WPCNf pp/lkl]3e:CDgGөI>*D #9Ns1>V&kp~G!CXGãFG*_Ը; 0ߛ?+G^ڈ D> D\Oaqo (ׇI4|m7 vvN:My[LA 3S:Q{)PNTը,vռ=Vm;żJJLVZO`:Yە$Ŀ'An(Nh;@ ֶL`7.`q5@I<ᩲ@ Yc<~BG3JILn[#,uzü2aoowWpmYB\X[6 }˥\)Ϊ 2F=eoy=J^f:zL( 30mM])?֟w4_ K亻›a-04# UNc % 0 ^ y w@ 4   m 1N 1 1uY 0c1U > 0 Qf] 0U_ 0 DMMM D5 0w 0 0|y 0 0vMY 01] 1( 72= 72o|U@! 0]! 0"" 0"tk# 1$ 0f%t% 0=d' 72' 0' 0>( 0( 0c) 0&* 0* 0+ 0?, 0, 0n->. 0M1 02 02U:3 03344 0N;;^;B=B= 0? 0? 0@ 0hAAAAAA 0aA 0 B 0B 0kC 09D 0,XD 02E 0E 0:FaF 0G 0G 0HH 0H 0xI 0J 0_J 0J BK 0K 0L 0FM 0M 0N 02O 0 O 0kP 0?R 0R B*T D3T CT 0U D+U 0U 0W 06rX 0X 0:Y 0hY 0FRZU6ZU*ZMZ D/Z D/+[ 1eZ[G[M\\\\\\\\\D \HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(6$  )) , A)Ԥ 3 ^_`EabcEdefEg3rtyBarTS3|xg)US4O37;CO_s11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1  CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.1.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0   WielschMofieldbaggiesbaggieGayla LozawarrantlessGarrett nonprobationerviolative"nonprobationersnonconsentingMatlockcopossessorOoleypretextualWhrenJeaneneApprendi Saf Wims S.Ct MoskcarjackingMongeMcMillanNichols t]he DUIxxxxxxxxxxxxx DSLTowneAlmendarezCal.Pen.CodeCal.R.CtCal.ConstArt.VIfactfindingAriz.Rev.StatSmylieDiltsGrissom Crimagree[dHaw.Rev.Stat KauaBlakelyMaugaotega i]tU.S.S.C.Breyerw]hetherKennardensur[es,www.courtinfo.ca.govCal.Rptr andncohabitant\  `&Times New Roman(2,$ 6!  7XX , A7    0  T*+ (_2623  ..(#$  0    ,$ڷXX , AQڷ  5    _ ` Availableat  (lastvisitedV  AugustWX  ԍJYX  ԍuYX  ԍlYX  ԍyYԀV  2WX  ԍ6Y,2005).  ?)ڷXX , AQڷ  _A$AQDraftAug.12,2005#AQA$#cccc)!dxdx(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   p  8block quotedouble-indented block quote8  <):Footnote Ref   <SS:Footnote TexS\  `&Times New RomanSS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Normal8?OU[agmsyLettersLettersA.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.i)$A. r ,$ڷXX , AQڷ  7    _ ` FormerTenn.CodeAnn.4035114;Statev.Grissom,956  S.W.2d514,518(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).(A Z(Times New Roman *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  N02headerLevel 2 header   *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) `  j ,$ڷXX , AQڷ  1    _ ` The ClerksTranscriptistherecordonappealfiledinthe  CaliforniaCourtofAppeal.(CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (# j ,$ڷXX , AQڷ  8    _ ` TheTennesseeAttorneyGeneralhadjoinedthedefendantsin  petitioningforrehearinginGomez.Id.<:Definition T 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition(3$ 6!  7XX , A7   d (;3$2#  0  .3  0  *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   R"01headerLevel one header@7  > *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x    4 ,$ڷXX , AQڷ  6    _ ` Gomez,V  163S.W.3dat648WX  ԍsYX  ԍlYX  ԍiYX  ԍpYX  ԍYX  ԍoYX  ԍpYX  ԍ.YX  ԍYX  ԍ2YX  ԍ5YX  ԍ-YX  ԍ2YX  ԍ6YԀ(citingTenn.CodeAnn.4035  105114(2003),former4035210(c)and(d)).*AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  (3$ 6!  7XX , A7  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   -+> Z"Book Antiqua *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,    ,$ڷXX , AQڷ  2    _ ` Again,severalofthestateshaveenacted_Blakely_fixlegislation.  ThestatutescitedhereandinthestatecasesaddressingBlakelyare   theversionsineffectpriortoanysuchamendments.Ariz.Rev.Stat.  13701,13-702(A),13702(C)(21);Smyliev.State,823N.E.2d679,  863(Ind.2005);_Ind.Code_ԀAnn.353817.1,355023to7;Lopezv. ( State,113P.3d713,723725(Colo.2005);Statev._Natale_,____N.J.  2 ____,____A.2d____,2005WL1802084,slipop.at2829(N.J.Aug.2,  < 2005);Statev._Dalziel_,867A.2d1167,11721173,182N.J.494,503505  F (N.J.2005);N.J.Stat.Ann.2C:436(a),2C:441(a)and(f)(1);Statev.  P Allen,___N.C.___,___S.E.2d___,2005WL1539186(N.C.);N.C.  