WPC ZH-3{ح( uTIZ~Ԭos>z(b_{{o3,P;Iei9' ˸ɺ# ^#o)Tv: F3XZo8XjRݥ^12U/QwMW5u,E垬qYJl3mt)Cr&r\\ Ð?D+B%"?`o6 eݙ> "QqTGg9M3o^QѤ: ;`#兊 ?*W2 {2B_w'B9N>>McڶCP'+ mSs5|>Jɻ+DJź##ggV^CD^ ^1r:;Yò0F )KLcEҘH[,:f0{OB~϶lo4#UN % 0me BZ^ ww4 0 0 Dj mNUN z)uU>f9";"u&# *## ZU$$ nI% %j&-) l)vV*",A-A//p0 H0<1 f182 P23 X3#4 X4@65v99: x;; xR< h<2= |> l> h>f?e? T?H@@ \jA ^A N$BrB zKC jC/D @DD >yErE $)FrMF $FF zG j=HH zIJ VJJK >3L xqL <L%M ZM /N -3N 9`N N )N 08*N % O ;0O %kO #O #O ;O 0TP 0heP 0=P 7 Q AQ VQ kQ #Q QbQ<Q @RBR ZR,S `ST zTXU XU/V zVfW x&XX zvY jY~ZZ VZ.[ T[\ n\] Z]z^ 2{^^ VQ__ h>` X`f`aaaaa .a as b ,|b bb `Wcsc*d >d .d Peke jf Zmff Wg Zugg |kh Jh1i \i Ljjj x@kqk ")lKl Nlm Vmn zn jOoo xpqqt Xunu ^v H^v Nvv zwCx Xxy ny"z lz'{ d{ | :|v| (S}s{} "}v~ (~s~ "!C z zLƁ ZV pK z jp zH j†, zF j* b  ^ z j_Ɍ v ^ ` P1 z} z{ Tݓ `pД \u Lѕ l" ^ \ ` zך jQ z jx \ ev 2t l x֠ hN z zϣI |cߥ ^qϦ hfΧ z l" Z  ` Z;bh pCENTRAL OFFICE0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(=$  wUSUS., d~6 OV.6Ϝa6:i+003|x&   ʣ$ԷXXUSUS., `   4    _Seealso { Statev.Schofield(2005)2005ME82[876A.2d929,937  934]; } Lopezv.People(2005)113P.3d713,728;  Statev.Provost(2005)  205VT134[896A.2d55,6667];  Statev.Hughes(2005)154Wn.2d118  [110P.3d192],overruledonothergroundsin  Washingtonv.Recuenco  (2006)548U.S.___[126S.Ct.2546,165L.Ed.2d466];  Statev.Dilts  (2004)337Ore.645,654.(u(2ʣ$ !  ԷXXUSUS.,   `   0  (#$  0  U  ʣ$ԷXXUSUS., `   3    _PetitionersOpeningBriefontheMerits.   ʣ$ԷXXUSUS., `   1    _AllfurtherstatutoryreferencesaretothePenalCodeunless  otherwiseindicated.(A Z6Times New Roman RegularWeaver v. Graham (1981) 450 U.S. 24, 28 [101 S.Ct. 9CASES   ʣ$ԷXXUSUS., `   9    _ԷԷBlakelyv.Washington,supra,542U.S.296#ԷԷ#.\  `&Times New Roman !˻XXUSUS.,  _Weaverv.Graham(1981)450U.S.24    [101S.Ct.960,67L.Ed.2d17]   ʣ$ԷXXUSUS., `   11    _ԀThejuryfoundthatdefendanthadusedforceorfearincommitting  thechildmolestationandhadengagedin substantialsexualconductwith  thevictim.(Peoplev.  Black,supra,35Cal.4thatpp.12441245.)Thetrial   courtfounddefendantspriormisdemeanorandfelonyconvictionswereof  increasingseriousness.(Id.atp.1266.)    ʣ$ԷXXUSUS., `   10    _Cunninghamv.California,supra,127S.Ct.856,871. k !WXXUSUS.,  _section12022.412022.4PENAL CODE !WXXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Roder(1983)33Cal.3d491People v. Roder (1983) 33 Cal.3d 491CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Forrester(1994)30Cal.App.4th1697People v. Forrester (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1697CASES   ʣ$ԷXXUSUS., `   5    _  InreCulbreth(1976)17Cal.3d330,333,overruledin  King. `  ʣ$ԷXXUSUS., `   6    _  Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,490[120S.Ct.2348,  147L.Ed2d435]ԷԷ;  Blakelyv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296[124S.Ct.  2531,159L.Ed.2d403]#ԷԷ#ԷԷ;#ԷԷ# R Cunninghamv.California,supra,127S.Ct.856. !WXXUSUS.,  _section12022.5,subdivision(a)  section12022.5,subdivision(b)"sections 12022.5, subdivisions (a), (b) PENAL CODE  -8 ' AFD0AFD .      ʣ$ԷXXUSUS., `   7    _& C ' C Cunninghamv.California,supra,127S.Ct.856,871. 7  $XXUSUS., `   7    _Cunninghamv.California,supra,549U.S.__[127S.Ct.856,871];  Peoplev.Black,supra,35Cal.4th1238. 7  $XXUSUS., `   7    _Cunninghamv.California,supra,549U.S.__[127S.Ct.856,871];  Peoplev.Black,supra,35Cal.4th1238. z !WXXUSUS.,  _section12022,subdivision(c)(12022, subdivision (c)PENAL CODE !WXXUSUS.,  _Stats.2002,c.126(A.B.2173),10,11*Stats. 2002, c. 126 (A.B. 2173),  10, 11OTHER ~ !WXXUSUS.,  _section186.22,subdivision(b)(3),186.22, subdivision (b)(3)PENAL CODE !WXXUSUS.,  _section12022.2,subdivision(a)  section12022.2,subdivision(b).12022.2, subdivisions (a), (b)PENAL CODE !WXXUSUS.,  _section12022.3,subdivision(a)  section12022.3,subdivision(b)012022.3, subdivisions (a), (b)PENAL CODE  dnnpardo OBM DSLInternatRoder KoppBlaney subd S.Ctalter[ing U.SSchofieldDiltsNataleN.E.2d opnMoranteBaertLynceMathisCulbrethWeidert HozeApprendiCarmellt]hereBouie LataBillaTeagueconclusionaryBirksJaramilloEdgerlyGuerraCorchadoWinshipMullaneyAlmendarezOsbands]electionPicenoKennardRecuencoNeder L.EdCal.AppPadillashak[ingcalculatedlyresentenceBlakelyviolativeAuwarterSormanNichols !WXXUSUS.,  _Koppv.FairPol.PracticesCom.    (1995)11Cal.4th607  ʣ$ԷXXUSUS., `   2    _RespondentsAnswerBriefontheMerits.3(Kopp v. Fair Pol. Practices Com. (1995) 11 Cal.4thCASES !WXXUSUS.,  _SantaBarbaraSch.Dist.v.SuperiorCourt    (1975)13Cal.3d3156(Santa Barbara Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court (1975) CASES(Santa Barbara Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court (1975)  !WXXUSUS.,  _HotelEmployeesandRestaurantEmployeesInternat.Unionv.Davis    (1999)21Cal.4th5859Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Internat. UnCASESHotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Internat. Un(Kopp v. Fair Pol. Practices Com. (1995) 11 Cal.4th !WXXUSUS.,  _InreBlaney(1947)30Cal.2d643=In re Blaney (1947) 30 Cal.2d 643CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Martin(1986)42Cal.3d437 !WXXUSUS.,  _InreHowardN.(2005)35Cal.4th117AIn re Howard N. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 117CASES@(People v. Martin (1986) 42 Cal.3d 437CASES(People v. Martin (1986) 42 Cal.3d 437 !WXXUSUS.,  _UnitedStatesv.Booker(2005)543U.S.220    [125S.Ct.738,160L.Ed.2d621]EUnited States v. Booker (2005) 543 U.S. 220 [125 S.CCASESUnited States v. Booker (2005) 543 U.S. 220 [125 S.C | !WXXUSUS.,  _section1170,subdivision(a)(1)H1170, subd. (a)(1)PENAL CODE z !WXXUSUS.,  _section666.5,subdivision(c)J 666.5, subd. (c)PENAL CODE h !WXXUSUS.,  _section1025L1025PENAL CODE h !WXXUSUS.,  _section1158N1158PENAL CODE !WXXUSUS.,  _Cunninghamv.California(2007)549U.S.__    [127S.Ct.856,166L.Ed.2d856]PCunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. __ [127 S.CCASESCunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. __ [127 S.C !WXXUSUS.,  _UnitedStatesv.ThirtySeven(37)Photographs(1971)402U.S363    [91S.Ct.1400,18L.Ed.2d822]SUnited States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs (1971CASES y !˻XXUSUS.,  _section1170,subdivision(b)Usection 1170, subdivision (b)PENAL CODE !WXXUSUS.,  _NewJerseyv.Natale(2005)184N.J.458    [828N.E.2d724] { !WXXUSUS.,  _section1170.1,subdivision(e)X1170.1, subd. (e)PENAL CODEW New Jersey v. Natale (2005) 184 N.J. 458 [828 N.E.CASESsection 1170, subdivision (b) { !WXXUSUS.,  _section1170.1,subdivision(d)\section 1170.1, subdivision (d)PENAL CODEcOTHER OUT OF STATEcU.S. CONSTITUTIONcCALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONcCIVIL CODEcGOVERNMENT CODE($cBUSINESS CODEcWELFARE AND INSTITUTIONScEVIDENCE CODEcVEHICLE CODEcPROBATE CODEcBUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS(,!$0  0` (#(#  (@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# ` ($0 cHEALTH AND SAFETY CODEcRULEScCASEScPENAL CODEcINSTRUCTIONScOTHER  2 s     section 1170.1, subdivision (d) !WXXUSUS.,  _Ohiov.Foster(2006)845N.E.2d470vOhio v. Foster (2006) 845 N.E.2d 470CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _Bernardv.Foley(2006)39Cal.4th794x(Bernard v. Foley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 794CASES !ɫXXUSUS.,  _Statev.Schofield(2005)2005ME82    [876A.2d929]zState v. Schofield (2005) 2005 ME 82 [876 A.2d 929, CASES u !oXXUSUS.,  Lopezv.People(2005)113P.3d713|Lopez v. People (2005) 113 P.3d 713CASES !ɫXXUSUS.,  _Statev.Provost(2005)205VT134    [896A.2d55]~State v. Provost (2005) 205 VT 134 [896 A.2d 55, 66-CASES !ɫXXUSUS.,  _Statev.Hughes(2005)154Wn.2d118    [110P.3d192]State v. Hughes (2005) 154 Wn.2d 118 [110 P.3d 192]CASES !ɫXXUSUS.,  _Washingtonv.Recuenco(2006)548U.S.___    [126S.Ct.2546,165L.Ed.2d466]Washington v. Recuenco (2006) 548 U.S.___ [126 S.Ct.CASESWashington v. Recuenco (2006) 548 U.S.___ [126 S.Ct. t !oXXUSUS.,  Statev.Dilts(2004)337Ore.645State v. Dilts (2004) 337 Ore. 645CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _ExparteNewman(1858)9Cal.502Ex parte Newman (1858) 9 Cal. 502CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _Gomezv.SuperiorCourt(2005)35Cal.4th1125Gomez v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1125CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Cruz(1996)13Cal.4th764People v. Cruz (1996) 13 Cal.4th 764CASES p !WXXUSUS.,  _FourteenthAmendment14thU.S. CONSTITUTION !WXXUSUS.,  _ArticleI,section9  ArticleI,section15art. I,  9, 15CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION !WXXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Farley(1996)45Cal.App.4th1697People v. Farley (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1697CASESPeople v. Farley (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1697TABLE A !WXXUSUS.,  _rule4.420(a)  rule4.420(b)TABLE A4.420(a) & (b)RULES4.420(a) & (b) i !WXXUSUS.,  _rule4.420(b)Rule 4.420(b)RULESRule 4.420(b) !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Morante(1999)20Cal.4th403People v. Morante (1999) 20 Cal.4th 403CASES i !WXXUSUS.,  _rule4.405(4) { !WXXUSUS.,  _section422.75,subdivision(e)422.75, subd. (e)PENAL CODERules 4.405(4)RULESPeople v. Morante (1999) 20 Cal.4th 403 !