausethetrialcourtdeterminedthatheused deliberatecruelty X incarryingouttheoffense.(Blakely,supra,124S.Ct.2531,2535B  C   S B  C  N* ,*N citing J Statev.Gore(2001)143Wn.2d288,315316,21P.3d262,277B  C    B  C  .)He < appealedandarguedthatthissentencingproceduredeprivedhimofhis !. federalconstitutionalrighttohaveajurydeterminebeyondareasonable #   doubtallfactslegallyessentialtohissentence. %!"  ` Nomatterhowaggravatingfactsarelabeled,factsthatincreasea '#$ defendantssentencebeyondthestatutorymaximummustbetriedtoajury. )$& TheStatearguedthattherelevant"statutorymaximum"wasnot53months, +&( butthe10yearmaximumforclassBfeloniesinsection9A.20.021(1)(b). -(* TheCourtdisagreedandrelyingonApprendi,HarrisandRingdefinedthe  maximumtermasthatwhichajudgemayimposesolelyonthebasisof  factsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant. Inother  words,therelevant"statutorymaximum"isnotthemaximumsentencea   judgemayimposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,butthemaximumhemay x  imposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.(Blakely,supra,124S.Ct.2531, j  2537B  C   S B  C  .) \   ` Themajorityopinionemphasizedthatitsrulingwasmorethana N  proceduralformality.InsteadtheCourtscommitmenttoApprendigives @  intelligiblecontenttotherightofjurytrial.(Id.,atp.2538B  C   S B  C  .) 2  X X?%` ` ` hp x` ` ` Xx?Thatrightisnomereproceduralformality,butafundamental $t reservationofpowerinourconstitutionalstructure.Justas m suffrageensuresthepeople'sultimatecontrolinthelegislative f andexecutivebranches,jurytrialismeanttoensuretheir _ controlinthejudiciary.(Id.,atpp.2538B  C   S B  C  Ԁ!2539.) X  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB ` TherulesetforthinApprendiandBlakelyensures thatthejudge's J authoritytosentencederiveswhollyfromthejury'sverdict.Withoutthat < restriction,thejurywouldnotexercisethecontrolthattheFramers !. intended.(Id.atp.2539B  C   S B  C  .) #    ` TheHighCourtdidnotmakedeterminatesentencingschemes %!" unconstitutional,butmandatedthatsuchschemes beimplementedina '#$ waythatrespectstheSixthAmendment.(Blakely,supra,atp.2540B  C   S B  C  .) )$&  B.TheLimitedScopeOfTheExceptionTotheBlakelyRule +&(  X ApprendiandBlakelyexemptedthefactofapriorconvictionfrom   thosefacts,whichrequireajuryfinding.Bydoingso,Apprendileftintact,  fornow,theholdingofAlmendarez-Torresv.UnitedStates,supra,523  U.S.224B  C    B  C  ,whichpermittedthecourttoincreasethemaximumsentence   baseduponpriorconvictionswhichwerenotcharged,butwereadmittedby x  thedefendantatthetimeofhisplea.UnliketheissuesofApprendiand j  Blakely,Almendarez-Torreswasbasedonthedefendantslackofnoticeof \  thechargebecausetheGovernmentfailedtoallegethepriorconvictionsin N  theindictment @  X ` InAlmendarez-TorrestheSupremeCourtleftunansweredthe 2 questionofwhenapriorconvictionmightbesubjectedtoahigherstandard $t ofproof: f  X X<%` ` ` hp xX <Wementiononefinalpoint.Petitionermakesnoseparate, X subsidiary,standardofproofclaimswithrespecttohis Q sentencing,perhapsbecauseheadmittedhisrecidivismatthe J timehepleadedguiltyandwouldthereforefinditdifficultto C showthatthestandardofproofcouldhavemadeadifference < tohiscase.Accordingly,weexpressnoviewonwhether  5 someheightenedstandardofproofmightapplytosentencing !. determinationsthatbearsignificantlyontheseverityof "' sentence.(AlmendarezTorres,supra,523U.S.atp.247248B  C    B  C  .) #    X X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxBGiventheSupremeCourtssubsequentholdingsinApprendiand & "# Blakely,itappearsthattheapplicationofAlmendarezTorreshasbeen (#% limited,especiallywhenapriorconvictionsubstantiallyincreasesa *%' defendantssentence. ,') Furthermore,Almendarez-TorresreliesontheSupremeCourts  conclusioninMcMillanandMcMillansholdinghasbeencurtailed,ifnot  eliminatedbysubsequentcases.   NN       X&   !  C.BlakelysEffectonCaliforniasUpperTermSentence ! qԌ   Ќ  NN    XXN ` NXXMr.Blackwassentencedtotheaggravatedtermofsixteenyearson x  countoneforthecontinuoussexualabuseofachild.(RT950!951.)He j  maintainsthatthefactsonwhichthecourtreliedtoimposethistermwere \  neithertriedtothejurynorfoundbeyondareasonabledoubt.'   N     ` CaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLawpermitsatriadof @ sentencingchoices.(Pen.Code1170B  C    B  C  ,subd.(a)(3).)PenalCodesection 2 1170B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(b)mandatesthecourttoselectthemiddletermunless $t therearemitigatingoraggravatingcircumstances.(seePeoplev.Jackson f (1987)196Cal.App.3d380,391B  C    B  C  ;Peoplev.Leung(1992)5Cal.App.4th482, X 508B  C    B  C  ;Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420,subd.