Z  Gen.Stat.15A-1340.13(c)and(e),15A1340.16(b),(d)and(e),15A d  1340.17(c)(4);Statev._Leja_,684N.W.2d442,448(Minn.2004)(citing n  MinnesotaSentencingGuidelinesII.D.2(b));Or.Rev.Stat.137.671, (x  138.222(2)(a);_Or.Admin.R._Ԁ2130080001,213-008-0002(1).(O$ T ,$ڷXX , AQڷ  4    _ ` Seee.g.Ariz.Rev.Stat.13-702(A);Colo.Rev.Stat.181.3  401(6).  ,$ڷXX , AQڷ  9    _ ` Statev.Rivera,106Haw.146,158160,102P.3d1044,10561058  (Haw.2004)(citingHaw.Rev.Stat.707660,706669);   Haw.Rev.Stat.706662(1)(6).('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX203header   (&H4 XXX XXX*55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` (o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8zzg6BlockquoteXXrb , ,?+ ` hp x X?XXrb , ,?+ ` hp x X?,*CITE,dl*CODEKz<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42EmphasisTABLE A*22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5   d(GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h 4go2Keyboard Kz<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/Kz<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   <:zBottom of Iop4$ ** ddI  B    ?{%2A`Arial?9rp*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d dnnnn'dxddd&&& $_   x 23   x   'dxd<:zTop of ForIop4$** ddI  B    ?{%2A`Arial?9rp*  dd9  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleKz<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKz<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arialn)1dxdn)2dxd>@BR[\]^ 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. =#Xd#   : ,$ڷXX , AQڷ  3    _ ` Ariz.Rev.Stat.13701,13-702(A),13702(C)(21);Smyliev.  State,823N.E.2d679,863(Ind.2005);_ Ind.Code_ ԀAnn.353817.1,   355023to7;Lopezv.State,V  113WX  ԍ_YX  ԍ_YX  ԍ_YԀP.3dV  713,723725WrX  ԍ_YX  ԍ_YX  ԍ_YX  ԍ(no.  04SC150filedYX  ԍYX  ԍMay23,2005),slipop.at2530YԀ(Colo.2005);State  v._ Natale_ ,____N.J.____,____A.2d____,2005WL1802084,slipop.at  2829(N.J.Aug.2,2005);N.J.Stat.Ann.2C:436(a),2C:441(a)and ( (f)(1);Statev.Allen,___N.C.___,___S.E.2d___V  ,2005WL1539186W  2 V  (N.C.)WX  ԍ(YX  ԍnYX  ԍoYX  ԍ.YX  ԍ ( ЎYX  ԍ4YX  ԍ8YX  ԍ5YX  ԍPYX  ԍAYX  ԍ0YX  ԍ4YX  ԍ,YX  ԍYX  ԍfYX  ԍiYX  ԍlYX  ԍeYX  ԍdYX  ԍYX  ԍJYX  ԍuYX  ԍlYX  ԍyYX  ԍYX  ԍ1YX  ԍ,YX  ԍYX  ԍ2YX  ԍ0YX  ԍ0YX  ԍ5YX  ԍ)Y;_ N.C.Gen.Stat_ .15A-1340.13(c)and(e),15A1340.16(b),(d)  < and(e).;15A1340.17(c)(4);Or.Rev.Stat.137.671;Or.Rev.Stat.  F 138.222(2)(a);_ Or.Admin.R._ Ԁ2130080001,213-008-0002(1). 6!  ڷXX , AQڷ  _ ,  No.򀀀  IntheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates  򀀀  OctoberTerm,[leaveblank,clerkwillfillin]  2 򀀀  < [appellantsname],  P Petitioner d  v. (x  theStateofCalifornia, < Respondent. P 򀀀 d OnPetitionForaWritofCertioraritotheCaliforniaCourtof x Appeal,FirstAppellateDistrict,Division XXXXX   򀀀   PetitionforWritofCertiorari      [attorneyname]* ! [attorneyaddress] " [attorneyphonenumber] #$ CounselforPetitioner $.  *CounselofRecord &B"!  a ,   ,  'L#" QuestionPresented   x ,WhethertheCourt,inBookerv.UnitedStates,___U.S.___,160L.  Ed.2d621,125S.Ct.738(2005),retreatedfromthebright-linerule  establishedin_ggApprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,530U.S.466,490,147L.Ed.2d  , 435,120S.Ct.2348(2000)andBlakelyv.Washington,542U.S.296,159  @ L.Ed.2d,124S.Ct.2531(2004),suchthatthereisnoconstitutional T  righttoajurytrialforfact-findingnecessarytoimposean h  aggravatedsentenceinastatesentencingschemeidenticalin ,| relevantrespectstotheWashingtonschemeatissueinBlakely? @  T  h   | _   PartiestotheProceedings     ThepartiestotheproceedingsintheCaliforniaCourtofAppeal  includedtheStateofCaliforniaandpetitioner_____________.There  arenopartiestotheproceedingsotherthanthosenamedinthe  , petition.   @ 8XXdd 8O  No.򀀀     IntheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates  򀀀   ( OctoberTerm,[leaveblank,clerkwillfillin]  2 򀀀  <   F [appellantsnamehere],  P   Z  Petitioner d   n  v. (x   2  theStateofCalifornia <  F Respondent. P  Z 򀀀 d  n OnPetitionForaWritofCertioraritotheCaliforniaCourtof x Appeal,FirstAppellateDistrict,Division[_____________]  򀀀      PetitionforWritofCertiorari    Thepetitioner,[appellantsnamehere],respectfullypetitionsthis   Courtforawritofcertioraritoreviewthejudgmentandopinionof " theCaliforniaCourtofAppeal,filedon[date].     $&    ,OpinionsBelow  &:"!  ,  TheunpublishedopinionoftheCaliforniaCourtofAppeal, (>$# whichisthesubjectofthispetition,wasfiledon[date],andis +R&% O 8XXdXXd8   attachedasAppendix(App.)A.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourts  onepageorderdenyingreviewisattachedasAppendixB.The  transcriptofthesentencinghearingisattachedasAppendixC. (   ,Jurisdiction   <  ,  ThedecisionoftheCaliforniaCourtofAppealtobereviewed  @ wasfiledon[date].TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtdenied T  discretionaryreviewon[date].Thispetitionisfiledwithin90days h  ofthatdate.Rule13.1.PetitionerinvokesthisCourtsjurisdiction ,| under28U.S.C.section1257(a). @   , ConstitutionalandStatutoryProvisionsInvolved  T  , $(93"3"  , 32  A  .3  0 `   FederalConstitutionalProvisions 39݌X` `  Ќ  ,(TheSixthAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionprovides, \ inpertinentpart: Inallcriminalprosecutions,theaccusedshall p enjoytherighttoaspeedyandpublictrial,byanimpartialjuryof  theStateanddistrictwhereinthecrimeshallhavebeencommitted ! .... # TheFourteenthAmendmentprovides: NoStateshall...deprive %!  anypersonoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessoflaw.. '$#"  .. )8%$  , & ,    B. ` StateStatutoryProvisions    ,_Subdivision[___]ofsection[_____]oftheCaliforniaPenalCode  ',pprovides:   , X  ,[insertrelevanttextofstatutedefiningoffense,including  , penalty]  6  ,  X ,t[Iftheoffensestatutemerelystatesthatthepunishmentis state  J  prison,addthefollowingoptionalparagraph: R  Section19oftheCaliforniaPenalCodeprovides,inpertinentpart:  Z    , XExceptincaseswhereadifferentpunishmentisprescribedby b anylawofthisstate,everyoffensedeclaredtobeafelony,ortobe f punishablebyimprisonmentinastateprison,ispunishableby j imprisonmentinanyofthestateprisonsfor16months,ortwoor n threeyears.... "r  X , Subdivision(b)ofSection1170,oftheCaliforniaPenalCode *z provides,inpertinentpart(emphasisadded): >   , XWhenajudgmentofimprisonmentistobeimposedand R thestatutespecifiesthreepossibleterms, thecourtshall \ orderimpositionofthemiddleterm,unlessthereare f  circumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime .... h! Indeterminingwhethertherearecircumstancesthatjustify r" impositionoftheupperorlowerterm,thecourtmay |# considertherecordinthecase,theprobationofficer's $ report,otherreportsincludingreportsreceivedpursuantto %  Section1203.03andstatementsinaggravationormitigation &!! submittedbytheprosecution,thedefendant,orthevictim, '"" orthefamilyofthevictimifthevictimisdeceased,andany (## furtherevidenceintroducedatthesentencinghearing.The )%$ courtshallsetforthontherecordthefactsandreasonsfor *&% imposingtheupperorlowerterm.Thecourtmaynot +'& imposeanuppertermbyusingthefactofany  enhancementuponwhichsentenceisimposedunderany   provisionoflaw.   Xa ,S ? , C.0 ` CaliforniaRulesofCourt (` `   ,$ $oRelevantCaliforniaRulesofCourtareattachedasappendixD,  , including:  @  XRule4.401.Authority T  Rule4.405.Definitions ^  Rule4.406.Reasons h  Rule4.408.Criterianotexclusive;sequencenotsignificant "r  Rule4.409.Considerationofcriteria ,| Rule4.420.Selectionofbasetermofimprisonment 6 Rule4.421.Circumstancesinaggravation @ %Rule4.423.Circumstancesinmitigation J  X%   ,StatementoftheCase ^  ' ,(On[date],theprosecutorfiledin[insertnameofcounty]County b SuperiorCourtaninformationchargingpetitioner,[appellants v name],with[identifyoffense(s)here],aviolationofCaliforniaPenal  Codesection[___].ClerksTranscript( CT)___.