˻XXUSUS.,  _Mossv.SuperiorCourt(1998)17Cal.4th396Moss v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 396CASESMoss v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 396 !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Davis(1994)7Cal.4th797Rules 4.405(4)People v. Davis (1994) 7 Cal.4th 797CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _UnitedStatesSentencingCommission,GuidelinesManualUnited States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines ManuaOTHERPeople v. Davis (1994) 7 Cal.4th 797 !˻XXUSUS.,  _InreBaert(1988)205Cal.App.3d514In re Baert (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 514CASESIn re Baert (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 514 !˻XXUSUS.,  _Marksv.UnitedStates(1977)430U.S.188    [97S.Ct.990,51L.Ed.2d260] Marks v. United States (1977) 430 U.S. 188, 191-19CASES g !˻XXUSUS.,  _section506506PENAL CODE z !WXXUSUS.,  _ArticleI,section9,clause3art. I,  9, cl. 3U.S. CONSTITUTION !˻XXUSUS.,  _Calderv.Bull(1798)3Dallas386Calder v. Bull (1798) 3 Dallas 386CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Millerv.Florida(1987)482U.S.423    [107S.Ct.2446,96L.Ed.2d351]Miller v. Florida (1987) 482 U.S. 423 [107 S.Ct. 244CASESMiller v. Florida (1987) 482 U.S. 423 [107 S.Ct. 244 !˻XXUSUS.,  _Lyncev.Mathis(1997)519U.S.433    [117S.Ct.891,137L.Ed.2d63] Lynce v. Mathis (1997) 519 U.S. 433 [117 S.Ct. 891CASES {  ʣ$ԷXXUSUS., `   8    _ԀAsdetailedintheOpeningBriefontheMerits,therecorddoesnot  establishthesentencingcourtreliedonasinglepriorconviction,asopposed  toitsfindingof numerouspriors,asanaggravatingfactor,sinceitdidnot  identifysuchanyparticularpriorconviction.(OBM11,fn.3,23,fn.5;2   RT391.)RespondentpointsoutthatPardoadmittedsufferingaprior  felonyconviction(possessingmarijuanaforsale)inhistestimony;again,  however,therecorddoesnotestablishthetrialcourtparticularlyreliedon  it.(ABM59,citing1RT250.)   !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.King(1993)5Cal.4th59People v. King (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 59CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Weidert(1985)39Cal.3d836People v. Weidert (1985) 39 Cal.3d 836CASESPeople v. King (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 59People v. Weidert (1985) 39 Cal.3d 836 !˻XXUSUS.,  _Lindseyv.Washington(1937)301U.S.397    [57S.Ct.797,81L.Ed.1182]Lindsey v. Washington (1937) 301 U.S. 397 [57 S.Ct. CASES u !oXXUSUS.,  InreCulbreth(1976)17Cal.3d330In re Culbreth (1976) 17 Cal.3d 330CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Delgado(2006)140Cal.App.4th1157People v. Delgado (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1157 CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Williams(1987)196Cal.App.3d1157People v. Williams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1157CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Hoze(1987)195Cal.App.3d949People v. Hoze (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 949 CASES y !˻XXUSUS.,  _section1170,subdivision(b)1170, subd. (b)PENAL CODE l !WXXUSUS.,  _rule4.406(b)(4)4.406(b)(4)RULES i !WXXUSUS.,  _rule4.420(e)4.420(e)RULES l !WXXUSUS.,  _rule4.433(c)(1)4.433(c)(1)RULES i !WXXUSUS.,  _rule4.405(4)4.405(4)RULES !WXXUSUS.,  _Carmellv.Texas(2000)529U.S.513    [120S.Ct.1620,146L.Ed.2d577]Carmell v. Texas (2000) 529 U.S. 513, 532, 539-542 [CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _Cummingsv.Mo.(1867)71U.S.277    [18L.Ed.356]Cummings v. Mo. (1867) 71 U.S. 277, 328 [18 L.Ed. 35CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Simon(1995)9Cal.4th493People v. Simon (1995) 9 Cal.4th 493CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _JohnL.v.SuperiorCourt(2004)33Cal.4th158John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _Bouiev.Columbia(1964)378U.S.347    [84S.Ct.1697,12L.Ed.2d894]Bouie v. Columbia (1964) 378 U.S. 347, 353-354 [84 SCASESBouie v. Columbia (1964) 378 U.S. 347, 353-354 [84 S !ɫXXUSUS.,  _Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466    [120S.Ct.2348,147L.Ed2d435]Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 [120CASESApprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 [120  !ɫXXUSUS.,  _ɫɫBlakelyv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296    [124S.Ct.2531,159L.Ed.2d403]#ɫɫ_#Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct.CASESBlakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct. !WXXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Martinez(1999)20Cal.4th225People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _Keelerv.Superior(1970)2Cal.3d619Keeler v. Superior (1970) 2 Cal.3d 619CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _Rogersv.Tennessee(2001)532U.S.451    [121S.Ct.1693,149L.Ed.2d697]Rogers v. Tennessee (2001) 532 U.S. 451, 461 [121 S.CASESRogers v. Tennessee (2001) 532 U.S. 451, 461 [121 S. !WXXUSUS.,  _UnitedStatesv.Lata    (1stCir.2005)415F.3d107United States v. Lata (1st Cir. 2005) 415 F.3d 107CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Billa(2003)31Cal.4th1064People v. Billa (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1064CASES !WXXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238 CASESPeople v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238  !WXXUSUS.,  _Teaguev.Lane(1989)489U.S.288    [109S.Ct.1060,103L.Ed.2d334]Teague v. Lane (1989) 489 U.S. 288 [109 S.Ct. 1060, CASES  !WXXUSUS.,  _WWGriffithv.Kentucky(1987)479U.S.314    [107S.Ct.708,93L.Ed.2d649]#WW_#Griffith v. Kentucky (1987) 479 U.S. 314 [107 S.Ct. CASES q !˻XXUSUS.,  _FourteenthAmendmentFOURTEENTH AMENDMENT U.S. CONSTITUTION !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.BirksL  M  Ԁ(1998)19Cal.4th108People v. Birks (1998) 19 Cal.4th 108CASESPeople v. Birks (1998) 19 Cal.4th 108 !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Jaramillo(1993)20Cal.App.4th196People v. Jaramillo (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 196CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _InreEdgerly(1982)131Cal.App.3d88In re Edgerly (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 88CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal. 4th 331CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Guerra(2006)37Cal.4th1067 People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224    [118S.Ct.1219,140L.Ed.2d350] Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 2CASESAlmendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 2 !˻XXUSUS.,  _Shepardv.UnitedStates(2005)544U.S.13    [125S.Ct.1254,161L.Ed.2d205]Shepard v. United States (2005) 544 U.S. 13, 25-26 [CASESShepard v. United States (2005) 544 U.S. 13, 25-26 [ !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Willis(2002)28Cal.4th22People v. Willis (2002) 28 Cal.4th 22CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Ferguson(2003)109Cal.App.4th367 l !˻XXUSUS.,  _rule8.532(b)(1)rule 8.532(b)(1)RULESPeople v. Ferguson (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 367CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _UnitedStatesv.Corchado    (10thCir.2005)427F.3d815(United States v. Corchado (10th Cir. 2005) 427 F.3CASES(United States v. Corchado (10th Cir. 2005) 427 F.3 !˻XXUSUS.,  _InreWinship(1970)397U.S.358    [90S.Ct.1068,25L.Ed.2d368]In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358, 364 [90 S.Ct. 106CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Mullaneyv.Wilbur(1975)421U.S.684    [95S.Ct.1881,44L.Ed.2d508]Mullaney v. Wilbur (1975) 421 U.S. 684, 697-698 [95 CASES  !˻XXUSUS.,  _UnitedStatesexrel.AttorneyGen.v.Delaware&HudsonCo.    (1909)213U.S.366    [29S.Ct.527,53L.Ed.836]United States ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Delaware & HudCASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Osband(1996)13Cal.4th622 People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Piceno(1987)195Cal.App.3d1353"People v. Piceno (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1353CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Nederv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1    [119S.Ct.1827,144L.Ed.2d35]$Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 8 [119 S.CCASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Fernandez(1990)226Cal.App.3d669&People v. Fernandez (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 669CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Reed(1996)13Cal.4th217(People v. Reed (1996) 13 Cal.4th 217CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Padilla(1995)11Cal.4th891*People v. Padilla (1995) 11 Cal.4th 891CASES !˻XXUSUS.,  _Peoplev.Hill(1998)17Cal.4th800,People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800CASESpage page chapter volume footnote endnote - -ljk !  ԷXXUSUS.,  _ԷԷ  SUPREMECOURTNO.S148914    INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  *ddd Xdd Xdd X  ,dd , dd +   THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF  d CALIFORNIA,  d PlaintiffandRespondent,  d vs.  d  GARYMITCHELLPARDO, d  DefendantandAppellant. ,d  ,CourtofAppeal  d No.E039420  d SuperiorCourt d  No.FMB006545(d   (@*  APPEALFROMTHESUPERIORCOURTOF D  SANBERNARDINOCOUNTY D  `   D   HonorableMarshaG.Slough,JudgePresiding D  `  򀀀 D   APPELLANTPARDOSREPLYBRIEFONTHEMERITS  D    `  򀀀 B  `     h   APPELLATEDEFENDERS,INC. B  `     h   NeilAuwarter B  `     h   StaffAttorney B   `     h   StateBarNo.109576 B! 0 ` 0 ` ` 0 0h    CynthiaM.SormanB!