WPCD Ïp1:;0 b,?l+74QEے4V'B-'dV ẃΗVGH^>Q#~ޢRQ? Uş!KR)`865{*:y?wEh#[-ܴG7[uBk:`9z>bPĖslqkKs؃snNӼ7uVݭ G&mJCEUAڽ=ov@c@BV4 kVJDnW[Ɣq72ƿ Ǒ FNa U ꈭ]?:S[!a& ayqT#pi5aw-3'8EWx0[=Oh&Z+y= Z\41UZ`Q qxV-R?B)n7!礑oWtTHȀ#* U N %A 0(G ^ o w{ 4   m 0f 0 |! 0 D 0T 0c5 1 1 0w 0% 1= 1 0 K 0CU 0$ 0 1uF 1 1BB 1PPPeeeUB{ 1 1D 1 1R 1 1`faM 01 0=2 0o 0>7 0u 0? 0 0a 0 0 09p! 0!!! 02" 0" 0:# 0# 0_r$ 0 $ 0k% 0F' B* ) D37) Cj) D+) 0) 0v+ 06], 0, 0:- 0h- 0F=. 0. 0x}/ 00U61U>1U*1 B%2MB2 0F2(333 3 3 724 24N:4 <4 0uD4D4 0A4 0T44;N5N5N5N5N5N5N5N5 DO5 B6F^6U@6667N8: :BD;Z<=U@u@u@@ 0NCHP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular($0 z0Tǃ3|xU(W$ @*   A (;2$ !    0  (#$  0  (W$     (;3$2#  0  .3  0   :EGMSY_ekqAutoList11A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.1.A.A.A.A.A.(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(# Hbc 4heading 3heading 3&    2( ` hp x 2        >4X` hp x (#>'    (ehCEKQW]cioAutoList4IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(uhCEKQW]cioAutoList5IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIXST :2 Spacing Pl2 Spacing Pldg  2( ` hp x 2        >4X` hp x (#>  6[4heading 1             XXX      <J:signaturepld  &DL!&XXX  &DL!&(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.8?OU[agmsyLettersLettersA.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.    e \  `*Times New RomanTT(JEGMSY_ekqAutoList12A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(ڽCEKQW]cioAutoList6A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(CEKQW]cioAutoList7A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(CEKQW]cioAutoList8A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.( CEKQW]cioAutoList9A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. *EGMSY_ekqAutoList10A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.Table_C0.Normal<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEKW<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSX\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KW<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXSX\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/KW<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSX\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of IJK4$ ** ddI  B    ?Y%2A`Arial?9LK*  dd9  XXXSX\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d dIIII'dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForIJK4$** ddI  B    ?Y%2A`Arial?9LK*  dd9  XXXSX\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleKW<6X9`(Courier NewKSX\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKW<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSX\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  HST 42 Spacing2 Spacing  2( ` hp x 2        >4X` hp x (#>  V :footnote texfootnote text  W)\  `*Times New RomanTTW        XXXW)\  `*Times New RomanTTW  `:footnote reffootnote reference        <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial d` :Body Text InBody Text Indent 2  W)\  `*Times New RomanTTW        XXXW)\  `*Times New RomanTTW  23i)450"".header   (!   (!(Vm$0   (,!$0  0` (#(#  page page chapter volume footnote endnote ZZG"Thin Top/Bottom! dxdxuPen. Code,  273a, subd. (a)4 <_}{PenalCodesection273a,subdivision(a)}{(A Z(Times New Roman   $  1    _ԀAllfurtherreferencestorulespertaintotheCaliforniaRulesofCourt,  unlessotherwisespecified.  $  2    _ԀCT=ClerksTranscript;SD=SecretDocuments;RT=Reporters  Transcript,furtherdelineatedbydate. D  $  3    _ԀThecriminalappealsclerkforthe_Sonoma_ԀCountySuperiorCourtfiledan  amendedabstractofjudgmentandserveditonallpartiesonJanuary15,  2004. 0  $  4    _ԀThetimeforfilingapetitionforrehearingexpiredonJune11,2004,and  thedecisionin_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,supra,issuedonJune24,2004. 8  $  5    _ԀAllfactsweretakenfromtheprobationofficersreportfiledon  February19,2003,sinceapreliminaryhearingwaswaivedinthisguilty  pleamatter.(SD24;CT35.) P  $  6    _ԀAlthoughtheprobationreportstatescountIoccurredonJanuary5,2002,  itseemsthedateoftherobberyoccurredonJuly5,2002,accordingtothe  complaintandpolicereport.(CT1011,23.)   $  7    _Ԁggg EvenifBlakelyisinterpretedasapplyingonlytoaggravatingfactorsthat e areunrelatedtorecidivism,allofappellantsaggravatingfactorsconcerned e nonrecidivistfactorsasdiscussedbelow.(SeeAlmendarezTorresv. e UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224;Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530 e U.S.at488490.)#gg##gge#(A Z(Times New Roman    $  8    _ԀSupportforthisapproachisfoundbyanalogizingtotheineffective e assistanceofcounselcontext,whereadefendantcomplainingabout e erroneousadviceinconnectionwithhisorheracceptanceofapleaoffer e needshowonlythatheorshewouldhavegonetotrialbutforthebad e advice,notthatheorshewouldhaveprevailedatsuchtrial.(Hillv. e _Lockhart_(1985)474U.S.52,59.)Therighttoajurytrialissoinviolable e  thatusualnotionsofharmlesserroranalysisdonotapplytoit.(O$ !  _g8gXdd8 #P  &Ovgg    PetitionforReview n  _Blakely_ԀIssue:ImpositionofUpperTerm   (NonRecidivistAggravatingFactorsOnly) n  _Blakely_IssueNotRaisedinCourtofAppeal  GuiltyPlea n ЄPosted:7/2/04 n Peoplev.Smith,A102077#gvg#vgg  Author:KimberlyB.Fitzgerald #gvg#vgg n #gvge#vgg    #gvg#vgg0 @` INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEO8 @ FCALIFORNIA  W*01 ddd Xdd Xdd X  ,dt@,4dd@+  :ZZZ' C:PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA, 2 ̀PlaintiffandRespondent, . ~ ̀v. * z  % ` DAVIDALANSMITH%`k, &v  ̀DefendantandAppellant. "r   z 6,! p CZZZ C6 zS0______________ 0    (CourtofAppeal * z No.A102077)% a %a ( x (Sonoma% c %cԀCounty $t  SuperiorCourtNo. "r  % e MCR408487%eB) .( p C  ( . `     h      p   PETITIONFORREVIEW @`  @  @  @h  @ H  @  @p  @  [     @h  @  @   TO:0 ` THEHONORABLERONALDM.GEORGE,CHIEFJUSTICE, Y ANDTHEASSOCIATEJUSTICESOFTHECALIFORNIA Y SUPREMECOURT:Y` `    ` AppellantrespectfullypetitionsthisCourttoreviewtheMay27, Y! 2004,opinionoftheCourtofAppeal(FirstAppellateDistrict,Division Y# One), t inlightoftheveryrecentUnitedStatesSupremeCourtopinionin Y% Blakelyv.Washington(June24,2004,No.021632)___U.S.___[2004 Y!' DJDAR7581],concerningwhethertherewasaviolationoftheSixth Y#) AmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionwhenthesentencingcourt Y% + imposedtheaggravatingtermwithoutfirstsubmittingtheaggravating Y'"- factorstoajurytodeterminewhetherthefactorsweretruebeyonda Y)$/ reasonabledoubt.Alternatively,appellantrequeststhatthisCourttransfer Y+&1 #P #  #  themattertotheCourtofAppealtoconsiderthisissueastheopinionin  Blakelyv.Washington,supra,wasdecidedaftertheexpirationofthetime  inwhichappellantcouldfileapetitionforrehearingintheappellatecourt.  (Cal.RulesofCourt,rule28(b)(4).)x  #  1      ׀Theappellatecourtsopinionis   attachedtothispetitionasAppendixA( App.A).    @@3 3    QUESTIONPRESENTEDFORREVIEW   R    (83   ` Didthetrialcourterrorbyimposingtheaggravatedtermforsecond   degreerobberybyrelyingexclusivelyuponfactorsnotconcerning   recidivismandfailingtohaveajurydeterminewhetherthosefactorswere  truebeyondareasonabledoubt?  1   STATEMENTOFTHECASE        ` OnOctober29,2002,afirstamendedcomplaintwasfiledin  SonomaCountySuperiorCourtchargingappellantwithsevencountsof  felonyrobbery(Pen.Code,211)alongwithanallegationthateachcount  constitutedaseriousandviolentfelonywithinthemeaningofPenalCode   sections1192.7,subdivision(c),and667.5,subdivision(c),respectively. " (CT2324.)y  #  2       $   ` OnDecember19,2002,pursuanttopleanegotiations,appellantpled  guiltytofourcountsofseconddegreerobbery(countsIIV)inexchangefor  thedismissalofthreecountsofseconddegreerobbery(countsVVII)anda  maximumconfinementtimeof8yearsinstateprison.(CT3135;RT   12/19/022,4.)    ` OnFebruary7,2003,appellantfiledamotionrequestingprobation   orthemitigatedsentence.(CT4750.)Atthesentencinghearingon   February19,2003,thecourtdeniedappellantsmotionrequesting  probation.(CT53.)Thecourtalsodeniedappellantsrequestforthe  mitigatedstateprisonterm.(CT53.)Instead,thecourtimposedtheupper  termforcountI(5years)andconsecutivetermsforcountsIIIVcalculated  atonethirdthemidterm(3years),foratotalof8yearsinstateprison.(CT  53;RT2/19/03at2930.)Inreachingthisdecisiontoimposethe  aggravatedtermforcountI,thecourtmadethefollowingcomments:  8 ` Ithoughtaboutthisalotanditsthetotalityofthecriminality   herethatsbeingsentenced.!` x` x 8 ` Thecrimesinvolvedwerecruelandcallous.Theyrebased # upontherepeatedthreatstoshootorkillthetellersandthe $  useofprofanities.%!!` x` x 8 ` Themannerinwhichthecrimeswerecarriedoutdid, '## althoughtheresbeenargumentonthispoint,Ididfindthat ($$ theydidindicatesomesophisticationinthatheusedsun )%% glasses,differenthats,Iguessshavedhismustachefora *&& while,shavedhishair,andthenhishairwasgrowingback.+''` x` x Ї8 ` Thedefendanthasengagedinviolentconduct,seriousdanger  tosociety.` x` x 8 `  ` x` x 8 ` Withrespecttothefactorsinmitigation,Idonote,becauseas  Ivesaidbeforethatheperformedsatisfactorilyindrugcourt  downinOrange[C]ounty,butcertainlythebalancegoes   towardaggravation. ` x` x (RT2/19/03at2930.)   8 ` Atsentencing,thecourtfurtherstatedthatappellantwasentitledtoa   totalof139daysofpresentencecustodycredits,subsequentlyamendedto   140daysofpresentencecustodycredits.(CT5455;RT2/19/03at31;   AmendedAbstractz  #  3      .)Thecourtalsoimposedvariousrestitutionfinesand  orderedappellanttosubmitbloodandsalivasamplespursuanttoPenal  Codesection296.(CT5455;RT2/19/03at3031.)   ` AppellantfiledatimelynoticeofappealonMarch25,2003.(CT  56.)   ` DivisionOneoftheCourtofAppealfortheFirstAppellateDistrict  issueditsopiniononMay27,2004.(App.A.)Appellantdidnotfilea   petitionforrehearing._{  #  4      _ !     H4X` hp x (#XH        H4X` hp x (#XH        H4X` hp x (#XH        H4X` hp x (#XH        H4X` hp x (#XH        STATEMENTOFFACTS  '  @ |  #  5          @  @  @     CountIRobbery  (    ` OnJuly5,2002,}  #  6      ׀around6:00p.m.,appellantenteredtheBankof  AmericaonWestSteeleLaneinSantaRosa.(SD24.)Appellantwalked   uptobanktellerA.Turneranddemandedmoney.(Ibid.)Appellantsaid,    100's,50's,20'sandIwontshootyouinthehead.(Ibid.)Appellant   repeatedthedemandasthetellerreachedforthemoneyandhanded   appellant$4,119.