- #  1      ׀   On[date],appellantpleadedguiltytotheviolationofsection "  [_____].CTxxxxx. $  Atthe[date],sentencinghearing,thesuperiorcourtfoundtrue   [insertnumberofaggravatingfactorshere]aggravatingfactors:[list  aggravatingfactorshere].Thecourtalsofoundtrue[insertnumber ( ofmitigatingfactorshere]mitigatingfactor:[listmitigatingfactors  < here].TheCourtthensentencedappellanttotheuppertermof  P [lengthofsentence]years.App.C.On[date],appellantfiledatimely d  noticeofappeal. (x  Inthestatecourtofappeal,appellant,citingtheFifthandSixth < AmendmentsandthisCourtsdecisioninBlakelyv.Washington,542 P U.S.296,124S.Ct.2531(2004)arguedthatthejudicialfactfindingat d sentencingviolatedhisfederalconstitutionalrightstoajurytrialand x proofbeyondareasonabledoubt.  TheCaliforniaCourtofAppeal,rejectedpetitionersargument  andaffirmedhissentence.App.A___.Thecourtagreedwiththe  statethattheCaliforniaDeterminateSentencingLaw( DSL)is ! distinguishablefromthesentencingschemesinWashingtonandthe #, federalsentencingguidelinesandthatthereisnoconstitutionalright %@!   toajurytrialonfactsusedtoimposetheupperterm.App.A____. (T#" AppellantpetitionedfordiscretionaryreviewbytheCalifornia   SupremeCourt.On[date],thatcourtdeniedreviewinanorder  stating[inserttextoforderdenyingreview,suchas deniedwithout ( prejudicetoanyrelieftowhichdefendantmightbeentitledafterthis  < courtdeterminesinPeoplev.Black,S126182,andPeoplev.Towne,  P S125677,theeffectof[Blakely]onCalifornialaw].App.B. d  OnJune20,2005,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtissueditsopinion (x  inPeoplev.Black,35Cal.4th1238,113P.3d534,29Cal.Rptr.3d740 < (Cal.2005),holdingthatthereisnofederalconstitutionalrighttoa P jurytrialonfact-findingrelatingtoaggravatingfactorsusedto d imposetheuppertermunderCalifornia'sDeterminateSentencing x Law.TheCourtalsoheldthatthereisnorighttoajurytrialon  fact-findingusedinthedecisiontoimposesentences  consecutively"amatternotatissueinthiscase.(TheTownecasehas  notbeencalendaredfororalargument;theCourtwilllikelyeither ! dismissreviewinthatcaseorreturnittothestateCourtofAppeal #, forreconsiderationinlightofBlack.) %@!    ***_ *  (T#" x6   ReasonsforGrantingtheWrit  6  ReviewIsNecessarytoResolveWhetherthereisaRighttoa  JuryTrialandProofBeyondaReasonableDoubtonAggravating  FactsNecessarytoImposeanAggravatedSentenceinaSentencing  SchemeIdenticalinRelevantRespectstotheWashingtonScheme   atIssueinBlakely.   777 #7 $(89$"3"  ,392  A  .3  0 `   Introduction399݌ ` `  Ќ  ,9ReviewisnecessarysothatthisCourtcanreaffirmwhatitsaidin   Blakely.InBlakely,thisCourtexplicitlyapplieda brightlineruleto ,  answerthequestionwhetherthereisarighttoajurytrialonfacts @ necessarytoimposeasentencehigherthanthestatutorymaximum. T Blakely,124S.Ct.at2540.Somecourts"theCaliforniaandTennessee h highcourtsinparticular"perceivedaretreatfromthatbrightlinein ,| UnitedStatesv.Booker,___U.S.___,125S.Ct.738(2005), @ emboldeningthemtoconcludethatanyjudicialdiscretionmaytake T asentencingschemeoutsideoftheambitofBlakely.Othercourts h haveappliedthebrightlinerule,includingtheNewJerseySupreme |! CourtwhichhasrecentlyexpresslyrejectedtheCalifornia # interpretationofBlakelyandBooker.Statev._ Natale_ ,____N.J.____, %  ____A.2d____,2005WL1802084,slipop.at2627(N.J.Aug.2, '#"  2005).ReviewbythisCourtisnecessarytoresolvethissplit. )%$ ReviewisalsoappropriatebecauseCaliforniasdecisioninBlack   issimplywrongonthelaw.Infact,theapproachtakenbythe  CaliforniaSupremeCourtwasoneadvocatedbytheStateof ( WashingtoninBlakelyandrejectedbythisCourt.Californias  < _ sentencingschemeunconstitutionallypermitsjudicialfact  P finding"uponproofbyapreponderanceoftheevidence"offacts d  necessarytoimposetheaggravated(upper)termsentence. (x  CaliforniasschemesoclearlyfallswithintheruleofApprendiv.New < Jersey,530US466(2000)andBlakelythatfullbriefingonthemerits P maynotberequiredforthisCourttoreviewtheBlackdecision. d Finally,theissueisofgreatsignificanceforanenormousnumber x ofcases.TheconstitutionalityofthecoreofCaliforniasdeterminate  sentencingschemeisatissue.Whilesomedefendantsconvictedof  thirdstrikes,murder,orsomeserioussexoffensesreceive  indeterminateterms,thevastmajorityofCaliforniafelony ! defendantsaresentencedunderthedeterminatesentencinglawat #, issueinBlack. %@!  