#h h   `     h   StaffAttorney B"$  `     h   StateBarNo.122289 B#%  `     h   DianeNichols B% '  `     h   StaffAttorney     x  B&!(  `     h   StateBarNo.174830   B'")  `     h   555WestBeechStreet,Suite300 B)$+  `     h   SanDiego,California92101 B*%,  `     h   619.696.0282 B+&-  `     h   AttorneysforDefendantand B,'.  `     h   Appellant B-(/  #ԷԷ#8Էdd82ԷԷ  TOPICALINDEX      PAGE   Z 3   l  l 0 `    I.0` ` ` RESPONDENTSPROPOSEDREFORMATIONSWOULDBE  INCONSISTENTWITHLEGISLATIVEINTENTANDWOULD   VIOLATEDUEPROCESS/EXPOSTFACTOPROHIBITIONSIF   APPLIEDRETROACTIVELY.#d d E .@@*` ` #1l ݌   Ќ  j!  j![0 ` 0 ` `  `   A.0 RespondentsProposalDoesNotReflecttheIntentofthe    CaliforniaLegislature.#d d E .^^0 #2j![v݌   Ќ  k  k0 ` 0 ` ` 0    1.0  TheLegislaturesintentcannotbeconclusively   determined.#d d E .)  #3k݌   Ќ   ` #ԷԷ # `    a.0 h Theproposedchangesaffectanextensivearray  ofstatutoryandruleprovisionsenactedat  differenttimesinresponsetoavarietyofissues.h h  ЀԷԷd d E .PP;3#ԷԷ>#Ԉ  ԷԷk  k0 ` 0 ` ` 0      b.0h  Othercasesrequiringreformationinvolvedfar  lessextensivechangesandclearerlegislative  intent.#d d E .*h h #5k݌  Ќ  #ԷԷ# `  2.0  Tothedegreelegislativeintentcanbeascertained,itis  inconsistentwithrespondentsproposal.ԷԷ.#d d E .G  #6  #ԷԷ#ԷԷj!  j!0 ` 0 ` `  `   B.0 AnyReformationAllowingImpositionofanUpperTerm   BasedontheUnderlyingConvictionAlone!Withouta ! FindingofAdditionalSpecificFactors!Cannot " ConstitutionallyBeAppliedtoCrimesCommittedBeforethe # Reformation.#D .22% #10j!݌ $  Ќ  l  l0 `    II.0` ` ` THESENTENCINGCOURTVIOLATEDPARDOSSIXTHAND &!" FOURTEENTHAMENDMENTRIGHTSWHENITIMPOSED '"# THEUPPERTERMBASEDONFACTORSNEITHER (#$ ADMITTEDNORFOUNDTRUEBYAJURY.#D .  6` ` #21l݌ )$%    *%& j!  j!0 ` 0 ` `  `    A.0 PardosClaimIsNotWaivedbytheLackofObjection   atSentencing.#D .,  #21j!݌  Ќ  j!  j!0 ` 0 ` `  `    B.0 The PriorConvictionExceptionIsInapplicable  BecauseBoththe NumerousPriorConvictions  Factorandthe OnProbationFactorRequireFact   FindingBeyondtheRecordofaPriorConviction.#D .N  #22j!݌   Ќ  j!  j!0 ` 0 ` `  `    C.0 EvenIfAnyAggravatingFactorWasWithinthePrior   ConvictionException,SuchFactorIsStillImproper   BecauseItWasFoundbyaPreponderanceofthe   EvidenceRatherThanBeyondaReasonableDoubt.   #D .  #25j!݌   Ќ  j!  j!0 ` 0 ` `  `    j!݌   Ќ  j!  j! 0 ` 0 ` `  `    D.0 TheErrorWasPrejudicial#D .7  #28j! ݌  Ќ  k  k!0 ` 0 ` ` 0      1.0h  Theexistenceofoneproperaggravatingfactor  doesnotnegateCunninghamerrorastoother  factorsordoawaywiththeneedforaprejudicek!!݌h h  Ќ  k  k#0 ` 0 ` ` 0       h analysis.#D .PP,  #28k#6#݌  Ќ  k  k$0 ` 0 ` ` 0      2.0h  Noneofthefactorsinaggravationwasproper  underBlakely.#D .~~2h h #31k$0$݌  Ќ  k  kg%0 ` 0 ` ` 0      3.0h  Respondentcannotshowthetrialcourtwould  haveimposedtheuppertermifithadbeen  unabletorelyoninvalidfactors.#D .\\Eh h #35kg%%݌  Ќ  l  l'0 `    CONCLUSION#D .x x ` ` #36l''݌   Ќ  l  l'0 `    CERTIFICATION#D .h h ` ` #37l''݌ " Ќ     %!!   TABLEOFAUTHORITIES   (  PAGE(S)   ( ` CASES   o   c  c)  AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224    ` [118S.Ct.1219,140L.Ed.2d350]A .523-27c))݌   Ќ  c  c*  c**݌̌  Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466     ` [120S.Ct.2348,147L.Ed2d435]4 .514,20,23,26,27   c  c+  c++݌̌  Bernardv.Foley(2006)39Cal.4th794s s E .pp59   c  ch,  #ԷԷ#ԷԷch,,݌̌  Blakelyv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296    ` [124S.Ct.2531,159L.Ed.2d403]#ԷԷ,#ԷԷ0 .514,23,28,30,31,36  c  c.  c..݌̌  Bouiev.Columbia(1964)378U.S.347   ` [84S.Ct.1697,12L.Ed.2d894]@ .BB316,17  c  c/  c/ /݌̌  Calderv.Bull(1798)3Dallas386  D .112  c  c/  c//݌̌  Carmellv.Texas(2000)529U.S.513   ` [120S.Ct.1620,146L.Ed.2d577]  D .515  c  c0  c00݌̌  Cummingsv.Mo.(1867)71U.S.277   ` [18L.Ed.356]  D .ZZ"15  c  c1  c11݌̌  Cunninghamv.California(2007)549U.S.__    ` [127S.Ct.856,166L.Ed.2d856]SS% .58,14,18,20,22,23,28,31,36 ! c  c2  c22݌̌  ExparteNewman(1858)9Cal.502  D .>>010 # c  c3  c33݌̌  Gomezv.SuperiorCourt(2005)35Cal.4th1125  D .=10 % ! c  cM4  cM4h4݌̌  Griffithv.Kentucky(1987)479U.S.314 '"#  ` [107S.Ct.708,93L.Ed.2d649]  D .BB319 (#$ c  cN5  cN5i5݌̌  HotelEmployeesandRestaurantEmployeesInternat.Unionv.Davis *%&  ` (1999)21Cal.4th585s s E .)4 +&' c  c]6  InreBaert(1988)205Cal.App.3d514@ .@@412,16c]6x6݌  Ќ  c  c7  c777݌̌  InreBlaney(1947)30Cal.2d643s s E .06  c  c7  c77݌̌  InreCulbreth(1976)17Cal.3d330  D .JJ213  c  c8  c88݌̌  InreEdgerly(1982)131Cal.App.3d88  D .522   c  cJ9  cJ9e9݌̌  InreHowardN.(2005)35Cal.4th117s s E .FF45   c  c:  c: :݌̌  InreWinship(1970)397U.S.358    ` [90S.Ct.1068,25L.Ed.2d368]  D .BB326   c  c:  c:;݌̌  JohnL.v.SuperiorCourt(2004)33Cal.4th158  D .^^>15   c  c;  c;;݌̌  Keelerv.Superior(1970)2Cal.3d619  D .@@516  c  c<  c<<݌̌  Koppv.FairPol.PracticesCom.(1995)11Cal.4th607B .  E6,8  c  cP=  cP=k=݌̌  Lindseyv.Washington(1937)301U.S.397   ` [57S.Ct.797,81L.Ed.1182]  D .213  c  cQ>  cQ>l>݌̌  Lopezv.People(2005)113P.3d713s s E .28  c  c ?  c ?%?݌̌  Lyncev.Mathis(1997)519U.S.433   ` [117S.Ct.891,137L.Ed.2d63]  D .xx412  c  c@  c@"@݌̌  Marksv.UnitedStates(1977)430U.S.188   ` [97S.Ct.990,51L.Ed.2d260]  D .  312   c  c A  c A$A݌̌  Millerv.Florida(1987)482U.S.423 "  ` [107S.Ct.2446,96L.Ed.2d351]A .512-14 # c  c B  c B'B݌̌  Mossv.SuperiorCourt(1998)17Cal.4th396@ .;12,18 %!! c  cB  cBB݌̌  Mullaneyv.Wilbur(1975)421U.S.684 '##  ` [95S.Ct.1881,44L.Ed.2d508]  D .BB327 ($$ c  cC  cCC݌̌  Nederv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1 *&&  ` [119S.Ct.1827,144L.Ed.2d35]  D .432 +'' c  cD  NewJerseyv.Natale(2005)184N.J.458   ` [828N.E.2d724]s s E .%9cDD݌  Ќ  c  cE  cEE݌̌  Ohiov.Foster(2006)845N.E.2d470s s E .39  c  c}F  c}FF݌̌  Peoplev.Billa(2003)31Cal.4th1064  D .517   c  c:G  c:GUG݌̌  Peoplev.BirksL  M  Ԁ(1998)19Cal.4th108  D .421   c  c H  c H%H݌̌  Peoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th12385 .618,21,22,29-31   c  cH  cHH݌̌  Peoplev.Cruz(1996)13Cal.4th764  D .310   c  cI  cII݌̌  Peoplev.Davis(1994)7Cal.4th797@ .312,18   c  cQJ  cQJlJ݌̌  Peoplev.Delgado(2006)140Cal.App.4th1157  D .=13  c  cK  cK1K݌̌  Peoplev.Farley(1996)45Cal.App.4th1697@ .bb:11,12  c  cK  cKK݌̌  Peoplev.Ferguson(2003)109Cal.App.4th367  D .^^<24  c  cL  cLL݌̌  Peoplev.Fernandez(1990)226Cal.App.3d669  D .<32  c  cdM  cdMM݌̌  Peoplev.Forrester(1994)30Cal.App.4th1697s s E .^^=5  c  c(N  c(NCN݌̌  Peoplev.Guerra(2006)37Cal.4th1067  D .622  c  cN  cNO݌̌  Peoplev.Hill(1998)17Cal.4th800  D .\\333  c  cO  cOO݌̌  Peoplev.Hoze(1987)195Cal.App.3d949  D .813 ! c  caP  caP|P݌̌  Peoplev.Jaramillo(1993)20Cal.App.4th196  D .<22 # c  c%Q  c%Q@Q݌̌  Peoplev.King(1993)5Cal.4th59< .212,13,18 %!! c  cQ  cQR݌̌  Peoplev.Martin(1986)42Cal.3d437B .((47,9 '## c  cR  cRR݌̌  Peoplev.Martinez(1999)20Cal.4th225  D .716 )%% c  cdS  cdSS݌̌  Peoplev.Morante(1999)20Cal.4th403@ .612,18 +'' c  c&T  Peoplev.Osband(1996)13Cal.4th622  D .528c&TAT݌  Ќ  c  cT  cTT݌̌  Peoplev.Padilla(1995)11Cal.4th891  D .633  c  cU  cUU݌̌  Peoplev.Piceno(1987)195Cal.App.3d1353  D .:30  c  cbV  cbV}V݌̌  Peoplev.Reed(1996)13Cal.4th217  D .332   c  cW  cW8W݌̌  Peoplev.Roder(1983)33Cal.3d491s s E .35   c  cW  cWW݌̌  Peoplev.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580  D .621   c  cX  cXX݌̌  Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331  D .422   c  cQY  cQYlY݌̌  Peoplev.Simon(1995)9Cal.4th493  D .315  c  c Z  c Z'Z݌̌  Peoplev.Weidert(1985)39Cal.3d836< .zz513,16,18  c  cZ  cZZ݌̌  Peoplev.Williams(1987)196Cal.App.3d1157  D .PP<13  c  c[  c[[݌̌  Peoplev.Willis(2002)28Cal.4th22  D .424  c  cQ\  cQ\l\݌̌  Rogersv.Tennessee(2001)532U.S.451   ` [121S.Ct.1693,149L.Ed.2d697]@ .517,19  c  cV]  cV]q]݌̌  SantaBarbaraSch.Dist.v.SuperiorCourt   ` (1975)13Cal.3d315B .(4,6  c  cP^  cP^k^݌̌  Shepardv.UnitedStates(2005)544U.S.13    ` [125S.Ct.1254,161L.Ed.2d205]A .523-25 ! c  cX_  cX_s_݌̌  Statev.Dilts(2004)337Ore.645s s E .xx18 # c  c`  c`+`݌̌  Statev.Hughes(2005)154Wn.2d118 %!!  ` [110P.3d192]s s E .ll"8 &"" c  c`  c`a݌̌  Statev.Provost(2005)205VT134 ($$  ` [896A.2d55]s s E .$$!8 )%%  c  ca  cab݌ *&& Ќ  Statev.Schofield(2005)2005ME82    ` [876A.2d929]s s E ."8  c  cb  cbc݌̌  Teaguev.Lane(1989)489U.S.288   ` [109S.Ct.1060,103L.Ed.2d334]  D .PP619  c  cc  ccd݌̌  UnitedStatesexrel.AttorneyGen.v.Delaware&HudsonCo.    ` (1909)213U.S.366    ` [29S.Ct.527,53L.Ed.836]  D .027   c  c;e  c;eVe݌̌  UnitedStatesv.Booker(2005)543U.S.220    ` [125S.Ct.738,160L.Ed.2d621]6 .47,8,10,19,20   c  cNf  cNfif݌̌  UnitedStatesv.Corchado    ` (10thCir.2005)427F.3d815  D .125  c  c>g  c>gYg݌̌  UnitedStatesv.Lata   ` (1stCir.2005)415F.3d107  D .017  c  c)h  c)hDh݌̌  UnitedStatesv.ThirtySeven(37)Photographs(1971)402U.S363   ` [91S.Ct.1400,18L.Ed.2d822]s s E .BB38  c  cAi  cAi\i݌̌  Washingtonv.Recuenco(2006)548U.S.___   ` [126S.Ct.2546,165L.Ed.2d466]//A .58,32  c  cHj  cHjcj݌̌  Weaverv.Graham(1981)450U.S.24   ` [101S.Ct.960,67L.Ed.2d17]  D .BB412   y) ` CONSTITUTIONS    UnitedStatesConstitution " _ c  0 ` ck  ArticleI,section9,clause3#  D .2` ` #10ckk݌ # Ќ  c  0 ` cl  FourteenthAmendment#@ .ff(` ` #10,21cll݌ $  Ќ  CaliforniaConstitution &!" `   c  0 ` cm  ArticleI,section9#  D .