(a)),andprovidesinpertinent J part: <  X X<%` ` ` hp xX <Whenajudgmentofimprisonmentistobeimposedandthe !. statutespecifiesthreepossibleterms, thecourtshallorder "' impositionofthemiddleterm ,unlessthereare #   circumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime.At $ ! leastfourdayspriortothetimesetforimpositionof %!" judgment,eitherpartyorthevictim,orthefamilyofthe & "# victimifthevictimisdeceased,maysubmitastatementin '#$ aggravationormitigationtodisputefactsintherecordorthe (#% probationofficer'sreport,ortopresentadditionalfacts.In )$& determiningwhethertherearecircumstancesthatjustify *%' impositionoftheupperorlowerterm,thecourtmayconsider +&( therecordinthecase,theprobationofficer'sreport,other ,') reportsincludingreportsreceivedpursuanttoSection1203.03 -(* andstatementsinaggravationormitigationsubmittedbythe  prosecution,thedefendant,orthevictim,orthefamilyofthe  victimifthevictimisdeceased,andanyfurtherevidence  introducedatthesentencinghearing8.(IbidB  C    B  C  ;Emphasis  added.)   X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB ` Theimplementingprovision,CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule4.420   specifiesthatcircumstancesinaggravationshallbeestablishedbythe x  preponderanceoftheevidenceandstatesinpart: j    X X<%` ` ` hp xX < ` (a)....Themiddleterm shall beselected unlessimpositionof \  theupperorlowertermisjustifiedbycircumstancesin U  aggravationormitigation  N   (b)Circumstancesinaggravationshallbeestablishedbya @  preponderanceoftheevidence .Selectionoftheupperterm 9 isjustifiedonlyif,afteraconsiderationofalltherelevant 2 facts,thecircumstancesinaggravationoutweighthe +{ circumstancesinmitigation. Therelevantfactsareincluded $t inthecaserecord,theprobationofficer'sreport,other m reportsandstatementsproperlyreceived,statementsin f aggravationormitigation,andanyfurtherevidence _ introducedatthesentencinghearing ...... X (d)Afactthatisanelementofthecrimeshallnotbeusedto J imposetheupperterm. C (e)Thereasonsforselectingtheupperorlowertermshallbe  5 statedorallyontherecord,andshallincludeaconcise !. statementoftheultimatefactswhichthecourtdeemedto "' constitutecircumstancesinaggravationormitigation #   justifyingthetermselected.[Emphasisadded] $ !  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB ` BecauseCaliforniaexpresslyforbidsthedualuseoffactsincludedin & "# theelementoftheoffensetoimposetheaggravatedterm(Cal.Rulesof (#% Court,rule4.420,subd.(d)),theDeterminateSentencingLawnecessarily *%' requiresfactsbeyondthosedeterminedbythejury.Inthisregard, ,') CaliforniassentencingschememirrorstheWashingtonlawdiscussedin  Blakely.TheWashingtonActgivesastandardrangetowhichacourtmay  sentenceadefendantwithouttheuseofadditionalfacts,whileCalifornias  lawpresumesamidtermsentencewithouttheuseofadditionalfacts.   Washingtonsexceptionalsentence(i.e.,asentencebasedonextrinsic, x  aggravatingfacts)istantamounttoCaliforniasaggravatedsentence.Thisis j  importantbecauseinApprendi,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthat \  thejurymustdetermineanyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrime N  beyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximum.Aspreviouslynoted,inBlakely, @ thecourtdefinedthestatutorymaximumasthemaximumsentencethatthe 2 courtmayimposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.(Blakely,supra,atp. $t 2537B  C   S B  C  .)Therefore,themaximumsentencethatmaybeimposedin f Washingtonisthestandardrange,whilethestatutorymaximumin X Californiaisthemidterm.TheBlakelycourtmadethisclearwhenit J rejectedtheStatespositionthatthemaximumtermtowhichBlakelycould < besentencedwasthe10year exceptionaltermthatWashingtonlaw !. specifiesforclassBfelonies.(Wash.Rev.Code9A.20.021(1)(b)B  C    B  C  .) #     E.` hp x X E ` Theconstitutionallimitationonjudicialdiscretionappliesevenifthe %!" courtisrequiredtoimposetheuppertermafterfindingaspecifiedfact.As '#$ theBlakelyopinionnoted: )$&  X XH.` ` ` hp xx(#X HNordoesitmatterthatthejudgemust,afterfinding +&( aggravatingfacts,makeajudgmentthattheypresenta ,') compellinggroundfordeparture.Hecannotmakethat -(* judgmentwithoutfindingsomefactstosupportitbeyondthe  bareelementsoftheoffense.Whetherthejudicially  determinedfactsrequireasentenceenhancementormerely  allowit,theverdictalonedoesnotauthorizethesentence.  (Blakely,supra,atp.9fn.8B  C   S B  C  ;emphasisinoriginal.)   X XK+ ` hp  ` ` ` XxK ` Accordingly,Blakelyrequiresthataggravatingfactorsbesubmitted   tothejuryandprovenbeyondareasonabledoubt. x    E( ` hp x X E D.TheEffectofBlakelyOnCaliforniasConsecutiveSentencing c  Scheme \    ` +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+    ` TheprincipalsgleanedfromBlakelyanditspredecessorsareequally G applicabletotheimpositionofconsecutiveterms.Likesentencing 9 enhancements,theimpositionofconsecutivetermsincreasethepunishment +{ towhichanoffenderissubjectandimplicateApprendisandBlakelys m concernwiththeheightenedlossoflibertyandstigmaattachedtoan _ offensewhenadefendantissubjectedtoincreasedpunishment.AllofMr. Q Blackstermswereimposedconsecutively.Thecourtorderedthatcounts2 C and3(indeterminatetermsimposedpursuanttoPenalCodesection667.61B  C   G B  C  ,  5 subdivision(b))runconsecutivetothedeterminatetermimposedincount "' oneandtoeachother.(RT950!952.)+  ݌ $ ! Ќ    $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+5   ` InCalifornia,theimpositionofconcurrenttermsisthepresumptive & "# sentence.