Thiscaseprovidesanexcellentopportunityforresolvingthe (T#" questionpresented.Thiscase,unliketheBlackcaseitself,_ involves *h%$ onlyaggravatingfactorsrelatedtothecommissionofthecurrent  offense:_____________and______________.Thiscaseisthus  unencumberedbythecomplexityofrecidivistrelatedaggravating ( factorsthatmightbecoveredbytheexceptiontotherighttoajury  < trialidentifiedin_ Almendarez_ -Torresv.UnitedStates,523US224  P (1998).Thiscase,alsounlikeBlack,doesnotinvolveaggravating d  factorswhichwereactuallyfoundtruebythejury. (x  & 0 "3"  ,3H2  B  .3  0 `   CaliforniasSentencingSchemeandtheBlackDecision 3HH݌<` `  Ќ  ,HBeforedescribingtheevolvingsplitamongthestatecourts, D petitioner'0<HwillfirstdescribeCaliforniassentencingschemeandthe X Blackdecision. l  (#38$"3"  3SK2#  1  .3  0 `   CaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLaw(DSL).3SKK݌` `  Ќ  UndertheDSL,judgesmaysentencedefendantsinCaliforniato  oneofthreepossibledeterminateterms"mitigated(lower),  presumptive(middle),oraggravated(upper).Eachstatutedefining !  anoffenseeitherstatestheapplicabletriadoftermsexpressly,or #  providesforacommitment tostateprison,inwhichcasethe %4!  applicabletriadis16months,twoyears,orthreeyearsinstate 'H#" prison.Cal.Pen.Code18.Thestatutedefining[nameoffense(s)of  *\%$ conviction]"theoffenseinvolvedinboththiscase"providesthata  ,p'& defendantguiltyoftheoffense[quotestatutespenaltyhere,e.g.   shallbepunishedbyimprisonmentinthestateprisonforatermof  __,___,or_ ____ Ԁyears.Cal.Pen.Code___. ( Themaximumsentenceajudgemayimposewithoutadditional  < factfindingisthemiddleterm: Whenajudgmentofimprisonment  P istobeimposedandthestatutespecifiesthreepossibleterms, the d  courtshallorderimpositionofthemiddleterm,unlessthereare (x  circumstancesinaggravationormitigation ofthecrime.Cal.Pen. ,| Code1170(b)(emphasisadded). @ TheCaliforniaRulesofCourtprovidealistofenumerated T aggravatingcircumstances(rule4.421),butthelistisnotexclusive h andacourtmayrelyuponanon-enumeratedcircumstance |  reasonablyrelatedtothesentencingdecision.Cal.R.Ct.4.408(a);  seee.g.,Peoplev.Garcia,209Cal.App.3d790,794-95,257Cal.Rptr.  495,49798(1989).Thecourtmustmakeexplicitfactualfindings. ! Cal.Pen.Code1170(c);rule4.420(e).Factsinaggravationare # establishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Cal.R.Ct.4.420(b).A %0!  factwhichiseitheranelementoftheunderlyingoffenseoran 'D#" elementofastatutoryenhancementmaynotbeusedasafactorin *X%$ aggravation.Cal.Pen.Code1170(b)(enhancements);Rule4.420(d) ,l'& _ (elements);Peoplev.Scott,9Cal.4th331,350,885P.2d1040,1051,36  Cal.Rptr.2d627,638(1994)(elements).Consequently,anupperterm  necessarilyrequiresfindingsbeyondtheminimumelementsofthe ( convictionoffense.  <  CaliforniasPenalCodealsocontainsstatutorysentencing  P enhancementsforcertaincurrentoffenserelatedconduct,suchas d  beingarmedwithadeadlyweaponorfirearm,personaluseofa (x  firearm,orinflictionofgreatbodilyinjury.Seee.g.Cal.Pen.Code < 12022,12022.5,12022.7.Otherstatutesprovideforenhancements P basedonthedefendantsstatus,suchashavingprior strike d convictions,havingservedapriorprisonterm,orbeingonbailat x thetimeoftheoffense.Cal.Pen.Code667(a)(i),667.5,12022.1.The  termsforsuchenhancementscanbefixedtermsimposed  consecutivetothebaseterm(lower,middleorupper)selectedfor  theunderlyingoffense(e.g.12022.7),mayhaveitsowntriadto ! selectfrom(12022.5),ormayrequireanindeterminatetermforthe #, underlyingoffense(threestrikeslaw).Unliketheaggravatingand %@!  mitigatingcircumstanceswhicharefoundbythejudgeunder (T#" Californialaw,thereisastatestatutoryrighttoajurytrialon_ the *h%$ justdescribedcurrentoffenseandstatusenhancements.Seee.g.Cal.  