(Ibid.)Appellanthurriedtotheexitandthenranashe   approachedthedoor.(Ibid.)Acustomerinlinenotedthatappellantwore  sunglassesandsmelledlikehehadbeendrinking.(Ibid.)     CountIIRobbery  x,    ` DuringthelateafternoonofAugust19,2002,appellantwalkedupto  banktellerT.Griffith,anemployeeattheExchangeBankonStonyPoint  RoadinSantaRosa.(SD24.)Appellantstated, Givemeallyourmoney.  (Ibid.)Healsosaid, Ihaveagun.Imgoingtoblowyourfuckinghead   off,givemeyourmoney.(SD25.)Shegaveappellant$4,350andhe " &O &e &  quicklyleftthebank.(Ibid.)Thetellerdescribedappellantaswearinga e baseballcapandsunglasses.(Ibid.) e    CountIIIRobbery  /  e  ` ShortlyafterlunchonSeptember17,2002,donningsunglasses, a  appellantenteredWashingtonMutualBankonGuernevilleRoadinSanta a  Rosa.(SD2425.)HeapproachedbanktellerT.Vierraandsaid, Ihavea a  gun.Iwantyourlargebills:100's,50'sand20's.Noinkpacks.Dontsay a  anythingwhenIleaveorbeloud.Ifyoudo,Illblowyourheadoff.(SD a  25.)Thetellergavehimaround$2,140andappellantleft.(SD25.) a    CountIVRobbery  ?2  a  ` Around5:34p.m.onJuly25,2002,appellantwasobservedatBank ] ofAmericaonWestSteeleLaneinSantaRosawearingabaseballhatand ] sunglasses.(SD25.)AppellantapproachedtellerR.Killenandsaid, Give ] meyour100's,50's,and20'sorIllshootyou.(Ibid.)Hesaidasecond ] time, HurryuporIllshoot.(Ibid.)Shegavehim$2,225andhesaid ]  beforeleaving, Ifyougivemeyourdyepack,Illshoot.(Ibid.) ]"     NECESSITYFORREVIEW  5 ]$      ` ThisCourtshouldgrantreviewtosettleanimportantquestionoflaw Y&!" regardingtherecentlydecidedUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecision, Y(#$ Blakelyv.Washington(June24,2004,No.021632)___U.S.___[2004 Y*%& DJDAR7581],anditsimpactonCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLaw e ( DSL).(Rule28(b)(1).)ThesignificanceoftheBlakelydecisionisthat e itrendersunconstitutionalportionsofCaliforniasdeterminatesentencing e scheme,includingtheprovisionofPenalCodesection1170,subdivision e  (b),whichauthorizesjudges,notjuries,tomakefactualfindingsin e  connectionwithaggravatingfactorsusedtoimposetheupperterm. e   ` Althoughthisissuewasnotraisedintheappellatecourt,appellant e  couldnotreasonablyanticipatetheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsholding e inBlakelyv.Washington,supra.AstheBlakelycasewasdecidedafterthe e timeinwhichappellantcouldfileapetitionforrehearingintheappellate e court,appellantasksthisCourttoreviewtheissue.Thissituationwould e appeartobeanexceptiontotheCourtsgeneralpolicyofnotconsidering e anissueunlessitwasfirstraisedbelowbecauseonecouldnotforeseethe e issue.(Rule28(c);seerule29(b)(2);Wienerv.SouthcoastChildcare e Centers,Inc.(2004)32Cal.4th1138,1145,fn.2.) e   ` Alternatively,thisCourtshouldtransferthemattertotheCourtof e" Appealsothatcourtcanhavetheopportunitytodecidethemeritsofthis e$  issueaftercompletebriefingbytheparties.(Rule28(b)(4).)See,for e&"" example,Peoplev.Howard(1987)190_Cal.App_.3d41,45,wherethis e($$ CourtgrantedreviewandretransferredthecasetotheCourtofAppealfor e*&& reconsiderationinlightofanopinionfiledbytheUnitedStatesSupreme e Courtjustafewdaysaftertheappellatecourtsopinion. e &  A.0 ` Blakelyrequiresthatfactorsusedtoimposeasentenceoverthe e statutorymaximummustfirstbefoundtruebeyonda c  reasonabledoubtbyajury.a ` `   > ` In_Blakely_,thedefendant(afterenteringaguiltyplea)wassentenced _  to90months,37monthsbeyondthestatutorymaximum,onthebasisthat _  ' e>heactedwith deliberatecruelty.