(Pen.Code669B  C    B  C  .)Additionally,consecutivetermsmaynotbe (#% imposedbyfactsthatwereneitherpresentedtoajurynorfoundtrue *%' beyondareasonabledoubt.Accordingly,pursuanttoBlakelyandApprendi, ,') Californiasconsecutivesentencingschemeviolatesadefendantsrighttoa  jurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtundertheSixthand  FourteenthAmendments.+51݌  Ќ    $ X X $NN   ` 1.TheConcurrentSentenceIsthePresumptiveTerm   'NN    '   ` PenalCodesection669B  C    B  C  Ԁgovernstheimpositionofconsecutive x  sentences.Areviewoftheearlyhistoryofsection669revealsalegislative j  preferenceforconcurrentterms.'>݌ \  Ќ  NN   ` Firstenactedin1872,PenalCodesection669B  C    B  C  Ԁprovidedfor N  consecutivetermswhenadefendantwassentencedtogetherontwoormore @ offenses: 2  X X<%` ` ` hp xX <ӀWhenanypersonisconvictedoftwoormorecrimesbefore $t sentencehasbeenpronounceduponhimforeither,the m imprisonmenttowhichheissentenceduponthesecondor f othersubsequentmustcommenceattheterminationofthe _ firsttermofimprisonmenttowhichheshallbeadjudged,or X attheterminationofthesecondorothersubsequenttermor Q imprisonmentasthecasemaybe.(Peoplev.Radovich(1943) J 61Cal.App.2d177,179B  C    B  C  .) C  XB(` ` ` hp x ` ` ` XxBInallothercases,thesentencesweretorunconcurrently.(Ibid.B  C    B  C  )  5  XB( ` hp x ` ` ` X B ` The1927amendmentcontinuedtorevealastatutorypreferencefor "' consecutivesentencesbutgrantedincreasedjudicialdiscretionbyadding $ ! theproviso, provided,thatinexceptionalcasesthejudgment,inthe & "# discretionofthecourt,maydirectthatsuchtermsofimprisonment,orany (#% ofthem,shallrunconcurrently.(Peoplev.Radovich,supra,61Cal.App.2d *%' 177,179!180B  C    B  C  .) ,')  ` The1931amendmentindicatedadiminishingpreferencefor  consecutivesentencingbyomittingtheexceptionalcaselanguage.As  amended,PenalCodesection669B  C    B  C  Ԁstated:  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  +  Whenanypersonisconvictedoftwoormorecrimes,the   judgmentshalldirectwhetherthetermsofimprisonmentor   anyofthemtowhichheissentencedshallranconcurrentlyor x  whethertheimprisonmenttowhichheisorhasbeen q   sentenceduponthesecondorothersubsequentconviction j  shallcommenceattheterminationofthefirsttermof c  imprisonmenttowhichhehasbeensentenced,oratthe \  terminationofthesecondorsubsequenttermofimprisonment U  towhichhehasbeensentencedasthecasemaybe.(Id.atp. N  180B  C    B  C  .)-   I  4     -s"  XXNԀ+X݌ G Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'NXX  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  +#  +#o$݌̌ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'NN  XXN+NXX X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+@%  Ifthecourtsfailedtostatehowthesentencesshouldbeimposed, 9 theywerepresumedtorunconcurrently. Nopresumptionwillbeindulged +{ infavorofsustainingasentenceascumulative.(Id.,atp.183B  C    B  C  .)+@%\&݌ m Ќ    $ X X $XXN  +NXX X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+X(  Althoughlateramendmentsalsoaddressedtherelationshipof _ enhancementandlifesentencestodeterminateterms,noamendmentagain Q expressedapreferenceforconsecutivesentencing.+X(T)݌ C Ќ    $ X X $XXN     H1` hp x (#X HNXX ` Today,PenalCodesection669B  C    B  C  Ԁprovidesinpertinentpart:  5  H.` hp x X(#H !.  X X X  ?%` ` ` hp xX ?(a)Whenanypersonisconvictedof%  %*-twoormorecrimes, "' whetherinthesameproceedingorcourtorindifferent #   proceedingsorcourts,andwhetherbyjudgmentrenderedby $ ! thesamejudgeorbydifferentjudges,thesecondorother %!" subsequentjudgmentuponwhichsentenceisorderedtobe & "# executedshalldirectwhetherthetermsofimprisonmentor '#$ anyofthemtowhichheorsheissentencedshallrun (#% concurrentlyorconsecutively..... Uponthefailureofthe )$& courttodeterminehowthetermsofimprisonmentonthe *%' secondorsubsequentjudgmentshallrun,thetermof  imprisonmentonthesecondorsubsequentjudgmentshall  %  %r0runconcurrently.. (Emphasisadded.)  +NN XX XX  ?%` ` ` hp x` ` ` Xx?  X+0  +0|1݌  Ќ XX XX  *` ` ` Xx` ` ` Xx*NN  X X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB ` Accordingly,underCalifornialaw,aconcurrentsentenceisthe  presumptiveterm.-   I  5     -43       ` Concurrentsentencingisalsothepresumptivetermunderthe x  definitionsetforthinBlakely.Aspreviouslynoted,theBlakelyCourt j  definedthemaximumtermasthatwhichthejudgemayimposewithoutany \  additionalfindings.(Blakely,supra,124S.Ct.2531,2537B  C   S B  C  .)However,in N  Californiatheimpositionofconsecutivestermsisasentencingchoice(Pen. @ Code1170B  C    B  C  ,subd.(c))thatrequiresthecourttofindextrinsicfacts. 2 CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule4.425setsoutthecriteriaaffectingthe $t decisiontoimposeconsecutiveratherthanconcurrenttermsandprovides: f +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <    +V7  ݁(a).[Criteriarelatingtocrimes] X Ё ЁFactsrelatingtothecrimes,includingwhetherornot: J Ё Ё(1)Thecrimesandtheirobjectiveswerepredominantly < independentofeachother.  5 Ё Ё(2)Thecrimesinvolvedseparateactsofviolenceorthreats "' ofviolence. #   Ё Ё(3)Thecrimeswerecommittedatdifferenttimesor %!" separateplaces,ratherthanbeingcommittedsocloselyin & "# timeandplaceastoindicateasingleperiodofaberrant  behavior.