(` ` #10cmm݌ '"# Ќ   ` ArticleI,section15  D .)10 (#$  m0 `     ` `    *%& tE ` STATUTES   i   LoPenalCode  0 ` section186.22,subdivision(b)(3)#s s E .6` ` #4  c  0 ` co  section422.75,subdivision(e)#s s E .3` ` #7cop݌  Ќ  c  0 ` cp  section506#  D .> > ` ` #12cpp݌   Ќ  c  0 ` caq  section666.5,subdivision(c)#s s E .VV2` ` #7caqq݌   Ќ  p   c  0 ` c>r  section1025#s s E . ` ` #7c>rer݌   Ќ  c  0 ` cr  section1158#s s E . ` ` #7crs݌   Ќ  0 ` section1170,subdivision(a)(1)#s s E .4` ` #7    c  0 ` ct  section1170,subdivision(b)#B .,,1` ` #1,3ct)t݌   Ќ  0 ` section1170.1,subdivision(d)#s s E .3` ` #3   c  0 ` c*u  section1170.1,subdivision(e)#s s E .3` ` #7c*uQu݌   Ќ  0 ` section12022,subdivision(c)#s s E .2` ` #3   c  0 ` cPv  section12022.2,subdivision(a)   section12022.2,subdivision(b)#s s E .::4` ` #4cPvwv݌  Ќ  c  0 ` cIw  section12022.3,subdivision(a)  section12022.3,subdivision(b)#s s E .::4` ` #4cIwpw݌  Ќ  c  0 ` cBx  section12022.4#s s E .#` ` #4cBxix݌  Ќ  c  0 ` cx  section12022.5,subdivision(a)  section12022.5,subdivision(b)#s s E .pp5` ` #3cxy݌  Ќ  2r ` RULES   CaliforniaRulesofCourt  n   c  0 ` cwz  rule4.405(4)#@ . !` ` #11,15cwzz݌  Ќ  c  0 ` c,{  rule4.406(b)(4)#  D .$` ` #14c,{S{݌  Ќ  c  0 ` c{  rule4.420(a)  rule4.420(b)#4 . !` ` #11,13,15,29,31c{|݌   Ќ  c  0 ` c|  rule4.420(e)#D . !` ` #14c||݌ ! Ќ  c  0 ` c}  rule4.433(c)(1)#D .$` ` #14c}}݌ " Ќ  c  0 ` c7~  rule8.532(b)(1)#D .$` ` #22c7~^~݌ # Ќ  kz0 `  ` `   ` OTHER % !  r   c  cg  Stats.2002,c.126(A.B.2173),10,11d d E .93cg݌ '"# Ќ  c  c'  UnitedStatesSentencingCommission,GuidelinesManuald d E .E8c'B݌ )$% Ќ  [ +&' tE  ts2   t  #ԷԷ-# 8Էdd8 SUPREMECOURTNO.S148914    INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  *xdddd  dd   x,dd , dd +   THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF  d CALIFORNIA,  d PlaintiffandRespondent,  d vs.  d  GARYMITCHELLPARDO, d  DefendantandAppellant. ,d  ,CourtofAppeal  d No.E039420  d SuperiorCourt d  No.FMB006545(d   (@*  APPEALFROMTHESUPERIORCOURTOF D  SANBERNARDINOCOUNTY D   `   D   HonorableMarshaG.Slough,JudgePresiding D  `  򀀀 D   APPELLANTPARDOSREPLYBRIEFONTHEMERITS  D    `  򀀀 B   I.0 ` RESPONDENTSPROPOSEDREFORMATIONSWOULDBE B INCONSISTENTWITHLEGISLATIVEINTENTAND @ WOULDVIOLATEDUEPROCESS/EXPOSTFACTO > PROHIBITIONSIFAPPLIEDRETROACTIVELY.< ` `    u  ` RespondentproposesseveranceofthefirstsentenceofPenalCode  #  1       : "  V section1170,subdivision(b)! Whenajudgmentofimprisonmentistobe :"$ imposedandthestatutespecifiesthreepossibleterms,thecourtshallorder :$& impositionofthemiddleterm,unlesstherearecircumstancesinaggravation :&!( ormitigationofthecrime.(ABM4  #  2      ׀15.)Italsoproposesseverance,re :(#* writing,andreworkingofrelatedstatutorylanguageandtheCalifornia  RulesofCourt.(ABM1617,16,fn.3,3141.)     ` Pardoandrespondentagreethatthiscourtmay,onoccasion,reform  astatutetosaveitsconstitutionality.(OBM  #  3      ׀42;ABM1314.)   Nevertheless,respondentsproposalisinappropriate.Firstitcannotbesaid   itwouldhavebeenconsistentwiththeintentoftheLegislatureinenacting   theDeterminateSentenceLaw(DSL).Further,applyingtheproposal   retroactivelytodefendantswhocommittedtheactsbeforethereformation  occurredwouldviolatetheprinciplesagainstexpostfactolawsinherentin  dueprocess.   &   `  A.0 RespondentsProposalDoesNotReflecttheIntentofthe  CaliforniaLegislature.    d : ` Respondentputsforwardseveralreasonswhythiscourtshould  'HLreformthestatuteasrespondentadvocates:itreflectsthelegislativeintent  inenactingDeterminateSentencingLaw(DSL);itisconsistentwiththis  courtsinterpretationofDSL;itcloselyresemblestheSupremeCourts ! methodofsalvagingthefederalsentencingsystem;itisconsistentwith #  statutoryreformationsofNewJerseyandOhio;anditwouldpreservethe %!! essentialpoliciesandproceduresofafairandeffectivejusticesystem.  (ABM89.)Thesereasonsdonotsupporttheproposal.      &  0 `   1.0` ` TheLegislaturesintentcannotbeconclusively  determined.      M `     a.0 h Theproposedchangesaffectanextensive   arrayofstatutoryandruleprovisions   enactedatdifferenttimesinresponsetoa    varietyofissues. h h    wA ` Respondentcharacterizesitsproposalasasimpleone,themere   ' _removalofthefirstsentenceof [ section1170,subdivision(b).(ABM15.)   However,respondentthenpointstonumerousotherchanges.Someare  statutory.(ABM16.)ManymodificationstotheCaliforniaRulesofCourt  arealsoproposed;respondentmustresorttoachartofrulestobedeclared  entirelyinvalid,rulestobeproclaimedinvalidbecausetheyconflictwith  thereformedstatutes,andrulesyettobecreated.(ABM3141,31,fn.10.)   ` Further,respondentslistingomitsordownplayssignificant  additionalsubstantivechanges.Forexample,reformationof ] section   1170.1,subdivision(d),toeliminatethepresumptionofthemiddletermfor " enhancements(ABM16,fn.3),wouldaffectsuchdiverseenhancementsas $   # sections12022.5,subdivisions(a)and(b)and ) 12022,subdivision(c).In &!" removingthepresumptivemiddletermfromthesestatutes,theLegislature (#$ madeexplicitreferenceto u section1170.1,subdivision(d).( + Stats.2002,c. *%& 126(A.B.2173),10,11.)OtherPenalCodestatutesnotnotedby  respondentexplicitlyalludetomandatoryimpositionofthemiddleterm  absentaggravatingfactors!forexample,sections - 186.22,subdivision  (b)(3); / 12022.2,subdivisions(a),(b); 1 12022.3,subdivisions(a),(b);and     12022.4.    ` Severabilityofastatuteconsiderswhethertheseveredsectionsare   capableofindependentapplication 7 (SantaBarbaraSch.Dist.v.Superior   Court(1975)13Cal.3d315,331);theremaindermustbecompleteinitself,  thatis,independentlyoperative( : HotelEmployeesandRestaurant  EmployeesInternat.Unionv.Davis(1999)21Cal.4th585,613).Ifonly  thechangeshighlightedbyrespondentweremade,theDSLcouldnot  operateonitsownwithoutconstantadjustmentwhenanotherproblem  arisesinallofthestatutes,rules,andcaseauthorityimpactedby  respondentsproposal.Thereisjusttoomuchtoreform.  Ѐ ` Similarly,anothercomponentofseverability!mechanicalor   grammaticalseverability( ; HotelEmployeesandRestaurantEmployees " Internat.Unionv.Davis,supra,21Cal.4thatp.613)!cannotbemethere. $  Removalofsomeprovisions,amendmentofothers,andthedraftingofnew &"" provisionsaffecttoomuchofthewordingandmeaningofotherDSL ($$ provisions.(Seeibid.) *&&  ` Thus,contrarytorespondentsprotestation,itsproposalisnotan  uncomplicatedadaptation,butaprodigiousrecastingoftheDSLandthe  provisionsusedtoeffectuateit.  &   `     b.0 h Othercasesrequiringreformationinvolved   farlessextensivechangesandclearer   legislativeintent. h h    ȣ0 `  ` `   ` Suchdrasticchangescontrastwithcasescitedbyrespondentto   ' supportitsreformationoftheDSL.  Peoplev.Roder(1983)33Cal.3d491,   504,and  Peoplev.Forrester(1994)30Cal.App.4th1697,1703(ABM14   15),forexample,involvedagenuinelystraightforwardchangefroman  unconstitutionalmandatorypresumptiontoapermissivepresumption.They  providenoguidancetowhethersuchamassiveoverhaulissuitableforthe  DSL.   `  B InreHowardN.(2005)35Cal.4th117,132,whichreformeda  unconstitutionalstatutebyaddingarequirementthattheoffenderhave  seriousdifficultyincontrollingdangerousbehavior,likewiseinvolveda   fairlysimplechangeand,moreimportantly,did noviolencetothewords " ofthestatute;ratherthewordsaresusceptibleofthatinterpretation.(Id.at $  p.133.)Thiscourtalsohadbeforeitanunambiguouslegislativehistory, &!" includingtheLegislaturesresponsetocaseholdings,manifestingpolicy (#$ andintentconsonantwiththecourtsreformation.(Id.atpp.133135.) *%&  ` Thisisnotthesituationhere.First,themanychangescontemplated  byrespondentarenotimplicitinthelanguageofthestatutesandrulesat  issue!indeed,theyareoutrightinconsistentwithit.Second,asexplained  inPardosopeningbriefonthemerits(OBM4448),itcannotbeshownthe   LegislatureenactingtheDSLwouldhavepreferredrespondentsversion    had[it]foreseenthepartialinvalidationofthestatute( 8 SantaBarbara   Sch.Dist.v.SuperiorCourt,supra,13Cal.3datp.330).Itspolicy   decisionsinvolvedcontendinginterests,noneofwhichpredominated.  ReformationcannotbeundertakenwhentheLegislaturespreference  cannotbeascertained. 5 (Koppv.FairPol.PracticesCom.(1995)11Cal.4th  607,642643.) Finally,thereisnoexpressseverabilityclausetosupport  anypresumptionofthevalidityoftheremainingpartsofthestatuteor  scheme.( ? InreBlaney(1947)30Cal.2d643,655.)    &  0 `   2.0` ` Tothedegreelegislativeintentcanbeascertained,  itisinconsistentwithrespondentsproposal.      ݯ ` RespondentclaimsthelegislativeintentbehindtheDSLwasto' ! permitanyofthreepossibletermsinaparticularcase,withthetrialcourt # having fullflexibilitytotailoranappropriatesentenceunderthe %!! circumstancesofeachindividualcase.(ABM1617.) '##  ` SuchreasoningcontradictstheprimegoalbehindtheDSL!state )%% wideuniformityinsentencing,ensuringthesametypeofoffenderand +'' offensewouldbetreatedinthesameway.( I 1170,subd.(a)(1).)  Disparitiesarise,notfromdifferencesinoffendersandcases,butfrom  differencesinthepredilectionsofjudges. C (Peoplev.Martin(1986)42  Cal.3d437,442443.)Asevidencedbythenumerousprovisionsregulating   andsupervisingdiscretion,theDSLwasdesignedtorestrict,notbroaden,   discretionintheindividualcase.(SeeOBM4547.)    &   `  3.0 UnliketheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtssolutionforthe   federalsystem,respondentsproposalisnotconsistent   withthestatutoryscheme.  v    C ` ItisirrelevantthatrespondentsproposalresemblestheUnitedStates  '^SupremeCourtsreformationofthefederalsystemin F UnitedStatesv.  Booker(2005)543U.S.220[125S.Ct.738,160L.Ed.2d621].As  respondentagrees,theFederalSentencingGuidelinesaredifferentfrom  CaliforniasDSL.(ABM22.) G BookersrenderingtheFederalSentencing  Guidelinesadvisoryonly(543U.S.atpp.258265)mayhavecomported  withCongresssintent,butsuchasolutionwouldthwarttheCalifornia   Legislaturesobjectiveofrestraineddiscretiontoachievestatewide " consistency. $   ` Furthermore,unlikethefederalsystem,Californiahaslongshowna &!" preferenceforjurytrialsonchargedenhancements.(E.g.,  422.75,subd. (#$ (e); K Ԁ666.5,subd.(c); M 1025; O 1158; Y 1170.1,subd.(e).)Thefederalsystem,on *%& theotherhand,generallydoesnotchargesuchfactsasenhancements,  relyinginsteaduponupwardanddownwarddepartures.(  UnitedStates  SentencingCommission,GuidelinesManual;UnitedStatesv. G Booker,  supra,543U.S.atpp.227,233.)    ` Reformationisaquestionofstate,notfederal,law.( < Koppv.Fair   Pol.PracticesCom.,supra,11Cal.4thatpp.620621.)TheSupremeCourt   in Q Cunninghamv.California(2007)549U.S.__[127S.Ct.856,871,166   L.Ed.2d856]mentionedtheoptionsofreformingthestatute,providingfor  jurytrials, orotherwisealter[ing]itssystem.Itdidnotprescribea  remedy,however,nordidithavejurisdictiontodoso.( T UnitedStatesv.  ThirtySeven(37)Photographs(1971)402U.S363,369[91S.Ct.1400,18  L.Ed.2d822]; < Kopp,supra,11Cal.4thatp.620.)   &   `   4.0  Otherstatesresponsesdonotprovidean  appropriatemodelforCalifornia.     <  ` Respondentpointsonlytodecisionsofsisterstatesthatadopted  reformation,'ԀsuchasNewJerseyandOhio,omittingstatesthatdidnot,such ! asKansasandMinnesota.   #  4      ׀(OBM48,51.)Respondentalsofailsto # respondtoPardoscriticismofNewJerseysdecisionin Z ԀNewJerseyv.  Natale(2005)184N.J.458[828N.E.2d724](OBM5051),despiteits  relianceonthatcase(ABM2829).   ` In w Ohiov.Foster(2006)845N.E.2d470,thecourtreformedthe   statute,determiningthelegislaturesoverridinggoaltobeprotectingthe   publicandpunishingtheoffender.(Id.atp.494495.)InCaliforniathe   LegislaturesprincipalobjectivefortheDSLwasconsistencyandto   achievethatgoalitchosetodiminishjudicialdiscretion.(Peoplev. D Martin,  supra,42Cal.3datpp.442443.)Theenactinglegislaturewouldnotlikely  haveelectedaremedyincreasingdiscretionifakeyfeature!the  presumptivemiddleterm!wasfoundunconstitutional.   &   `   5.0  Preservingtheexistingsystembecauseitis fair  andeffectiveisnotanappropriateconsideration  inreformation.    ab ` Asareasontoadopttheproposedreformation,respondentassertsit  ' wouldpreservetheessentialpoliciesandproceduresofasystemthathas   dispensedfairandeffectivejusticeinCaliforniaforcloseto30years. " (ABM89.)However,asargued,respondenthasnotdemonstrateditwould $  dosoatall.Thiscourthasconsistentlyrecognizedthatitsroleisnotto &!" gainsaythewisdomandpolicyoftheLegislature. y (Bernardv.Foley(2006) (#$ 39Cal.4th794,813.)Todosois tousurp[]apowerneverconferredby *%& theConstitution.(  ExparteNewman(1858)9Cal.502,520(dis.opn.of  Field,J.).)Areformationdecisionmaynotbemadebasedoncurrentsocial  concernsorpostenactmentresults.Itmustfocussolelyonthepolicies  importanttotheenactingLegislatureatthetimeitacted.(  Gomezv.   SuperiorCourt(2005)35Cal.4th1125,1143,citing  Peoplev.Cruz(1996)   13Cal.4th764,775.)    &   `  B.0 AnyReformationAllowingImpositionofanUpperTerm   BasedontheUnderlyingConvictionAlone!Withouta   FindingofAdditionalSpecificFactors!Cannot   ConstitutionallyBeAppliedtoCrimesCommittedBefore  theReformation.    ab0  ` InPardosopeningbriefonthemerits,hearguedthatanyjudicially  ' reformedstatute(andimplementingrules)alongthelinesofUnitedStates  v. G Booker,supra,543U.S.220couldnotconstitutionallybeappliedtoa  defendantwhocommittedthecrimebeforethereformation.(OBM5262)  Respondentneverthelessproposesanextensivearrayofchangestothe  PenalCodeandCaliforniaRulesofCourtandmaintainsthesemaybe   appliedretroactively.(ABM4547.)Eachoftheseinterrelatedchanges " wouldcomesquarelywithinthedueprocessbaragainstjudicialdecisions $  changingthelawinamannerakintoexpostfactolaws.(U.S.Const.,  art. &!"  I,9,cl.3,  14thAmend.;Cal.Const.,  art.I,9,15.)(OBM5262.) (#$ &      `   1.0  Changes(a)eliminatingelementsoftheupperterm  offense,(b)increasingthepunishmentforthebase  offensealone,(c)eliminatingabeneficial  presumption,(d)makingitmoredifficulttoimpose  themiddleterm,and(e)reducingtheburdenof  proofforimposingtheuppertermcannotbe   appliedretroactively. ab>      ` RespondentmakeslittleefforttorespondtoPardosargumentswhy   ' thevariouschangestobewroughtbyitsproposalwouldviolatedue   process/expostfactoprinciples.InsteaditmerelyarguesPardowason   noticehisconductwascriminalandtheuppertermwas possible.(ABM   46.)Expostfactoprinciples,however,entailfarmorethanthesesimplistic  requirements.(  Peoplev.Farley(1996)45Cal.App.4th1697,17071708  [judicialeliminationofrequirementthatintenttoaidandabetperpetratorof  burglarybeformedatorbeforetimeofentrycannotbeapplied  retroactively,eventhoughdefendantknewactwas criminalwhenhe  committedit;defendantentitledtonoticeofpunishmentforspecific  conduct].)    ` First,respondentsproposedreformationswouldeliminateelements " ofanuppertermoffenseascurrentlydefined!specificfactsinaggravation $  andadeterminationtheseoutweighfactsinmitigation.(  Rules4.405(4), &!"   4.420(a)&(b).)(ABM3334,3739.)Suchchangesreducethe (#$ prosecutionsburdenandcannotbeappliedretroactivelybyeitherstatuteor *%& judicialdecision.(See  Peoplev.Morante(1999)20Cal.4th403,431432  [requirementofattempttocommitobjectoffensewithinstate,for  conspiracy];  Mossv.SuperiorCourt(1998)17Cal.4th396,430  [requirementtofindwork,forchildsupportcontemptfinding];  Peoplev.   Davis(1994)7Cal.4th797,811812[viabilityrequirement,forfetal   murder];Peoplev.  Farley,supra,45Cal.App.4th1697;  InreBaert(1988)   205Cal.App.3d514,518520[ intenttokillrequirement,forfelony   murderspecialcircumstance];seealso  ԀMarksv.UnitedStates(1977)430  U.S.188,191196[97S.Ct.990,51L.Ed.2d260][changeindefinitionof  obscenity,makingconvictioneasier].)   ` Thischange,inturn,wouldincreasethepunishmentforthebase  offensefoundbythejury(violationofPen.Code,  506),withnoadditional  facts,fromthemiddletermtotheupperterm.Anincreaseinpunishmentis  aclassicexpostfactoviolation.(  Calderv.Bull(1798)3Dallas386,390;  seeLyncev.Mathis(1997)519U.S.433[117S.Ct.891,137L.Ed.2d63]   [eliminationofearlyreleasecredits];    Millerv.Florida(1987)482U.S.423 " [107S.Ct.2446,96L.Ed.2d351][changeindefinitionofprimaryoffense $  andattendant pointsforitincreasedpresumptivesentence];  ԀWeaverv. &"" Graham(1981)450U.S.24,28[101S.Ct.960,67L.Ed.2d17][reduction ($$ inconductcredits];  Peoplev.King(1993)5Cal.4th59,80[ Refusingto *&& applyCulbreth[   #  5      ]herewouldmakethepunishmentfor[defendants]crimes  moreburdensomeafterhecommittedthem];  Peoplev.Weidert(1985)39  Cal.3d836,849851[increasingcrimefromfirstdegreemurdertomurder  withspecialcircumstances].)    ` Respondentsproposaltoeliminatethepresumptionofthemiddle   term(Pen.Code,  1170,subd.(b);rule  4.420(a))alsorunsafoulofdue   process/expostfactoprohibitions.(ABM1516,3334,3839.)Achange   inapplicablepresumptionsthatmakesiteasiertoimposeanenhanced  sentencecannotberetroactive.(  Millerv.Florida,supra,482U.S.423  [changesincreasedpresumptivesentenceandmadeiteasiertogethigher  term];  Lindseyv.Washington(1937)301U.S.397[57S.Ct.797,81L.Ed.  1182][changingsentencefrom upto15yearsto 15years,eliminating  possibilityoflessthan15];  Peoplev.Delgado(2006)140Cal.App.4th1157  [makingprobationlengththreeyearsinsteadof nogreaterthanfourand  requiringprobationconditionsthathadpreviouslybeendiscretionary];     Peoplev.Williams(1987)196Cal.App.3d1157,1160[eliminatingtrial " courtdiscretiontodismissseriouspriorallegation]and  Peoplev.Hoze $   (1987)195Cal.App.3d949[same].) &""  ` Notonlywouldthemiddletermnolongerbepresumptiveunder   respondentsproposal,butthecourtwouldhavetostatereasonsfor  imposingit.(Rules  4.406(b)(4),  4.420(e),  4.433(c)(1).)(ABM3840.)  Thiswouldmakeimpositionofthemiddletermmoredifficult.In  Millerv.   Florida,supra,482U.S.423,Floridalawrequiredthejudgetostate   reasonsforgivingmorethanthepresumptivesentence.Atthetimeofthe   crime,thatsentencewas3to4years,andthecourthadtogivereasons   forimposingmore.Whenthedefendantwassentenced,changesintheway  theguidelinesoperatedhadincreasedthepresumptivetermto5to7  years;thecourtthushadtostatereasonsforimposingless.Thedefendant  wasgivensevenyears.TheSupremeCourtfoundthesechanges  substantivelydisadvantageousandthusimpermissible.(Id.atpp.432433.)    Millercontrolshere.   ` Finally,respondentsproposalwouldlessentheburdenofprooffor  justifyingtheupperterm.Underrespondentsreformedrules,thetrialcourt   couldimposetheuppertermwithoutanyspecificfactfinding,whereasat " thetimeofPardosactsitcoulddosoonlybyfindingaggravatingfactsbya $  preponderancestandard,whichApprendi,ԷԷBlakely,#ԷԷ~#Ԁand R Cunningham!  #  6      found, &"" ironically,tobeunconstitutionallylow.(  Rule4.4    20(b);seealso  rules    4.405(4),  4.420(a).)