(Blakelyv.Washington,supra,2004 _  DJDARat7582.)TheSupremeCourtheld, Otherthanthefactofaprior _  conviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondthe _ prescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury,andproved _ beyondareasonabledoubt.(Blakelyv.Washington,supra,2004DJDAR _ at7582,citingApprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,490.)The _ Courtfurtherstatedthat thestatutorymaximumforApprendipurposesis _ themaximumsentenceajudgemayimposesolelyonthebasisofthefacts _ reflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant.(Ibid.[emphasis _  inoriginal].)Statedanotherway, therelevantstatutorymaximumisnot _" themaximumsentenceajudgemayimposeafterfindingadditionalfacts, _$  butthemaximumhemayimposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.(Ibid. _&!"  [emphasisinoriginal].) _(#$  ` Thestatutorymaximumfor_Blakely_sconductwas53months,but e  thesentencingcourtimposedan exceptionalsentenceincreasingthe e sentenceto90monthsbasedontheaggravatingfactorofdeliberatecruelty. e (Ibid.)Washingtonlawprovidesforexceptionalsentencesbeyondthe e  standardrangeifbaseduponafindingofaggravatingfactorsotherthanthe e  onesusedtoimposethestandardterm.(Ibid.)_Blakely_ssentenceto90 e  monthswasbeyondthestatutorymaximum;therefore,thesentencingcourt e  erredbyimposingthatsentencewithoutproofbeyondareasonabledoubt e andajurydeterminationoftheaggravatingfactorusedtoincreasehis e sentence.(Ibid.) e  ` UnderCaliforniasDSL,themaximumsentenceajudgemayimpose e withoutanyadditionalfindingsisthemiddleterm: Whenajudgmentof e imprisonmentistobeimposedandthestatutespecifiesthreepossible e terms,thecourtshallorderimpositionofthemiddleterm,unlessthereare e circumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime.(Pen.Code, e  1170(b)[emphasisadded];seealsorules4.420(a)&(b).)Thus,the e" statutorymaximumtermisthemiddletermsincetheuppertermcannotbe e$  imposedabsentafindingofadditionalaggravatingfactors. e&""  ` Furthermore,California's dualuseruleunderscoresthe e($$ determinationthatthemiddletermisthestatutorymaximumtermhere e*&& becausethedualuseruleprohibitstheuseofanelementoftheunderlying e offenseoranenhancementtoimposetheupperterm.(Pen.Code, e 1170(b);rules4.420(c)&(d).)Thus,theaggravatingcircumstances e authorizinganuppertermarenecessarilyfactsbeyondthosedeterminedby e  appellantsguiltyplea.Putanotherway,wheretheonlyaggravating e  circumstancesarethosewhichoverlapeithertheoffenseorany e  enhancement,themiddletermisthe maximumsentenceadefendantmay e  receive.Itisonlyafindingofsomeadditional,non-overlapping e aggravatingcircumstancewhichcan exposeadefendanttoanupperterm. e  ` Consequently,underthereasoningofBlakelyandApprendi,a e defendanthasaSixthAmendmentrighttoajurydeterminationofanysuch e aggravatingcircumstanceusedtoimposeanupperterminCalifornia.~  #  7      ׀ e Additionally,thosefindingsmustbesubjecttoareasonabledoubtstandard e ofproof(Blakelyv.Washington,supra,2004DJDARat7582),ratherthan e apreponderancestandard,asCalifornialawcurrentlyprovides(rule e   4.420(b)). e"  "(88! !  ` Inthepresentcase,thesentencingcourtfoundthefollowing e  aggravatingfactorstobetrue:thecrimeswerecruelandcallous(rule e 4.421(a)(1));themannerinwhichthecrimeswerecarriedoutindicated e sophistication(rule4.421(a)(8));andtheconductwasviolentandaserious e  dangertosociety(rule4.421(b)(1)).