(Subd(a)asamendedeffectiveJanuary1,1991.)  Ё Ё(b).[Othercriteriaandlimitations]  Ё ЁAnycircumstancesinaggravationormitigationmaybe   consideredindecidingwhethertoimposeconsecutiverather   thanconcurrentsentences,except   Ё Ё(i)afactusedtoimposetheupperterm, q   Ё Ё(ii)afactusedtootherwiseenhancethedefendant'sprison c  sentence,and \  Ё Ё(iii)afactthatisanelementofthecrimeshallnotbeused N  toimposeconsecutivesentences.(Subd(b)asamended G effectiveJanuary1,1991.)+V78݌ @ Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <    +>  +>F?݌̌ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'NN  XThisruleincorporatesfactorsinaggravationonwhichacourtmay 2 ruleinsupportoftheimpositionofaconsecutiveterm.(SeeCal.Rulesof +{ Court,rule4.421.)-   I  6     -@   ݀Liketheimpositionoftheupperterm,acourtmaynot $t useafactthatisanelementoftheoffenseorinherentintheoffenseto  imposeconsecutivesentences.(Peoplev.Quinones(1988)202Cal.App.3d  1154,11591160B  C    B  C  ;seealsoPeoplev.Smith(1984)155Cal.App.3d539B  C    B  C  .)B  dC    B  C  d  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+C   ` Therefore,inordertosentenceadefendanttoconsecutiveterms,a  courtmustnecessarilydeterminefactsthatwereneitherpresentedto,nor  foundtruebeyondareasonabledoubtbyaunanimousjury.Accordingly,   pursuanttoBlakelyandApprendi,theimpositionofaconsecutivebasedon   factsthatwereneitherpresentedtothejurynorfoundtruebeyonda   reasonabledoubtviolatesadefendantsrighttoajurytrialandproof x  beyondareasonabledoubtundertheSixthandFourteenthAmendments.+CD݌ q   Ќ    $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+G   ` TworecentCaliforniacasesholdotherwise.Theirreasoning, j  however,doesnotstanduptoscrutiny.InPeoplev.Sykes(2004)120 c  Cal.App.4th1331B  C    B  C  ,theSecondDistrictCourtofAppealheldthatbecause \  ApprendiandBlakelyweresinglecountscases,theydidnot purportto U  createajurytrialrighttothedeterminationastowhethertoimpose N  consecutivesentences.(Id.,atp.1344B  C    B  C  .)Infact,inbothBlakelyand G Apprendithedefendantswereconvictedofmultiplecounts.(Blakely,supra, @ 124S.Ct.atp.2535,fn.2B  C   S B  C  ;Apprendi,supra,530U.S.atp.474B  C   R B  C  .)However, 9 theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdidnotconsiderwhethertheApprendi 2 rationaleextendedtoconsecutivesentences.+GH݌ +{ Ќ    $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+N   ` Next,theSykescourtreasonsthatApprendiandBlakelyare $t inapplicabletoconsecutivetermsbecausethedefendanthasalreadybeen m convictedofthesubstantiveoffensebeyondareasonabledoubt.(Peoplev. f Sykes,supra,120Cal.App.4th1331,1345B  C    B  C  .)However,inApprendiand _ Blakely,therelevantconsiderationwasnotwhetheralloftheelementsofa X crimehavebeenpresentedtothejury,butratherwhetherthefactsthat Q increaseadefendantspunishmenthavebeentriedtothejurybeyonda J reasonabledoubt.BothApprendiandBlakelyhadbeenproperlyconvicted C ofoffensesbeforetheimproperenhancingfactswerefoundbythecourt.+NO݌ < Ќ    $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+nS   ` InPeoplev.Vonner,2004Cal.App.LEXIS1334,filedAugust16,  5 2004,theSecondDistrictCourtofAppeal,Division6heldthattheBlakely !. ruledidnotapplybecausethesentencewasimposedpursuanttoPenal "' Codesection667.6B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(c),analternativesentencingscheme, #   whichexpresslyauthorizesfullconsecutivesentenceswhetherornotthe  crimeswerecommittedduringasingletransaction(Peoplev.Vonner,  supra,atpp.*13B  C    B  C  Ԁ!14,17.)However,thisreasoningfailstoconsiderthat  consecutivesentencing,pursuanttoPenalCodesection667.6B  C    B  C  ,subdivision  (c),isadiscretionarysentencingchoiceasdefinedbyPenalCodesection  669B  C    B  C  ,andthecourtisrequiredbothtostatereasonsforsentencingthe   defendantpursuantto667.6,subdivision(c)andforrunningtheterms   consecutively.(Peoplev.Ramirez(1985)165Cal.App.3d214,219!220B  C    B  C  .)   Furthermore,factorsinaggravationsetforthinCaliforniaRulesofCourt, x  rule4.425(formerly425)areapplicabletosentencingunder667.6 q   subdivision(c).(Peoplev . Belmontes(1983)34Cal.3d335,347B  C    B  C  .)N* *N +nSjT݌ j  Ќ    $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+v\   ` TheVonnerCourtalsocontendedthatBlakelydidntapplybecause c  Vonnercouldhavebeensentencedtoatermof16years.Becausehewas \  sentencedto12years,hissentencefellwithinthestatutoryrangeand U  therefore,Blakelydidntapply.Thiswasthesameargumentprofferedby N  theStateofWashingtonandsoundlyrejectedbytheBlakelyCourt. G (Blakely,supra,124S.Ct.2531,2537B  C   S B  C  .)+v\r]݌ @ Ќ    $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+`   ` Vonnerwasconvictedofonecountofforciblelewdconductona 9 childundertheageof14(Pen.Code288B  C    B  C  ,subd.(b)(1)),andcommittinga 2 lewdactonachildundertheageof14(Pen.Code288B  C    B  C  ,subd.