Pen.Code1170.1(e).  & N "3"   3\2#  2  .3  0 `   InBlack,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtFoundtheDSL ( Constitutional.3\T]݌ 2` `  Ќ   @].]Inits61decisioninPeoplev.Black,35Cal.4th1238,113P.3d534,  : 29_ Cal.Rptr_ .3d740(2005),theCaliforniaSupremeCourtrepeatedly  N  acknowledged'N \that,undersection1170(b),anaggravatedsentence b  cannotbeimposedintheabsenceofaggravatingfactors.Black,29 &v  _ Cal.Rptr_ .3dat750,755.Andthecourtconcededthat [t]he : mandatorylanguageofsection1170,subdivision(b),doesprovide N somesupportfordefendantsposition.Id.at750. b Suchconcessionswouldseemtonecessarilyleadtothe v conclusionthatthemiddletermis themaximumsentenceajudge  mayimposesolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictor  admittedbythedefendant.Blakely,124S.Ct.at2537(emphasisin   orig.).ButtheCaliforniaSupremeCourtfoundotherwise,deeming " theDSLtobeoutsideofBlakely.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourt $*  foundtheschemeconstitutionalbylookingtofactorsotherthan &>"! whetherthejurysverdictordefendantsadmissionsthemselves )R$# authorizedthesentence.UndertheCaliforniaSupremeCourts +f&% analysis,thecorequestioniswhetherajudgehas traditionally  exerciseddiscretioninmakingthesentencingchoiceatissue,andthe  determinationofwhetherjudicialdiscretionis traditionalis ( resolvedbyconsideringsuchmattersasthe contextofthe  < discretionandwhetherthelegislatureintendedtoshortensentences  P whenitenactedtheDSL.Id.at749,751,752,&fn.12. d  Thecourtputgreatweightonthedegreeofjudicialdiscretionin (x  theCaliforniasentencingscheme,emphasizingthatthelistof < possibleaggravatingfactorsisnotexhaustiveandthatthejudgehas P considerablediscretionindecidingwhethertheuppertermis d warranted.Id.at752,755,756.TheBlackcourtalsoturnedtothis x Courts mostrecentclarificationinBookeroftherationale  underlyingtheApprendiandBlakelydecisionstojustifyits  departurefrom_ Blakely_ sclearstatementthattheuseofan  illustrative,ratherthananexhaustive,listofaggravatingfactors ! doesnotdeterminewhetherthereisarighttoajurytrial.Id.at752, #, n.12.Thecourt,inBlack,alsoemphasizedthatthefactfinding %@!   involvedwastraditionallyjudicial.Id.at750;seealso751and753. (T#" Perhapsmostilluminating,thecourtinBlackconcludedthis   courts precedentsdonotdrawabrightline.Id.at755.This,  perhaps,iswhatemboldenedthestatesupremecourttofindthe ( schemeconstitutional,despitetherequirementofanaggravating  < factorbeforeanuppertermsentencecanbeimposed.  P  ,+    C.0 ` TheStateCourtsareSplitontheQuestionofWhether d  JudicialDiscretionDistinguishesaStateSentencingScheme f  fromBlakelyandwhetherBookerRepresentedaRetreat h  fromtheBrightLineDrawninBlakely.+lgbr  l   l ` `   ,lThereisasplitamongthestatecourtsinterpretingthisCourts $t decisionsinBlakelyandBooker.NotonlyhastheNewJersey 8 SupremeCourtexpresslyrejectedthereasoningofBlack,butseveral L otherstateshaveperceivedandappliedabrightlineruleunder ` whichtheSixthandFourteenthAmendmentsarenecessarily t violatedwhenajudgefindsfactswhichauthorizeasentencelonger  thanthemaximumauthorizedbythejurysverdictsordefendants   admissions.(Arizona,Colorado,Minnesota,NewJersey,North " Carolina,Indiana,Oregon.)Otherstates,however,findnosuch $  brightlineandhaveconcludedthatsuchfactfindingis &("! constitutionalwhenconductedwithinaschemecharacterizedby (<$# broadjudicialsentencingdiscretion.(California,Hawaii,Tennessee.) +P&% ThelattergrouptendstofindsupportinBooker"particularlythe  unanimousviewoftheCourtthatasentencingschemeinwhichthe  federalsentencingguidelineswouldbewhollyadvisorywouldbe ( constitutional.