(RT2/19/03at29.)Thesentencing e  courtalsofoundonefactorinmitigationthatappellanthadpreviously e  performedsatisfactorilyonprobation(rule4.423(b)(6)).(RT2/19/03at29 e  30.) e  ` Mostnotably,thesentencingcourtacknowledgedthattherewas e disagreementastowhetherthecrimeswerecommittedinasophisticated e manner,butthecourtsaidthefactsindicated somesophistication.(RT e 2/18/03at1920;RT2/19/03at2829.)Aseachoftheaggravatingfactors e consistedofnonrecidivistconduct,appellantwasentitledtoajurytrialto e havetheprosecutorproveeachfactortruebeyondareasonabledoubtprior e tothecourtsdecisiontoimposetheaggravatedterm. e   B.0 ` Thestatecannotprovetheerrorwasharmless. e"` `   ` ThedispositioninBlakelywasaremandtotheWashingtonappellate a$  court forproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion.(Blakelyv. a&!" Washington,supra,2004DJDARat7585.)Theopiniondidnotaddress a(#$ whethertheerrorautomaticallyrequiredreversalofthesentenceorwas a*%& susceptibletoharmlesserrorreview.Undereitherview,reversalis e requiredinthiscase. e  ` Theerrorisa structuraldefect,notamenabletoharmlesserror e review,becausethewrongentity,thejudgeratherthanthejury,has e  adjudicatedtheaggravatingfactorandhasappliedthewrongstandardof e  proof.(Cf.Sullivanv.Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275.)Itstruethatthe e  failuretoinstructajuryonasingleelementissubjecttoChapmanharmless e  erroranalysisandisnotpersereversible.(Nederv.UnitedStates(1999) e 527U.S.1;Peoplev.Flood(1998)18Cal.4th470.)ButinNederand e Flood,ajurywasseatedandreachedverdicts,andonlyoneelement/fact e wasnotdecidedbythejurybecauseofamisinstruction.(Nederv.United e States,supra,527U.S.at4;Peoplev.Flood,supra,18Cal.4that475.) e  ` Inthiscase,nojuryatallwasseatedforappellants e sentencing"which,underBlakely,isnowbetterdescribedasapenalty e trial"andnoneoftheaggravatingfactsweredecidedbyajury.(RT e  2/19/03at2930.)Appellantdidwaivehisrighttoajuryonthesubstantive e" offenses,buttheentiresentencing trialwasconductedwithoutajuryand e$  appellantdidnotwaivehisrighttoajuryforthatpenaltyphase.Because e&""  appellantwasdeniedajuryverdictonmultipleaggravatingfactsandthe e($$ courtappliedthewrongstandardofproof,theerrorisstructuraland e automaticallyreversible.  #  8       e   ` Buteveniftheerrorisnotstructural,reversalisrequiredbecauseit e wasnotharmless.ThisCourtandfederalcourtshaveheldthat e  conventionalApprendierrorsonenhancementsaresubjecttotheChapman e  standard.(Peoplev.Sengpadychith(2001)26Cal.4th316,324;Peoplev. e  Scott(2001)91Cal.App.4th1197,1209-1211;UnitedStatesv. e  Garcia-Guizar(9thCir.2000)234F.3d483,488-489.)UnderChapman, e thestatemustprovethattheerrorisharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt. e (Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,24.)But,inthecontextofan e erroraffectingtherighttoajurytrialonelementsorenhancements,a e reviewingcourtcannotsimplyaskwhethertherewas overwhelming e evidencesupportingthefindinginquestion.Afarmorerigorousformof e Chapmananalysis,focusingonwhatfactsthefactfindernecessarilyfound e   e  inreachingadecisionisrequiredinthiscontext.Theerror,inthiscontext, e  isnotharmlessiftheomittedelementissusceptibletodispute: e  8 ` If,attheendofthatexamination,the[reviewing]courtcannot e concludebeyondareasonabledoubtthatthejuryverdict e  wouldhavebeenthesameabsenttheerror"forexample, e  wherethedefendantcontestedtheomittedelementandraised e  evidencesufficienttosupportacontraryfinding"itshould e  notfindtheerrorharmless.e ` x` x  h(Nederv.UnitedStates,supra,527U.S.at19.) e  hmIk ` Suchisthecasehere,whereappellantarguedthatthecrimeswere e  notcriminallysophisticated.