(a).)Each +{ offensewaspunishedbyatermofthree,sixoreightyears.Accordingly, $t Vonnercouldonlytosubjectedtoamaximumtermof16yearsifthecourt m imposedfullconsecutive,aggravatedsentences.Theproblemwiththe f VonnerCourtsreasoningisthatthehighestpresumptiveconcurrenttermto _ whichVonnercouldbesentencedwasonlyeightyears(assumingthe X impositionoftheaggravatedtermwascorrect.)Therefore,hissentenceof Q 16yearsfelloutsideoftherangetowhichhewassubjectedwithouta J findingofadditionalfactsandviolatedthemandatesofApprendiand C Blakely.+`a݌ < Ќ    $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+f  +fg݌̌    $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+yh   ` 2.BlakelyandApprendiApplytoConsecutiveSentencingFor+yhui݌ !. Ќ    $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+j   ` BothDeterminateandIndeterminateTerms+jk݌ "' Ќ    $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+l   ` +lm݌̌    $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+;n   ` ThefactthatMr.Blackwassentencedtoconsecutivetermspursuant $ ! toPenalCodesection667.61B  C   G B  C  ,subdivision(b),doesnotchangetheanalysis. %!" (CT436.)PenalCodesection667.61B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(b)subjectsadefendant & "# toatermof15yearstolifewhenhecommitsaspecifiedsexualoffense, '#$ includingPenalCodesection288B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(a).(Pen.Code667.61B  C    B  C  , (#% subd.(c)),underoneofthecircumstancesspecifiedinsubdivision(e). )$& Here,Mr.Blackwasconvictedofcommittingtheoffenseagainstmorethan *%' onevictim.(Pen.Code667.61B  C    B  C  ,subd.(e)(5).)Thestatutespecifiesneither +&(  concurrentnorconsecutivesentencing.Incontrast,otherstatutesnot ,') applicablehere,mandateconsecutivesentencing.(Seee.g.PenalCode  667.6B  C    B  C  ,subd.(d).)+;n7o݌      $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+u   ` Becausethecourthasthediscretiontoimposeconsecutiveor  concurrenttermspursuanttoPenalCodesection667.61B  C   G B  C  ,subdivision(b),  section669appliesandstatesinpart:+uv݌  Ќ    $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  +w  Lifesentences,whetherwithorwithoutthepossibilityof   parole, may beimposedtorunconsecutivelywithone   another,withanytermimposedforapplicableenhancements,   orwithanyothertermofimprisonmentforafelony x  conviction.(Emphasisadded.)+wx݌ q   Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'NN   ` Accordingly,sentencingadefendanttoaconsecutivetermpursuant c  toPenalCodesection667.61B  C   G B  C  Ԁwithoutajuryfindingofthefactsonwhich \  theconsecutivesentencingisbasedviolatesApprendiandBlakely,aswell. U   XWhendeterminateandindeterminatetermsareimposed N  consecutivelytoeachotherandtherestillmustbeaggravatingfactors, G whichpermitimpositionofaconsecutiveterm.(Seee.g.Peoplev. @ Valenzuela(1995)40Cal.App.4th358,365B  C    B  C  Ԁ[adoptinga transactional 9 relationstandardinordertojustifyaconsecutiveterm])andthecourtmust 2 statereasonsforitssentencingchoice.(Peoplev.Dixon(1993)20Cal. +{ App.4th1029,1037B  C    B  C  .) $t  X ` Likewise,indeterminatetermsmayrunconcurrentlyor m consecutivelytoeachother.(Pen.Code669B  C    B  C  ;Peoplev.Morris(1971)20 f Cal.App.3d659,667overruledonothergroundsinPeoplev.Duran(1976) _ 16Cal.3d282,292B  C    B  C  .)Mr.Blackacknowledgesthattraditionallyacourtwas X notrequiredtostatesentencingreasonsforimposingconsecutive Q indeterminatetermsbecausethosetermsarenotimposedpursuanttoPenal J Codesection1170B  C    B  C  ,subd.(c),whichrelatestodeterminatetermsand C requiresastatementofreasons.(SeeCal.RulesofCourt,rule4.403;People < v.Arviso(1988)201Cal.App.3d1055B  C    B  C  .)Rather,indeterminatetermsare  5 imposedpursuanttoPenalCodesection1168B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(b),whichis !. silentastotherequirementofastatementofreasons.Nonetheless,there "' stillmustbeaggravatingfactors,whichpermittheimpositionofa #   consecutiveterm.(Seee.g.Peoplev.Valenzuela(1995)40Cal.App.4th358, $ ! 365B  C    B  C  Ԁ[adoptinga transactionalrelationstandardinordertojustifya %!" consecutiveterm].)Accordingly,itisthejurythatmustdecidewhetherthe & "# aggravatingfactorswereprovenbeyondareasonabledoubt. '#$  XBecauseinCalifornia,concurrentsentencingisthepresumptive (#% term,aholdingthatveststhetrialcourtwiththeunfettereddiscretionto )$& imposeconsecutiveindeterminatetermsandincreaseadefendants *%' punishmentwithoutthenecessaryjuryfindings,wouldviolatetheboththe +&( spiritandlawofApprendiandBlakely. ,')  3.StackingIndeterminateTermsVastlyIncreasesA -(* DefendantsPunishment     Mr.BlackrecognizesthatBlakelyholdsthatthetrialcourthasthe  discretiontosentenceadefendantwithinthestatutoryrange.Practically,a  lifetermistheouteredgeofrange.However,theimpositionofconsecutive   lifetermsgreatlyincreasesadefendantspunishmentbyextendinghis x  earliestpossibledateofparoleeligibilityby15ormoreyearsforeachcount j  forwhichanindeterminatesentenceisimposed.(Seee.g.Pen.Code \  667.61B  C    B  C  ,subd.(b).)Itiseasilyconceivablethatconsecutivesentencingwill N  transmuteapotentiallyparoleeligibledefendantintoadefendantwhohas @ nopossibilityofeversecuringhisrelease.Therefore,thestatutory 2 maximumisalteredwhentwoormorelifetermsareimposed.Like $t enhanceddeterminatesentencing,theimpositionofmultiplelifeterms f heightensadefendantslossoflibertyanddeservesconstitutional X protection. J Blakelyappearstosuggestthatthestatutorymaximumofeachcount < isconsideredindividually.