(Severalofthestatesdiscussedhaveenacted_ Blakely_   < fixlegislation.Thestatutescitedbelowandcitedinthestatecases  P citedaretheversionsineffectpriortotheamendments.D #  2      ) d  TheSupremeCourtsofArizona,Colorado,Minnesota,New (x  Jersey,NorthCarolina,Indiana,andOregonhaveallinvalidated(or < limitedtheapplicationof)sentencingschemeswhichare,inrelevant P respects,indistinguishablefromCaliforniasandWashingtons. d Thosestatesallhaveschemesinwhichthereisapresumptive x sentence(orpresumptiverange)foreachoffense.Thejudgemay  exceedthepresumptivesentenceonlyuponfindingaggravating  factorspresent.Thestatutorylistofaggravatingfactorsisnot  exclusive(withtheexceptionofNewJersey).Ineachofthesestates, ( whetherajudgeimposesanaggravatedtermisdiscretionary,with  < thecaveatthatinColoradosomeaggravatingfactsmandatea  P sentenceintheaggravatedrangeandsomepermitasentenceinthe d  aggravatedrange._  #  3      _ ԀSomeofthoseschemeshaveevengreater (x  discretionthanthereisinCalifornia,astheextentofthedeparture < fromthepresumptivesentenceisalsodiscretionary.H  #  4      ׀(InCalifornia, P ifthesentenceistobeaggravatedthereisonlyonechoice:theupper d term(e.g._____yearsinthiscase). x Despitesuchdiscretion,thosestatecourtsallfoundtheirschemes  unconstitutionalor,asinthecaseofColorado,limitedthe  applicationoftheaggravatedsentencestatutesto_ Blakely_ compliant  factors(admittedbydefendant,foundtruebyjury,orjurywaived  bydefendant)and_ Blakely_ exemptfactors(i.e.recidivistbased).State ( v.Brown,209Ariz.200,99P.3d15,18(2004);Lopezv.State113P.3dat  < 729,Smylie,823N.E.2dat68485(Ind.);Statev._ Shattuck_ ,689N.W.2d  P 785(Minn.2004)(per_ curiam_ );_ Natale_ ,____A.2dat___,slipop.at30; d  Allen,2005WL1539186at*6*9;Statev.Dilts,337Or.645,103P.3d (x  95,99(2004).InArizona,NorthCarolinaandOregon,thestate < attorneysgeneralevenagreedthattheirrespectivesentencing P schemeswereconstitutionallydefective.Brown,209Ariz.at203,99 d P.3dat18;Statev.Allen,2005WL1539186,NewBrieffortheState, x filedNov.24,2004,at7 #  5      ;Dilts,103P.3dat97.AstheColorado  SupremeCourtsuccinctlyexplained, theBlakelyCourteffectively  rejectedanydistinction,forthepurposeofSixthAmendment  analysis,betweenmandatoryordiscretionaryaggravatedsentencing !  systemsbasedonjudicialfactfinding.Undereithersystem,facts #, supportingincreasedsentencesaresubjecttotherule.Lopez,113  P.3dat723(citingBlakely,124S.Ct.at2538n.8).   Incontrast,theCalifornia,HawaiiandTennesseeSupreme ( CourtshavereliedheavilyonBookertoconcludethatjudicial  < discretiontakesasentencingschemeoutsideofBlakely,despitethe  P schemesrequirementthatthejudgefindanaggravatingfactor d  presentbeforeimposinganaggravatedsentence. (x  PriortoBlakelyfixlegislation,Tennessee,liketheotherstates < discussed,hadaschemeinwhichtherewasapresumptivesentence, P judicialfactfindingwasrequiredtoimposeanaggravatedsentence, d andjudgeswerenotrequiredtoimposetheaggravatedsentence.= #  6       x Tennessee,however,allowedforabitlessdiscretionthantheother  statesbecauseitsstatutorylistofaggravatingfactorswasexclusive_ ._ ( #  7        DespitetheTennesseeAttorneyGeneralsconcessionthatthe  Tennesseeschemewasunconstitutional(Gomez,163S.W.3dat654 )  !  anddespiteitsownrecognitionthat Blakelyitselfincludeslanguage #, whichcanbebroadlyconstruedtorequiretheresultthedefendants  seek(Id.at658 ),theTennesseeSupremeCourtfoundtheTennessee  schemeconstitutionalina32decision.Thecourtemphasizedthat (  BlakelymustbereadinlightofBooker,notedBookersapprovalofa  < discretionary/advisorysentencingscheme,andconcludedthatthe  P schemewasconstitutionalbecause thefindingofanenhancement d  factordoesnotmandateanincreasedsentence.Id.at658,661;see (x  alsoStatev.Gomez,163S.W.3dat672(OrderDenyingPetitionfor < Rehearing,Tenn.S.Ct.,FiledMay18,2005)(reiteratingthat Blakely P mustbereadinlightofBooker).0 #  8       d TheHawaiiSupremeCourthassimilarlyreliedonBookerto x permitjudicialfactfindinginadiscretionaryscheme,evenwhenthe  brightlineruleofBlakelywouldseemtoapply.InHawaii,thejudge  mayimposeanextendedterm(uptodoublethemaximumforthe  nonextendedterm)uponfindinganyofsixaggravatingcriteria !  