(RT2/18/03at1920;RT2/19/03at2829.) e Certainlywearingahatandsunglassesinsideabankwouldnotbean e unusualsightintodayssociety.Manynoncriminalscanbeseenwearinga e hatandsunglassesinsidebuildings.Thefactthatappellantmayhavecut e hishairorshavedhismustacheisnotthatindicativeofplanningeitheras e theprosecutionwouldhaveonebelieve.(RT2/18/03at1921.) e Appellantsconductoccurredoveraperiodofmonths(fromJulyto e October),andwasnodifferentfrommostpersonswhochangetheirhair e! stylesorclothingattireduringa4monthperiod.(CT2325.) e#  ` Asdefensecounselargued,mostpeopleknowtherearecamerasin e%!! banksandthatsunglassesandahatarenotmuchofadisguise,contending e'## thatappellantsconductcanbebetterattributedtopoordecisionmaking e)%% thatoccurswhenoneisintoxicatedandinneedofmoneytobuymoredrugs e+'' tostopwithdrawalsymptomsratherthanindicativeofsophisticated e planning.(RT2/18/03at19.)Ifappellantsconductcanbeconsidered e planningatall,itcertainlywasnotsophisticated.Becausetheasserted e  sophisticationfactorwasactively contestedandtheevidencewas e  susceptibletoconflictingviews,theerrorcannotbedeemedharmlessunder e  _Neder_. e   ` Additionally,thecourtfoundonemitigatingfactorapplicable,but e  appellantarguedthatmoremitigatingfactorsexistedsuchas:appellants e minimalpriorcriminalrecord(rule4.423(b)(1));andanadmissionby e appellantofwrongdoingatanearlystageoftheproceedings(rule e 4.423(b)(3)).(CT4849.)Therefore,ajurydeterminationonthe e aggravatingfactorscouldchangethenumberoffactorsinaggravation e therebychangingthesentencingcourtsdecisiontoimposetheupperterm. e  ` ButevenunderamoretraditionalChapmananalysis,thestatecannot e provetheerrorwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Chapmanv. e  California,supra,386U.S.at24.)#gvg8#vggԀAsdescribedabove,thecriminal e" sophisticationfactorwassuspect.Moreover,anotherfactorconsideredby e$  thecourtinthiscasewasthatappellantscrimeswere cruelandcallous e&"" (RT2/19/03at29),arguablysimilartotheuseof deliberatecruelty e($$ erroneouslyconsideredbythesentencingcourtin_Blakely_Ԁwithoutputting e*&& thatfactorbeforeajury.(_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,supra,2004DJDARat e 7582.)SinceBlakelyrequiredaremandonthatparticularfactor,surely e appellantscaseshouldberemandedforusinganalmostidenticalfactor e withouthavingajurydecidethetruthofitbeyondareasonabledoubt. e   ` Inlightoftheabove,appellanthasdemonstratedthatthequestionof e  whethertheaggravatingfactorsoutweighedthemitigatingfactorswasa e  closedecision.Thedenialofappellantsrighttoajurytrialandproof e  beyondareasonabledoubtwasnotharmless. e &  @%   CONCLUSION  {{  e  ` AppellantrespectfullyurgesthisCourttograntreview,orinthe a alternative,totransferthemattertotheCourtofAppealtoallowthatcourt a todecidethemeritsofthisissue. a 'eW{Dated:July2,2004Respectfullysubmitted, a   MATTHEWZWERLING a ExecutiveDirector a __________________________ a! KIMBERLYB.FITZGERALD a" StaffAttorney a# FirstDistrictAppellateProject a$  730HarrisonStreet,Suite201 a% ! SanFrancisco,California94107 a&!" 4154953119 @`  @  @  @h  a'"#     8gdXd8#gvgKv#