(ABM3334,3739.)Achangeintheburdenofproof  isindisputablywithinthepurviewofthebaragainstexpostfactolaws.  (  Carmellv.Texas(2000)529U.S.513,532,539542[120S.Ct.1620,146   L.Ed.2d577];  Cummingsv.Mo.(1867)71U.S.277,328[18L.Ed.356];     Peoplev.Simon(1995)9Cal.4th493,500,fn.7;cf.  JohnL.v.Superior   Court(2004)33Cal.4th158,180[ [t]herehasbeennoreductioninthe   sufficiencyofevidenceorstandardofproofneededtofindpetitioners...  guilty].)  &   `   2.0  Thefactrespondentsproposedreformationwould  bejudiciallyratherthanlegislativelyimposeddoes  notaltertheexpostfactoanalysis . reO    ` RespondentdoesnotdisputePardosargumentsthattheLegislature  '(couldnotconstitutionallyadoptitsproposedchangesasretroactive  amendments.Neverthelessrespondenturgesthat,becausedirect  constitutionalexpostfactoprohibitionsapplyonlytostatutes(aproposition   withwhichPardoofcourseagrees),judicialchangesinthelawaresubject " toalesser fairnoticerequirement,meaningthatonlyan unexpectedand $  indefensiblechangeviolatestheexpostfactoprinciplesinherentindue &"" process(apropositionwithwhichPardostronglydisagrees).Fromthis ($$ respondentconcludesitsproposedjudicialreformationschemewouldbe *&& constitutionalbecausePardo wasfullyawarethathisconductwascriminal  atthetimehecommittedtheoffenseandalso ԷԷhadfairwarningatthetime  oftheoffensethathewaspotentiallysubjecttotheimpositionofanupper  termbecausetheuppertermwasexpresslyspecifiedinthePenalCodeasa   possiblepunishmentforhisconduct.#ԷԷs#ԷԷ(ABM46.) #ԷԷ#ԷԷ     ` Respondentapparentlyisurgingthiscourttoadoptanextraordinary   andanomalousprecept!thatthejudiciaryspowertoalterthePenalCode   isgreaterthantheLegislatures.Thispositiondefiescommonsenseand  precedent.#ԷԷ#HԷHHԀ#HH##ԷH#Itshouldgowithoutsayingthattheprimarypowertoadoptand  changelegislationlieswiththeLegislature.Undercommonprinciplesof  separationofpowers,thejudiciarysauthoritytoreformstatutory  enactmentsisnecessarilylimitedtoexceptionalsituations.   ` IfastatelegislatureisbarredbytheExPostFactoClausefrom  passingsuchalaw,itmustfollowthataStateSupremeCourtisbarredby  theDueProcessClausefromachievingpreciselythesameresultbyjudicial   construction.(  Bouiev.Columbia(1964)378U.S.347,353354[84S.Ct. " 1697,12L.Ed.2d894];seealso  Peoplev.Martinez(1999)20Cal.4th225, $  238;Peoplev.  Weidert,supra,39Cal.3d836,850;  Keelerv.Superior &"" (1970)2Cal.3d619,634635;Inre  Baert,supra,205Cal.App.3d514, ($$ 518.) *&&  ` The unexpectedandindefensibleformulationrespondentrelieson  comesfrom  Bouie.Thatcaseinvolvedaninterpretationofastatutebeyond  anyordinarymeaningofitswording.Sincethevastbulkofjudicial  decisionsinterpretingsimpleambiguitiesorgapsinstatutesandrulesdo   notviolatedueprocess/expostfactoprinciples,itwasnecessaryforthe   courttoconfinethecasetoitsnarrowcontext.Specifically,thecourthas   beenconcernednottoplaceanunacceptablerestraintonnormaljudicial   processesthatwouldinvolve anactofcommonlawjudgingand unduly  impairtheincrementalandreasoneddevelopmentofprecedentthatisthe  foundationofthecommonlawsystem.(  Rogersv.Tennessee(2001)532  U.S.451,461[121S.Ct.1693,149L.Ed.2d697],seealso  UnitedStatesv.  Lata(1stCir.2005)415F.3d107,111[ underlyingproblemisoneof  reconcilingthecontinuingmutabilityofjudicialdoctrinewithconcerns  aboutrelianceandnotice];cf.  Peoplev.Billa(2003)31Cal.4th1064,  1073[ wearenotretroactivelyenlargingacriminalstatutebutmerely   interpretingone(emphasisoriginal)anddistinguishingpriorcases,not " overrulingthem].) $   ` Suchalimitationhasnoapplication,however,whenthejudicial &"" decisionisnotsimplyclarifyinganambiguityorfillinginagap,but ($$ directlychangingexplicitexistinglawinacontradictorydirectionfromits *&& formerone.Inthissituation,retroactiveapplicationofthenewdecision  starklyraisesdueprocess/expostfactoproblems,asthemanyprospective  onlydecisionsofthiscourtcitedante!  Morante,  Moss,  Davis,  King,and    Weidert,forexample!illustrate.    ` Thisistruewhetherornotthechangeis unexpectedand   indefensible.Althoughachangemayhavebeenforeseeableinthesense,   forexample,thepreviouslawhadbeenheavilycriticized,neverthelessone   isentitledtorelyonthelawasitexistedatthetimeoftheoffenseand  cannotberequiredtobeprescient.Apresciencerequirementherewould  meanPardohadanobligationtodivinetheresultin R Cunningham,%  #  7      ׀despite  thefactthatresultwasfarfromobvious,asillustratedbythelaterdecision  in  Peoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238.(SeePeoplev.  King,supra,5  Cal.4th59,80[ merepossibilitythatthiscourtmightreconsideritsown  precedentisnottheequivalentofactuallyoverrulingit].)Similarly,the  changemayalsobewhollydefensible,inthesensethattheformerlawwas   illconceivedoroutmoded;again,however,oneisnotrequiredtofathoman " explicitexistingruleisuntenable,butisentitledtorelyonitas $  authoritative.Anyotherprinciplewouldintroduceintolerableinstability &"" andinviteindividualsecondguessingoflegaldecisions. ($$  `   Rogersv.Tennessee,supra,532U.S.451,onwhichrespondent  relies(ABM45),isdistinguishable.Itinvolvedarepudiationofacommon  lawdoctrine,the yearandadayrule.UnlikeCaliforniasDSLofalmost  30years,thatdoctrinehadatenuousfoothold,ifany,inthestateandhad   neverbeenthebasisforacourtholding.(Id.atpp.464466.)Italsodid   notinvolveasubstantialfairnoticeproblem,sinceitdealtwithevents   happeningafterthedefendantsactsandbeyondhiscontrol;inPardos   case,incontrast,respondentsproposedreformationswouldimpose  detrimentalchangesintheconsequencesofhisconductandthestandards  bywhichtheyaretobedetermined.  &   `   3.0   G Bookerandthefederalcasesapplyingitarenot  persuasiveauthoritiesonthedueprocess/expost  factoissues.     "W ` ItistruethatBookeritselforderedapplicationofitsrulingtocases  pendingonappeal,butonlyasaroutineacknowledgmentofthenormal  ' 0principlesofretroactivityestablishedin  Teaguev.Lane(1989)489U.S.   288[109S.Ct.1060,103L.Ed.2d334]andԷԷ  Griffithv.Kentucky(1987)479 " U.S.314[107S.Ct.708,93L.Ed.2d649]#ԷԷ#.(UnitedStatesv.Booker,supra, $  543U.S.220,268.)Neitherthemajorityremedialdecisionnorthedissent &!" evenmentionedpossibledueprocess/expostfactoproblems,muchless (#$ resolvethem. *%&  ` Respondentcitesanumberoffederalcasesrejectingexpostfacto  challengestoapplicationofthe G Bookerremedialopiniontopendingcases.  (ABM46.)Bookerwastheonlycaseinthe  Apprendito R Cunninghamseries  tospecifyaremedy.Thelowerfederalcourtswereobligatedtofollowit   andapplytherevisedGuidelinesretrospectively.Thesameisnottruein   Cunningham,whichlefttheremedysquarely in[Californias]court.   (Cunninghamv.California,supra,127S.Ct.856,871.)Thiscourtisnot   laboringunderaremandorderthatconstrainsitsauthoritytofashiona  constitutionalremedy.   ` Noneofthefederalcircuitcourtdecisionsrejectingadueprocess/ex  postfactoargumentdealtwithremediesofthesortrespondentproposes.  Nordidtheyaddressinmorethanaconclusionarywaytheproblems  Pardosanalysisraises!(a)eliminatingelementsofanuppertermoffense,  thusmakingtheburdenontheprosecutionlighter,(b)increasingthe  potentialpunishmentforthebaseoffensefromthemiddletotheupper   term,(c)eliminatingabeneficialpresumption,(d)makingitmoredifficult " toimposethemiddleterm,and(e)reducingtheburdenofprooffor $  imposingtheuppertermfromanunconstitutionallylowpreponderance &"" standardtonothing.Thefederalcasesarethereforenotpersuasive ($$ authoritiesforthiscourtsdispositionofPardoscontentions.  *&&   &  II.0 ` THESENTENCINGCOURTVIOLATEDPARDOSSIXTH  AND  FOURTEENTHAMENDMENTRIGHTSWHENIT  IMPOSEDTHEUPPERTERMBASEDONFACTORS  NEITHERADMITTEDNORFOUNDTRUEBYAJURY. ` `   ""<#Ԁ0 ` ` `     ` A.0 PardosClaimIsNotWaivedbytheLackofObjectionat   Sentencing. L#    ""$ ` Asrespondentconcedes,PardossentencingoccurredinOctober   ' ^#2005,afterthiscourtdecidedPeoplev.  Black,supra,35Cal.4th1238,and   thesentencingcourtwasrequiredtofollowthatholding.Respondent   neverthelessarguesthelackofobjectionatsentencingforfeitedtheissue.   (ABM5053.)Respondentscitationinsupportofthisrefutesitsown  position:  8 ` NoproceduralprincipleismorefamiliartothisCourtthan  thataconstitutionalright,orarightofanyothersort,maybe  forfeitedincriminalaswellascivilcasesbythefailureto  maketimelyassertionoftherightbeforeatribunalhaving  jurisdictiontodetermineit.'` x` x (ABM5051,quoting  Peoplev.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580,590,  emphasisadded.)Manifestly,thesentencingcourtdidnothavethe   authoritytodeterminetheclaim:itwasboundby  Black. "  ` Asthiscourtheldin  Peoplev.BirksL  M  Ԁ(1998)19Cal.4th108,116,fn. $  6,wherealowercourtisboundbyahighercourtsdecisiononanissue, &!" failuretoraiseitinthelowercourtdoesnotconstitutewaiver.Respondent (#$ attemptstodistinguish  Birksonthegroundthatissuehadbeensettledfor *%& severalyears,whereas  Blackhasneverbeenfinal.(ABM52)Thisis  wrong!Blackbecamefinal30daysafterfiling(Cal.RulesofCourt,  rule  8.532(b)(1))!andirrelevant!evenwhenapetitionforcertiorariispending  orhasbeengranted,lowercourtsarerequiredtofollowthedecisionofthe   CaliforniaSupremeCourtunlessanduntiltheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt   overrulesit.(  Peoplev.Jaramillo(1993)20Cal.App.4th196,197-198;  In   reEdgerly(1982)131Cal.App.3d88,91,fn.1.)    ` Thepurposeoftheforfeitureruleistogivethecourtanopportunity  toavoidorcorrecttheerror.(  Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331,354.)  Thisconsiderationdoesnotapplywhenthelowercourtisrequiredby  bindingauthoritytooverruleanobjection.(   Peoplev.Guerra(2006)37  Cal.4th1067,1126[failuretointerposefutileobjectionisnotwaiver].)  &    ` B.0 The PriorConvictionExceptionIsInapplicableBecause  Boththe NumerousPriorConvictionsFactorandthe   OnProbationFactorRequireFactFindingBeyondthe  RecordofaPriorConviction.S1   ""q1 ` Respondentarguestwoaggravatingfactorsfoundbythesentencing ! 'e1courtfallwithin thepriorconvictionexceptionto R Cunningham!numerous # priors  #  8      ׀andbeingonprobationatthetimeoftheoffense.(ABM54,citing % !    AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224[118S.Ct.1219,  140L.Ed.2d350].)Neitherofthese,however,fallswithinthe factofa  priorconvictionexception.(  Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.466,  490.)Respondentsargumentthepriorconvictionexceptionbroadly   encompassesallissuesrelatingto recidivismignorestheSupremeCourts   repeatedadmonitionsthatitshouldbeinterpretednarrowly.(SeeOBM17   20,citing  Apprendi,atpp.488490;  Shepardv.UnitedStates(2005)544   U.S.13,2526[125S.Ct.1254,161L.Ed.2d205]; R Cunninghamv.  California,supra,127S.Ct.atp.874,fn.14.)   ` Thenumerouspriorconvictionsfinding(2RT391)doesnotbring  thecaseunder   AlmendarezTorres.Asarguedintheopeningbrief(see  OBM2224),itisaninherentlysubjectivematterrelatedtothenumber,  nature,andtimingofthepriors.Thusitisfarbeyond thefactofaprior  convictionandcomessquarelyunderԷԷ  Blakelyv.Washington,supra,542  U.S.296.#ԷԷ:#    ` RespondentalsoreliesonthedeterminationPardowasonprobation " atthetimeofthecurrentoffense,althoughthisfactormanifestlyrequiresa $  findingbeyondthefactofthepriorconviction.RespondentassertsPardo  admittedthefactorinhistestimony(ABM3,59,citing1RT250),butthis  isincorrect.Pardotestifiedhewasputonprobationforhismarijuana  possessionconvictionin1995,andthathewasconvictedofamisdemeanor   in2001,buthedidnottestifyhewasonprobationatthetimeofthecurrent   offenseinthefallof2003.(1RT249250.)    ` Respondentsassertionasentencingcourtmaylooktotherecordof   apriorconvictionasconclusiveproofofwhetheradefendantwason  probationonafuturedateisunsupportedandincorrect.First,itisdoubtful  whethersucharecordreliablyandaccuratelyreflectstheterminationor  expirationofprobation.Thisisevidentfromcasesinwhichgovernmental  recordsincorrectlyindicatedapersonwasonparoleorprobation.(E.g.,    Peoplev.Willis(2002)28Cal.4th22,3536[incorrectrecordlisting  defendantasbeingonparole];  Peoplev.Ferguson(2003)109Cal.App.4th  367,370371[incorrectrecordslistingdefendantasaprobationer].)   Second,theSupremeCourtexpresslyheldin  Shepardv.UnitedStates, " supra,544U.S.13,2224,thatasentencingcourtassessingaprior $  convictionunder   AlmendarezTorresmayconsideronlythosefacts &"" necessarilyadmittedorfoundtruebyajury.Thisislimitedtosuchmatters ($$ asthechargingdocument,thetermsandfactualbasisofanyplea *&& agreement,andthetrialtestimony.(Id.atpp.2223,2526.)Thequestion  ofwhetheradefendantwasonprobationatsometimeaftertheconviction  isnotascertainablefromtheserecords,norwillanyinformationregardinga  defendantscurrentprobationstatushavebeenadmittedorfoundtruebya   jury.Thus,thepriorconvictionexceptionisinapplicable.    ` True,theTenthCircuithasheldthequestionofwhetheradefendant   wasundercourtsupervisionatthetimeofacrimefallswithintheprior   convictionexception.  (UnitedStatesv.Corchado(10thCir.2005)427F.3d  815,820,citedatABM57.)However,thecourtreachedthisconclusionon  verylittleanalysisandapparentlydidnotconsiderthelimitsimposedby    Shepardv.UnitedStates.  Corchadoisincorrect.  &    ` C.0 EvenIfAnyAggravatingFactorWasWithinthePrior  ConvictionException,SuchFactorIsStillImproper  BecauseItWasFoundbyaPreponderanceofthe  EvidenceRatherThanBeyondaReasonableDoubt.fG    G ` RespondentdisputesPardosassertiontheSupremeCourtin  'xG   AlmendarezTorresexpresslyrefrainedfromdecidingtheapplicable ! standardofproofinacourttrialonaprior.(ABMp.59.)However,that # casespecificallysaid: % ! 8 ` Wementiononefinalpoint.Petitionermakesnoseparate, '"# subsidiary,standardofproofclaimswithrespecttohis (#$ sentencing,perhapsbecauseheadmittedhisrecidivismatthe )$% timehepleadedguiltyandwouldthereforefinditdifficultto *%& showthatthestandardofproofcouldhavemadeadifference +&' tohiscase.Accordingly,weexpressnoviewonwhether  someheightenedstandardofproofmightapplytosentencing  determinationswhichbearsignificantlyontheseverityof  sentence.` x` x bJ(   AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates,supra,523U.S.atpp.247248.)     Apprendilikewiseindicatedtheburdenofproofquestionwasanopenone.   (Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.atp.488.)    ` Respondentcontendstherightstoajurytrialandproofbeyonda   reasonabledoubtare associatedor companionrightsthatcannotbe   severed.YetthatispreciselywhattheSupremeCourthassuggestedby  pointedlynotinginboth   AlmendarezTorresandApprendithatitwasnot  decidingwhatstandardofproofappliestoafindingofapriorconviction.  Thatajudicialdeterminationcancoexistwithareasonabledoubtstandard  ofproofisevidentfromthefactthatinabenchtrialthecourtmustapply  thebeyondareasonabledoubtstandard.   ` Thefourjusticedissentin   AlmendarezTorresnotedthatsubstantial  precedentsupportedtherighttoproofbeyondareasonabledoubtonaprior ! conviction.Itstatedthat traditionalAmericanandEnglishpractice[]has # allowedrecidivismtobechargedandtriedseparately[].Ithasnotallowed %!! recidivismtobedeterminedbyajudgeasmorelikelythannot. '## (   AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates,supra,523U.S.atpp.259260, )%% citationsomitted,emphasisadded.)Itpointedoutthat  InreWinship(1970) +'' 397U.S.358,364[90S.Ct.1068,25L.Ed.2d368],requiringproofbeyond  reasonabledoubttoconvicthasbeenextendedtodeterminationsaffecting  thelengthofthesentence,aswell.(  Mullaneyv.Wilbur(1975)421U.S.  684,697698[95S.Ct.1881,44L.Ed.2d508];   AlmendarezTorres,atp.   251.)TheAlmendarezTorresdissentingminoritynowcomprisesa   majority,withtheadditionofJusticeThomas.(See  Apprendiv.New   Jersey,supra,530U.S.atpp.518521(conc.opn.ofThomas,J.).) x     ` Thequestionofwhetherajudicialfindingofapriorconvictionmust  bemadebeyondareasonabledoubtisatleastsubjectto genuinedoubt.  (See   AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates,supra,523U.S.atp.251).Under  theruleof constitutionaldoubt,Californiasentencinglawshouldbe  interpretedsoastoavoidthecloudofthisconstitutionalquestion.(See    UnitedStatesexrel.AttorneyGen.v.Delaware&HudsonCo.(1909)213  U.S.366,408[29S.Ct.527,53L.Ed.836].)Theaggravatingfactorsin  Pardoscasewerenotfoundtruebeyondareasonabledoubt,andsothey    areinvalidevenifoneormorefallswithinthepriorconvictionexception. " &      ` D.0 TheErrorWasPrejudicial    [   `  1.0  Theexistenceofoneproperaggravatingfactordoes  notnegate R Cunninghamerrorastootherfactorsor  doawaywiththeneedforaprejudiceanalysis.[     [ ` R espondentarguestheexistenceofasinglevalidaggravatingfactor    ' Znegatesanyclaimof  Blakely  #  9      ׀errorastootherfactorsusedbythe   sentencingcourt.Respondentreasonsthatasingleaggravatingfactmakes   thedefendant eligiblefortheupperterm,andthereforenoconstitutional   violationoccursifasinglevalidfactorexists,eventhoughthesentencing   courtreliedonother,invalidfactors.(ABM61,citing ! Peoplev.Osband  (1996)13Cal.4th622,728[onefactorsufficienttojustifyimpositionof  upperterm].)Respondentsays,quoting  Blakely,ԷԷ theconstitutionaltest  focusesonthejudges#ԷԷg`#ԷԷauthority#ԷԷ`#ԷԷtoimposeanenhancedsentence,  regardlessofwhethertheenhancedsentencedependsonfindinga  specifiedfact...#ԷԷIa#ԷԷ,one#ԷԷ1b#ԷԷofseveralspecifiedfacts...#ԷԷyb#ԷԷ,or#ԷԷb#ԷԷany#ԷԷ&c#ԷԷaggravating  fact.HԷ#HHoc#HHԀ#HHc##ԷHc#(ABM6162,emphasisinABM.)    ` Respondents oneandyouredoneformulaforassessing "  R Cunningham  #  10      ׀errorfundamentallymisconstruesCaliforniasentencinglaw. $  Thefallacyinrespondentstwostepanalysis!eligibilityfollowedby &!" weighing(ABM6164,65,fn.22)!isthattheweighingprocessisnot  merelyameansofsuggestingwhetherthesentencingcourtshouldimpose  theuppertermbutratherisanessentialcomponentindeterminingwhether  thecourtmaylawfullyimposeit.Whileitistruethatanuppertermmay   notbeimposedabsentasingleaggravatingfactor,theconverse,i.e.,that   anysingleaggravatingfactorwillnecessarilysupporttheupperterm,isnot   true.    ` UndertheDSL, [s]electionoftheuppertermisjustifiedonlyif,  afteraconsiderationofalltherelevantfacts,thecircumstancesin  aggravationoutweighthecircumstancesinmitigation.(Cal.Rulesof  Court,rule  4.420(b);Peoplev.  Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1247.)Bythe  verytermsoftherule,inagivencaseaparticularaggravatingfactormaybe  insufficientlyweightytojustifyimpositionoftheupperterm.Contraryto  respondentsposition,therefore,thetrialcourtdoesnothave authorityto  imposeanuppertermsolelyuponfindingavalidaggravatingfactor,nor   doesthedefendantbecome eligibleforit.Thatcourtgainsthatauthority, " andthedefendantthateligibility,onlyafterthecourtmakestheadditional $  findingthatcircumstancesinaggravationoutweighcircumstancesin &"" mitigation.Further,aparticularsingleaggravatingfactormaybelegally ($$ insufficienttosupporttheupperterminaparticularcase. *&&  ` Thiswaspreciselytheholdingin # Peoplev.Piceno(1987)195  Cal.App.3d1353,wheretwoofthreefactorsusedtoimposetheupperterm  wereunsupportedorinapplicablebutavalidfactor,thedefendantsjuvenile  record,remained.