(Blakely,supraB  C   S B  C  ,124S.Ct.2531,2537,fn.2.) !. Therefore,theaggregatepunishmentorsentencingrangefortwolifeterms #   isnecessarilygreaterthanforone.Accordingly,theBlakelyrulesmust %!" applytoindeterminateaswellasdeterminateterms.    '#$  X  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+`  E.ApplicationofThesePrinciplesToMr.BlacksCase+`\݌ +&( Ќ    $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X XB( ` hp x ` ` ` XxB+a   ` Thetrialcourtsentencedappellanttotheuppertermof16yearson   countonecontinuoussexualabuse.(Pen.Code288.5B  C    B  C  )Imposingthe  aggravatedterm,thecourtstated:+a]݌  Ќ    $ X X $NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  +M  TheCourtisselectingtheuppertermof16years,becauseof   thenature,seriousness,andcircumstancesofthecrime.The   Defendantforcedthevictim,T.,tohavesexualintercourse x  withhimonnumerousoccasions.She!thevictimwas q   particularlyvulnerabletohim.Hewasherstepfather.He j  babysatthesechildrenwhenthemotherwasaway.Shewas c  onlyeightwhenthishappened.Hethreatenedher.He \  inflictedemotionalandphysicalinjuryonher.Shehas U  describedphysicalpainandbleeding.She,intheCourts N  opinion,undoubtedlyhassufferedseriousemotionalinjury. G Andtheinjuryismagnifiedbyherownmothersreactionto @ thiswholesituation.The!so!the!thosefactorsandthe 9 others!theDefendanttookadvantageofapositionoftrust 2 andconfidencetocommitthisoffense!thoseandtheother +{ factorscitedinaggravationinthepeoplesbrief,theCourt $t adoptsandsetsthetermof16years.(RT950!951.)+M݌ m Ќ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  +  +Y݌̌ X X  ' X ` ` ` Xx'NN  +NN X X  <%` ` ` hp xX <  X X X$  ` ` ` Xx$+  Inhersentencingbrief,thedistrictattorneycited4aggravating _ factorrelatingtothecrime:1)Thecrimesinvolvedgreatviolence-   I  7     -dsi  XXN;2)The X victimswereparticularlyvulnerable;3)Themannerinwhichthecrimewas Q carriedoutindicatedplanningand;4)Thedefendanttookadvantageofaposition 7 oftrustandconfidencetocommittheoffense.(CT385!386.)+݌  Ќ    ! X !NXX  0 XXNN    06  Inaddition,shelisted3factorsinaggravationthatrelatedto  petitioner:1)Thedefendantisadangertosociety;2)Thedefendantsprior ! convictionsofincreasingseriousness;3)Thedefendantwasunremorseful.06݌ #  Ќ  NN XX  ?( ` hp x X ?Theelementsoftheoffenseofthecontinuousabuseofachildmirror % " thestatutorylanguage: &!#  X X X<%` ` ` hp xX <8[a]nypersonwhoeitherresidesinthesamehomewiththe {'"$ minorchildorhasrecurringaccesstothechild,whoovera t(#% periodoftime,notlessthanthreemonthsinduration,engages m)$& inthreeormoreactsofsubstantialsexualconductwitha  childundertheageof14yearsatthetimeofthecommission  oftheoffense,asdefinedinsubdivision(b)ofSection  1203.066,orthreeormoreactsoflewdorlasciviousconduct  underSection288,withachildundertheageof14yearsat  thetimeofthecommissionoftheoffenseisguiltyofthe   offenseofcontinuoussexualabuseofachildandshallbe   punishedbyimprisonmentinthestateprisonforatermof6,   12,or16years.(Italicsadded.)(Peoplev.Rodriquez(2002) x  28Cal.4th543,546B  C    B  C  .) q   Thejurywassoinstructed.(RT909!910.) c   X \  0 XXNN    X X0  However,nofactorlistedbythecourtorthedistrictattorneywas U  onethatthejurynecessarilyfoundinarrivingataverdict.Furthermore, G AlmendarezTorrespriorconvictionexception,ifany,isinapplicableto 9 thepresentcasebecauseMr.Blackspriorconvictionsdidnotinvolvethe +{ factoftheconvictionitself,butrathernecessitatedajuryfindingofwhether m theconvictionswereofincreasingseriousnessandtherefore,couldbeused _ toenhancehissentence.0݌ Q Ќ  NN XX  Thesameistrueofthefactorsthatthecourtusedinimposingthe C termsconsecutively.Mr.Blacknotesthatmixeddeterminateand  5 indeterminatesentencingchoicesrequiresastatementofreasons.(Peoplev. "' Dixon(1993)20Cal.App.4th1029,1037B  C    B  C  .) $ ! 0 XXNN    0.  RegardingCount2,thecourtstated:0.݌ & "# Ќ  NN XX  0 XXNN    X X X?%` ` ` hp x` ` ` Xx?0[  Thisinvolvedaseparatevictim.Itoccurredatseparately (#% frommanyoftheoffensescommittedagainstT.inCount1.It )$& involvedabreachofconfidence.Thesechildrenwereallowed *%' toattendaslumberpartyathishome,anditwasexpectedthat +&( theywouldbesafeandcaredforbythemotherofthese ,') children,andobviouslyitwasusedasanopportunityto -(* initiatethemintoallsortsofinappropriatesexualandperhaps  bettersexualizedconduct.(RT951.)0[<݌  Ќ  NN X  0 XXNN    X0;  0;݌̌  NN X  0 XXNN    X0P  RegardingCount3,thecourtstated:0Pֳ݌  Ќ  NN X  0 XXNN    X0  0#݌̌  NN X  0 XXNN    X0  Andthisinvolvedadifferentvictimandadifferentoffense   againstadifferentvictim.Again,inlightoftheDefendants   totalconductinthiscase,withrespecttonotonlyT.,buther   friends,theCourtbelievesthattheseriousnessandnatureof x  theoffenseofapredatorynature,ofnotonlyselectingthe q   stepdaughter,butherfriendstoengageinhisconduct,makes j  thesesentencesappropriate.