WPC W-_{{XҾiDÛ@Ŗ{NSC Å  Ju|+͋C9w8̈́O9'KQb ׊IX˴taA>mEOF,2>> ,U3m:_,6ugaAJ]"ӌO\@B0~!%^)7fϹ_YTEWi%[zQ99L ~O_qY0Hr]UάLn(0.[<ބP&O`vnCts"apϿRoBע=G41  Peoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238d d E .dd55 >Y݈   Ќ̌        UnitedStatesv.Booker(2005)125_S.Ct_.738d d E .PP;5 ݈  Ќ̌  Statutes  -       ,  Pen.Code1170,subd.(b)d d E .tt*5 ,G݈  Ќ̌   CourtRules         -  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(b)d d E .25 -H݈  Ќ̌  !    @[ [ n kInTheSupremeCourtofTheState  @$ofCalifornia# kn7#Ԉ  .xx  .ThePeopleoftheStateofCaliforniaAY,)1  dE1  A , $  `  PlaintiffandRespondent, , $  `    v. ,$ GaryMitchellPardo ,$   ` Defendantandappellant. ,$  AY,) xdE+A ,$  , $ CourtofAppealNo.E039420 , $ Super.Ct.No.FMB006545 , $  ,$  .xx.@ AppealfromtheSuperiorCourtofSanBernardinoCounty ;3 @  HonorableMarshaG.Slough,JudgePresiding ;3 @""n k  PETITIONFORREVIEW# knR#Ԁn kTOEXHAUSTSTATEREMEDIES ;3   q ` TOTHEHONORABLERONALDM.GEORGECHIEF _W JUSTICE,ANDTOTHEHONORABLEASSOCIATEJUSTICES qi OFTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA: {  kn ` PetitionerGaryMitchellPardoherebypetitionsforreviewtoexhaust !! stateremediesfollowingthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeal,Fourth ## AppellateDistrict,DivisionTwoaffirmingthejudgmentoftheSuperior %% CourtofSanBernardinoCounty.Apetitionforrehearingwasnotfiled.A ' ' copyoftheopinionisattachedtothispetitionasAppendix A. )") Ї@ STATEMENTOF  EXHAUSTION  Ԉ   ` Thiscasepresentsnogroundforreviewunderrule28(b)ofthe   CaliforniaRulesofCourt.Itisfiledsolelytoexhauststateremediesfor   federalhabeascorpuspurposesorforpurposesofpetitioningforawritof   certiorariintheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.Theissuepetitionerseeksto  preserveisasfollows:WaspetitionerdeprivedofhisrightsundertheSixth   andFourteenthAmendmentstotheUnitedStatesConstitutiontotrialby   juryandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtofallelementsoftheoffenseasa  consequenceoftheimpositionofanuppertermsentencethatwasbasedon  aggravatingfactorsfoundbythecourt?   @   STATEMENTOFPROCEEDINGS  "Ԉ   ` Ajuryfoundpetitionerguiltyofembezzlement(Pen.Code506,   count1),diversionofconstructionfunds(Pen.Code,484b,count2),   grandtheftofpersonalproperty(Pen.Code,487,subd.(a),count3)and   misdemeanorcontractingwithoutalicense(Bus.&Prof.Code,7028,  subd.(a),count5)(1CT5657;2CT189193,201.)Thecourtsentenced   petitionertothreeyearsinstateprison.(2CT205,206.)Thecourtimposed   theuppertermofthreeyearsoncountoneandstayedimpositionof  concurrentthreeyeartermsoncountstwoandthreeunderPenalCode  section654.(2CT205.)Forthemisdemeanorconvictionincountfivethe  courtorderedpetitionertoserve85daysincountyjailwithcreditfor85  days.(2CT205.)Thecourtselectedtheuppertermbyfindingthe  followingfactorsinaggravation:thedefendanthadapriorfelony  conviction,thecommissionofthecrimeinvolvedplanningsophistication ! andprofessionalism,thedefendantwasonprobationwhenhecommitted # theoffenseandthedefendantwasnotremorseful.(2RT391.) %   '  8 `  STATEMENTOFFACTUALANDLEGALBASESOF  APPELLANTSFEDERALCLAIM.  (` x` x n( ` Thetrialcourtchosetheuppertermbasedonfourfactorsin   aggravationwhichwerenotfoundbythejury.Thosefactorswere:the   defendanthadapriorfelonyconviction,thecrimeinvolvedplanning  sophisticationandprofessionalism,thedefendantwasonprobationandthe   defendantdidnotshowremorse.(2RT391.)    ` Thecourtsfindingsofsentenceaggravatingfactorswhichitusedto   imposetheuppertermviolatedthedefendantsrightstoajurytrialandto  proofbeyondareasonabledoubtofallelementsoftheoffenseas  guaranteedbytheSixthandFourteenthAmendmentstotheUnitedStates  Constitution.(  _Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466[120_S.Ct_.  2348,147_L.Ed_.2d435].)Anelementisanyfactotherthanthefactofa  priorconvictionthatincreasesthepenaltyforacriminalconvictionbeyond   theprescribedstatutorymaximum.(Id.atp.490.)Forthesepurposesthe " statutorymaximum isthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimposesolely $ onthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythe & defendant.(  Blakelyv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296[124_S.Ct_.2531, (!! 159_L.Ed_.2d403];seealso  UnitedStatesv.Booker(2005)125_S.Ct_.738,  160_L.Ed_.2d621].)    ` UnderCalifornialawthetrialcourtisrequiredtoimposethemiddle   termunlesstherearefactorsinaggravationormitigation.( ! Pen.Code   1170,subd.(b);  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(b).)In  Peoplev.Black  (2005)35Cal.4th1238thiscourtheldthatthemiddletermisnotthe   statutorilyprescribedmaximumsentenceundertheU.S.SupremeCourt   precedentscitedabove,butCaliforniaCourtshavediscretiontoimposeany  ofthethreestatutorilyprescribedsentences.Thisissueisnowpendingin  theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt(  Cunninghamv.California,No.056551  [2006DailyJournal,DAR2076].)Appellantseekstopreservethisissue  forfurtherreviewinthefederalandstatecourtsiftheSupremeCourt  decidestheissueinwaythatisfavorabletohisposition.    # @%_n kCONCLUSION# kn5#_Ԉ   ` Forthereasonsexplainedabovethepetitionforreviewshouldbe , $ granted. , $ @RespectfullySubmitted, ,$ @ _________________________________ ,$   `     h JamesR._Bostwick_,Jr. ,$   `     h AttorneyforPetitioner