(Id.atpp.13571360.)TheCourtofAppeal   acknowledgedthegeneralpropositionthat [a]singlefactoror   circumstanceinaggravationissufficienttojustifytheimpositionofthe   upperterm.(Id.atp.1360.)However,thecourtremanded,findingthat,   underthefactsofthecase, Picenosjuvenilerecordstandingaloneis  insufficientasamatteroflawinacaseofvehicularmanslaughterwithout  grossnegligencetoaggravatethesentence.(Id.atpp.13601361,  emphasisadded.)   ` Finally,respondentreliesonJusticeKennardsseparateopinionin    Black,concludingtherewasno  Blakelyviolationinthecasebeforethe  courtbecause thejurysfindingspertainingtodefendantsprobation  eligibility,andthetrialcourtsfindingspertainingtothedefendants   criminalrecord,wereeachsufficienttosatisfythisstatutoryrequirement " [anaggravatingfactor],therebymakingtheuppertermthestatutory $  maximumfortheoffense.  #  11      ׀(Peoplev.  Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1270 &"" (conc.&dis.opn.ofKennard,J.).)JusticeKennardsanalysisdoesnot  compeltheresulturgedbyrespondent.Itisnotclearwhetheritwasbased  ontheconclusionthattheparticularaggravatingfactorsweresufficiently  weightytosupporttheupperterminlightoftheentirecircumstances,oron   theviewrespondenturges!thatanyaggravatingfactor,nomatterhow   relativelyinsubstantial,justifiestheupperterm.Whatisclearisthatthe   latterinterpretationwouldbeinconsistentwithrule  4.420(b),reaffirmedin   themajorityopinion,that theuppertermisjustifiedonlyif,aftera  considerationofalltherelevantfacts,thecircumstancesinaggravation  outweighthecircumstancesinmitigation.(Peoplev.  Black,supra,35  Cal.4thatp.1247.)   ` Forthesereasons,whereoneofseveralaggravatingfactorsisfound  toviolatetherighttojurytrial,a R Cunninghamerrorhasoccurred,andthe  reviewingcourtmustconductaprejudiceanalysis.  &    `  2.0  Noneofthefactorsinaggravationwasproper   under  Blakely.!    rz y ` Respondentassertsthat,evenifaprejudiceanalysisisrequired,the # '@%zfindingthatajurywouldnecessarilyhavefoundanyoneaggravatingfactor % ! endstheprejudiceinquirybecausethatsinglefactorauthorizedtheupper  term.(ABM6669.)Thisisessentiallysimilartorespondentsargument  discussedimmediatelyante,anditsuffersfromthesameflaw.The  reviewingcourtmustdeterminewhichofthepurportedfactorsmeetthis   test,andthendeterminebeyondareasonabledoubtthesentencingcourt   wouldhaveimposedtheuppertermbasedonthosefactors.(See   Washingtonv.  Recuenco(2006)548U.S.__[126S.Ct.2546,2550,165   L.Ed.2d466],citing % Nederv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1,8[119S.Ct.  1827,144L.Ed.2d35].)   ` Turningtotheparticularfactorshere,respondentreiteratesits  contentionPardohadnumerouspriorconvictions.(ABM69.)Althoughhe  admittedapriorfelonyandapriormisdemeanorinhistestimony,this  admissiondoesnotestablish numerouspriorconvictionsbeyonda  reasonabledoubt.(See ' Peoplev.Fernandez(1990)226Cal.App.3d669,  681[twopriorsnot numerous].)Itisalsotruetheprobationreportlisted   11purportedpriorconvictions.(ABM69.)But,asdetailedante,the " applicablestandardofproofisbeyondareasonabledoubt,andastatement $  intheprobationreport,unsupportedbydocumentaryproof,cannotfulfill &""  thisburden.(SeeOBM3435; ) Peoplev.Reed(1996)13Cal.4th217,230 ($$ [probationreportcannotestablishpriorconvictionbeyondareasonable  doubt].)    ` RespondentalsoreiteratesitscontentionPardowasonprobationat  thetimeofthecurrentoffense.(ABM,citing1RT250.)Asnotedante,   contrarytorespondentsassertion,Pardogavenosuchtestimony.The   probationreportdidstatePardowasonprobationatthetimeofthecurrent   offense.But,asdetailedpreviously,theapplicablestandardofproofis   beyondareasonabledoubt,andastatementintheprobationreport,absent  otherproof,cannotfulfillthisburden.(SeeOBM3435.)   ` Onthelackofremorsefactor(ABM6970),respondentunavailingly  cataloguesadubiousassortmentofevidencetosupportitspositionthat  beyondareasonabledoubtajurywouldhavefoundlackofremorse.  Pardosclaimofextenuatingcircumstancesintwopreviousconvictionshas  littletodowithhisremorseinthecurrentcase.Itisdoubtfulhisclaimof  innocenceinthecurrentcase(i.e.,engineerJimMcBridewastoblame)isa   permissibleindicatorofremorselessness.(SeeOBM33; + Peoplev.Padilla " (1995)11Cal.4th891,958[errorforprosecutorincapitalmurderpenalty $  phasetoarguedefendantsclaimofinnocenceshowedlackofremorse], &"" overruledonanothergroundin - Peoplev.Hill(1998)17Cal.4th800,823.) ($$ Pardossupposedexpressionof disdaininfrontofthejuryisbasedonthe *&& factthetrialcourtadmonishedPardofor shak[ing]yourheadin  disagreementasMarkTiffanytestifiedfortheprosecution(1RT116);  manifestly,expressingdisagreementwithawitnessisafarcryfrom  expressingdisdainorremorselessness.    ` Asfortheplanningandsophisticationfactor,respondentbeginsby   notingthatPardocametoMarkTiffanysshopwearingashirtbearingthe   logoofthegradingandexcavatingbusinessheformerlyworkedfor(ABM   70);however,thesuggestionthatPardocalculatedlydonnedthisshirtasa  luretoenticevictimsisgrosslyspeculative.Morecredibly,respondent  notesfactssuchasusingabusinesscardforaformeremployer,promising  workinexchangeforpayments,draftingacrude,semiliteratecontract,and  makingupastringofexcusesforthelackofprogress.Whileadmittedly  thisconstitutessomeevidenceofplanningandsophistication,itcanhardly  besaidbeyondareasonabledoubtthatjurorswouldhavemadethat  finding.Ajurycouldhavefoundareasonabledoubtbasedontheviewthat   Pardotookthejobwithgoodintentions,butsimplybitoffmorethanhe " couldchew,andthencompoundedhismisjudgmentbysolicitingadditional $   paymentsandmakingupbogusexcuses. &"" &       `  3.0  Respondentcannotshowthetrialcourtwouldhave  imposedtheuppertermifithadbeenunabletorely  oninvalidfactors.      ѐ ` Finally,evenifoneormoreofthefourfactorsreliedonwasproper  'orcanberesurrectedthroughharmlesserroranalysis,respondentcannot   establishbeyondareasonabledoubtthatnoinvalidfactorscontributedto   theselectionoftheupperterm.Therecordfailstoeliminateareasonable   doubtwhetherthecourtwouldhavechosentheuppertermabsentsomeof   theinvalidaggravatingfactorsitreliedon.(SeeOBM3637.)    &   @% CONCLUSION     ` Forthereasonsgivenhereandintheopeningbriefonthemerits,this  courtshouldeitherreducethesentencetothemiddletermifthereareno  'wvalidaggravatingfactors;reversethesentenceandremandforthetrialcourt   toresentence,discardingthe  Blakelyviolativefactors;ororderajurytrial   onthe R Cunninghamviolativefactors,iftheprosecutionsodesires.(See   OBM39,63.)    Dated:0 0 0h  0h h Respectfullysubmitted,     `     h   APPELLATEDEFENDERS,INC.  ԷԷ `     h    `     h   NeilAuwarter   `     h   StaffAttorney   `     h   StateBarNo.109576  0 ` 0 ` ` 0 0h    CynthiaM.Sormanh h   `     h   StaffAttorney   `     h   StateBarNo.122289   `     h   DianeNichols "  `     h   StaffAttorney     x  #  `     h   StateBarNo.174830  $  #ԷԷ#    CERTIFICATION h   Ѐ\ ` Icertifythat,basedonthewordcountofthecomputerprogramused  topreparethisdocument,thereare7,411wordsinappellantsreplybriefon  themeritsexcludingthetablesandthecasecaption.    ` ԷԷIdeclareunderpenaltyofperjuryunderthelawsoftheStateof   Californiathattheforegoingistrueandcorrect.ExecutedatSanDiego,   California.   Dated:    h   APPELLATEDEFENDERS,INC.#ԷԷ#5Է   #Է5l#ԷԷ `     h   NeilAuwarter  #ԷԷß# `     h   StaffAttorney   &o %Է@ DECLARATIONOFSERVICE   CaseName:0   GARYMITCHELLPARDO; No.S148914 ` Ideclare: 8 IamemployedintheCountyofSanDiego,California.Iamover18yearsofageandnot 8 apartytothewithinentitledcause;mybusinessaddressis555WestBeechStreet,Suite   300,SanDiego,California921012939.   On"US ,  > March30,2007!  ,Iservedtheattached H   @ APPELLANTPARDOSREPLYBRIEFONTHEMERITS  H      ofwhichatrueandcorrectcopyofthedocumentfiledinthecauseisaffixed,byplacinga   copythereofinaseparateenvelopeforeachaddresseenamedhereafter,addressedtoeach   suchaddresseerespectivelyasfollows: X  (X  (AttorneyGeneral X 110W."A"St.,Ste.1100 0 P.O.Box85266  SanDiego,CA921865266  Hon.MarshaG.Slough X c/oClerk,SanBernardinoCounty 0 ЀSuperiorCourt  JoshuaTreeDist.  6527WhiteFeatherRoad h JoshuaTree,CA92252 @  h 1 X X 1SanBernardinoCountyDistrictAttorney  Attn:AppealsDivision  MarkA.Vos,LeadDeputy x 412HospitalityLn,1stFl. P SanBernardino,CA92415 (x GaryM.Pardo#F04132  ChuckawallaValleyStatePrison  P.O.Box2349 x  Blythe,CA92226 P! RalphF.George,Jr. (! AttorneyatLaw " PublicDefendersOffice  # 6527WhiteFeatherRoad `!$ JoshuaTree,CA92252 8"%  #`& Clerk,CourtofAppeal (& FourthAppellateDistrict, ' ЀDivisionTwo  ( 338912thStreet `!) Riverside,CA92501 8"* ( X (Eachenvelopewasthensealedandwiththepostagethereonfullyprepaiddepositedinthe $ * UnitedStatesmailbymeatSanDiego,Californiaon > March30,2007!  . % + Ideclareunderpenaltyofperjurythattheforegoingistrueandcorrect,andthisdeclaration H'"- wasexecutedatSanDiego,California,on"*US , US , * > March30,2007!  .  (p#. DOROTHYJIMENEZ  0 h 򀀀*%1h h  (TypedName) 0  0h  (Signature)#Է %&oŠ#