(RT951!952.)08݌ c  Ќ  NN X  0 XXNN    X0  0݌̌  NN X  0 XXNN    X X X0   ` Theonlyfactorthatthejuryfounduponwhichthecourtreliedwas U  thatpetitionersexuallyabusedmorethanonevictim.Foreachcount,itwas G allegedthatdefendantcommittedtheoffenseonmorethanonevictim 9 withinthemeaningofPenalCodesection1203.066B  C    B  C  ,subdivision(a)(7).(CT +{ 104,105,106.)0݌ m Ќ  NN X  0 XXNN    X0   ` Petitionerwassentencedtoconsecutivetermsof15yearstolife _ pursuanttoPenalCodesection667.61B  C   G B  C  ,subdivision(b),becauseofthe Q multiplevictimallegation.However,oncethatfactorwasusedtobring C petitionerwithintheOneStrikeLaw,itwasunavailableforusetosupporta  5 consecutiveterm.(Peoplev.Mancebo(2002)27Cal.4th735,742B  C    B  C  ;Peoplev "' Fernandez(1990)226Cal.App.3d669B  C    B  C  ;Pen.Code667.61B  C    B  C  ,subd.(f).) $ ! Accordingly,petitionerwassentencedconsecutivelywithoutthenecessary & "# juryfindingsinviolationoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsholdingsin (#% BlakelyandApprendi.0{݌ *%' Ќ  NN X  X  ,') 0 XNN    X0?   F.TheErrorWasPrejudicialUnderAPerSeOrChapman   ` Standard0?݌  Ќ  NN   0 XNN    X0  0]݌̌  NN   Q7X` hp x %` ` ` XxQXXN ` NXXTheBlakelyCourtremandedtheactiontotheWashingtonappellate  court forproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion.(Blakely,supra,   124S.Ct.2531,2543B  C   S B  C  .)Theopiniondidnotaddresswhethertheerror   automaticallyrequiredreversalofthesentenceorwassusceptibleto q   harmlesserrorreview.Undereitherview,reversalisrequiredinthiscase. c   ` Theerrorisa structuraldefect,notamenabletoharmlesserror U  review,becausethewrongentity,thejudgeratherthanthejury,adjudicated G boththeaggravatingfactorandthefactorsusedtosentencepetitioner 9 consecutivelyandappliedthewrongstandardofproof.(Cf.Sullivanv. +{ Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275B  C    B  C  .)Itstruethatthefailuretoinstructajury m onasingleelementissubjecttoChapmanharmlesserroranalysisandisnot _ persereversible.(Nederv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1B  C    B  C  ;Peoplev. Q Flood(1998)18Cal.4th470B  C    B  C  .)ButinNederandFlood,jurieswereseated C andreachedverdicts,andonlyoneelement/factwasnotdecidedbythejury  5 becauseofinstructionalerror.(Nederv.UnitedStates,supra,527U.S.at "' 4B  C    B  C  ;Peoplev.Flood,supra,18Cal.4that475B  C    B  C  .) $ !  ` Inthiscase,nojuryatallwasseatedforpetitionerssentencingand & "# noneofthefactsusedtosentencepetitionertotheaggravatedtermor (#%  consecutivelyweredecidedbyajury.Becausepetitionerwasdeniedajury *%' verdictonthesefacts,andthecourtappliedthewrongstandardofproof,the  errorisstructuralandautomaticallyreversible. I  8        W7X` hp x %XXX W ` Buteveniftheerrorisnotstructural,reversalisrequiredbecauseit  wasnotharmless.ThisCourtandfederalcourtshaveheldthat   conventionalApprendierrorsonenhancementsaresubjecttotheChapman x  standard.(Peoplev.Sengpadychith(2001)26Cal.4th316,324B  C    B  C  ;Peoplev. j  Scott(2001)91Cal.App.4th1197,12091211B  C    B  C  ;UnitedStatesv.Garcia \  Guizar(9thCir.2000)234F.3d483,488489B  C    B  C  .)UnderChapman,thestate N  mustprovethattheerrorisharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Chapman @ v.California(1967)386U.S.18,24B  C    B  C  .)But,inthecontextofanerror 2 affectingtherighttoajurytrialonelementsorenhancements,areviewing $t courtcannotsimplyaskwhethertherewas overwhelmingevidence f supportingthefindinginquestion.AfarmorerigorousformofChapman X analysis,focusingonwhatfactsthefactfindernecessarilyfound J   W7X` hp x %XXX Winreachingadecisionisrequiredinthiscontext.Theerror,inthiscontext, < isnotharmlessiftheomittedelementissusceptibletodispute: !. +NN X X  E%` ` ` hp xXXX E  Q7` X` ` hp xx(#%` ` ` XxQ+  If,attheendofthatexamination,the[reviewing]courtcannot #   concludebeyondareasonabledoubtthatthejuryverdict $ ! wouldhavebeenthesameabsenttheerror"forexample,  wherethedefendantcontestedtheomittedelementandraised  evidencesufficienttosupportacontraryfinding"itshould  notfindtheerrorharmless.(Nederv.UnitedStates,supra,  527U.S.at19B  C    B  C  .)+݌  Ќ X X  9XXX ` XX` Xx(#X9NN  +NN X X  E%` ` ` hp xXXX E  & X XK1X` hp  %` ` ` XxK+   ` Inthepresentcase,itisquestionablewhetherajurywouldhave v  foundthefactorscitedbythecourttobetrue.Someofthefactorscitedby o  thetrialcourt,suchastheseriousnessoftheoffenseandthevulnerabilityof h  thevictimwereinherentinthecrimeitself.Thefactthatpetitionerwas a   unremorsefulisquestionableandwasmostlikelybasedonpetitioners Z  denialthathecommittedtheoffense.Theprosecutionassertedthat S  petitionerwasconvictedoftwofelonyconvictionsin1996!oneforgrand L  theftandtheotherforcommercialburglary.(CT387.)Theunderlyingfacts E  ofthesefelonieswerenotpresented.Ajurymayhavefoundthatpetitioner >  didnotengageinapatternofcriminalbehaviorthatwasnumerousandof 7 increasingseriousness.+?݌ 0 Ќ    ?XXX  XX` X ?NN  +NN X X  E%` ` ` hp xXXX E   X XK1X` hp  %` ` ` XxK+   ` Underthesecircumstances,theprosecutioncannotdemonstratethat )y thedenialofpetitionersrighttoajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonable "r doubtwasharmless.+݌ k Ќ    ?XXX  XX` X ?NN  +NN X X  E%` ` ` hp xXXX E   X XK1X` hp  %` ` ` XxK+  G.TheClaimIsNotWaivedbyAnyFailuretoObject+݌ M Ќ    ?XXX  XX` X ?NN  +NN X X  E%` ` ` hp xXXX E  & X XK1X` hp  %` ` ` XxK+    ` Petitionersfailuretoobjectinthesuperiorcourttojudicialfact / findingdoesnotwaivehisconstitutionalclaims.Certainfundamental ( constitutionalrights,suchasdoublejeopardyandtherighttojurytrial,are ! notforfeitedbyafailuretoobject.Forinstance,adefendantsfailureto  objecttothedischargeofthejury,priortotheadjudicationofcharged  priors,mightwaiveastatestatutoryerror,butitdoesnotwaive   fundamentalclaimsofdoublejeopardyandtherighttoajurytrial.A   defendantsfailuretoobjectalsowouldnotprecludehisassertingonappeal ! thathewasdeniedhisconstitutionalrighttoajurytrial.[Citations.](People " v.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580,589,fn.5B  C    B  C  ;seealso592[sameholdingre # doublejeopardyclaim];accordPeoplev.Valladoli(1996)13Cal.4th590, $  606B  C    B  C  Ԁ[doublejeopardy].)Morerecently,thisCourthasreaffirmedthat[a] % ! defendantisnotprecludedfromraisingforthefirsttimeonappealaclaim &!" assertingthedeprivationofcertainfundamental,constitutionalrights. '"# (Peoplev.Vera(1997)15Cal.4th269,276-277B  C    B  C  Ԁ[citingSaunders,5Cal.4th }(#$ at592B  C    B  C  Ԁ[pleaofonceinjeopardy];Peoplev.Holmes(1960)54Cal.2d442, v)$% 443-444B  C    B  C  Ԁ[constitutionalrighttojurytrial].)+ -݌ o*%& Ќ    ?XXX  XX` X ?NN  1 ,NN  K+ ` hp x XXX K  1c  BecauseMr.BlackconteststhedenialofhisSixthAmendmentrightto h+&' ajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtontheaggravatingfactors, Z-() hislackofanobjectioninthesuperiorcourtdoesnotforfeitappellate  review.1c݌  Ќ  -XXX X-NN ,  ,  K+ ` hp x XXX K ` Inanyevent,anywaiverisexcusedbecauseanyobjectionwould  havebeenfutile.(E.g.Peoplev.Hill(1998)17Cal.4th800,820B  C    B  C  ;Peoplev.   Abbaszadeh(2003)106Cal.App.4th642,648-649B  C    B  C  ;seealsoPeoplev.Birks   (1998)19Cal.4th108,116,fn.6B  C    B  C  Ԁ[nowaiverwherelowercourtwasbound   byhighercourtonissue].)Atthetimeofpetitionerssentencing,i.e.prior x  toBlakely,itwouldhavebeenfutiletoobjecttorequestajuryatsentencing q   inanoncapitalsentencinginaCaliforniacourt.Anditwouldhavebeen j  equallyfutiletorequestapplicationofthereasonabledoubtstandard. c  Californiacaselaw,statutes,andrules,evenafterApprendi,remaineda \  barriertosuchaclaim.-    I  9     -Cal.  ݀TheclaimbeingfutilepriortoBlakely,thereisno U  waiver. N   ` Evenwithoutanobjection,thisCourthasdiscretionarypowerto G reviewtheissue.Thefactthataparty,byfailingtoraiseanissuebelow, @ mayforfeittherighttoraisetheissueonappealdoesnotmeanthatan 9 appellatecourtisprecludedfromconsideringtheissue.(6Witkin& 2 Epstein,Cal.CriminalLaw(3ded.2000)ReversibleError,36,p.497 +{ [originalemphasis].)Anappellatecourtisgenerallynotprohibitedfrom $t reachingaquestionthathasnotbeenpreservedforreviewbyaparty... m Whetherornotitshoulddosoisentrustedtoitsdiscretion.(Peoplev. f Williams(1998)17Cal.4th148,161162,fn.6B  C    B  C  .) _ 1 ,,NN  B+ ` hp x XB  1   ` Statutorybasestoreviewtheissuealsoexistundersection1259, X which,inrelevantpart,provides: Uponanappealtakenbythedefendant, J theappellatecourtmay,withoutexceptionhavingbeentakeninthetrial < court,reviewanyquestionoflawinvolvedinanyruling,order,instruction, !. orthingwhatsoeversaidordoneatthetrialorpriortoorafterjudgment,..  andwhichaffectedthesubstantialrightsofthedefendant.Violationofthe  federalconstitutionalrighttoajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonable  doubtconstitutesanegregiousviolationofpetitionersrightsunderthe   SixthandFourteenthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitution,and x  thusaffectshissubstantialrights.Furthermore,itconstitutesapurequestion j  oflaw.1݌ \  Ќ  $ XX$NN ,,     ` Accordingly,waiverdoesnotapplyinthissituation. N   ,  ?( ` hp x X? ` Insum,petitionerwassubjectedtoanaggravatedtermand G consecutivesentencesbytheuseoffactsthatwereneithersubmittedtothe @ jurynorprovenbeyondareasonabledoubtasrequiredbyBlakely,Apprendi 9 andtheUnitedStatesConstitution.Accordingly,thismattermustbe 2 remandedtotheSuperiorCourtsothatMr.Blackmaybeproperly +{ sentenced. $t   m   CONCLUSION  2NN    2M   ` Forthereasonsstatedherein,Mr.Blackrespectfullyrequeststhat  thiscourtvacatehissentence,andremandthemattertotheSuperiorCourt  sothathemaybesentencedconsistentwiththisCourtsdecision.2M݌   ЌNN   Dated:September1,2004 h     Respectfullysubmitted,    `     h     BALIN&KOTLER,LLP x   `     h      `     h     _______________________ j   `     h     EILEENS.KOTLER c   `     h     AttorneysforPetitioner, x  \   `     h     KEVINMICHAELBLACK U  .NN       .@  CERTIFICATIONOFWORDCOURT.@݌ G Ќ  NN  .NN       .9  .9݌̌  NN  4NN  X4   Icertifythattheforegoingpetitioncontains11,605wordsascounted 9 bytheprograminMicrosoftWord.4 ] ݌ +{ ЌNN  3dmNN  m X3b   ݀ h   3b  ݌ m ЌNN  3dzfNN  fz X ` 6h hhp x X 63     __________________________3  ݌ f ЌNN  X ` B( ` hp x hhhX B `     h     EILEENS.KOTLER _    0 XNN    X0;  0;݌̌  NN   0 XNN    X0V  0V݌̌  NN   0 XNN    X0Y   `  0Y݌̌  NN   0 XNN    X0t  0t݌̌  NN   0 XNN    X0}  0}݌̌  NN         ` XXN