presentandthattheextendedterm isnecessaryforprotectionof #, thepublic.I #  9      ׀Ina32postBookerdecision,theHawaiiSupremeCourt   recentlyreaffirmedanearlierdecisionholdingthatthereisnoright  toajurytrialonthe necessaryforprotectionofthepublicelement ( ofanextendedtermsentence.Statev.Maugaotega,107Haw.399,114  < P.3d905(2005).TheHawaiiSupremeCourtconcludedthatthe  P reasoninginBooker essentiallyerasesdiscretionaryextendedterm d  sentencingschemessuchasHawaiisfromthedecisionspurview. (x  Id.,114P.3dat914(emphasisinorig.);seealsoid.at915( [t]he < factorthatrenderedthefederalsentencingguidelines P unconstitutionalwasitsmandatorynature). d ThedecisionsinCalifornia,Tennessee,andHawaii,standinstark x contrasttotheotherstates.InCaliforniaandTennesseethestate  highcourtsperceived,inBooker,somesortofblurringofthebright  linedrawninBlakely.TheHawaiiSupremeCourthadneverseen  thatline,butwasalsoemboldenedbyBooker.TheCaliforniaand ! Tennesseecourts,whilerecognizingthatfactfindingbeyondthe #, jurysverdictordefendantsadmissionismandatorybeforean %@!  aggravatedsentencecanbeimposed,viewtheirschemesasoutside  ofApprendianditsmanyprogenybecausewithinthoseschemes  thereliesjudicialdiscretioninidentifyingaggravatingfactors ( and/orindecidingwhethertoimposetheaggravatedterm.  < Incontrast,theArizona,Colorado,Indiana,Minnesota,New  P Jersey,NorthCarolinaandOregoncourts,withouthesitation,found d  thatsimilarschemes"involvingbothdiscretionintheidentifyingof (x  aggravatingfactorsandinselectingtheultimatesentence"were < unconstitutional.TheNewJerseySupremeCourtdidsowhile P notingthesplitamongthestatesandexpresslyrejectingCalifornias d approach, becauseitappearstobeindirectconflictwithBlakely. x _ Natale_ ,____A.2dat____,slipop.at2627(citationsomitted).  ReviewbythisCourtisnecessarytoresolvethissplitand  re-affirmthat(1)thereisabright-linetestfordeterminingwhether  thereisarighttoajurytrialand(2)asentencingschemeis ! unconstitutionalifitpermitsjudicialfact-findingtoincreasea #, sentencebeyondthatauthorizedbytheyjurysverdictorthe %@!   defendant'sadmissions. (T#" & ,    ,D.0 ` ReviewisNecessaryBecausetheRulingBelowisWrong. ` `   ,PThestatecourtofappealsdecisioninthiscaseandtheCalifornia  ',#SupremeCourtsdecisioninBlackarecontrarytoApprendi,Blakely,  andBooker.BecauseBlackpostdatesthecourtofappealdecisionin  , thiscaseandisnowthecontrollingauthorityinCalifornia,  @ petitionerbelowaddressestheanalysisinBlack,ratherthanthecourt T  ofappealsdecision. h  ^ThemajorityopinioninBlackframedthecriticalquestionof ,| whethertheDSLviolatedtheSixthAmendmentasaquestionof @  whetheratrialjudge'sdecisiontoimposeanuppertermsentence T undertheCaliforniadeterminatesentencinglawinvolvesthetypeof h judicialfactfindingthattraditionallyhasbeenperformedbyajudge | inthecontextofexercisingsentencingdiscretionorwhetherit  insteadinvolvesthetypeoffactfindingthattraditionallyhasbeen  exercisedbyjuriesinthecontextofdeterminingwhetherthe ! elementsofanoffensehavebeenproved.Black,29_ Cal.Rptr_ .3dat # 749750&n.8.TheBlackopinion,thus,revertsSixthAmendment %0!  jurytrialrightjurisprudenceintoastateofconfusion,inwhichthere 'D#" isnoobjectivelydiscerniblelinebetweenwhenthejurytrialright *X%$ appliesandwhenitdoesnot.AsthisCourtstatedinBlakely,therule ,l'& demarcatingwhenthejurytrialrightistriggeredmustnotbe   manipulableorvulnerableto subjectivity.Blakely,124S.Ct.at  2539,2540.Specifically,thestandardalsomustnotbeonethat ( leaves definitionofthescopeofjurypoweruptojudges'intuitive  < senseofhowfaristoofarinallowingjudicialfactfinding,orthat  P declares legislaturesmayestablishlegallyessentialsentencing d  factorswithinlimits.Ibid.(emphasisinorig.). (x  ^EventhemajorityinBlack,acknowledgedthatsection1170(b) is < wordedinmandatorylanguage.Toavoidtheobviousresult P emanatingfromthatlanguage,themajorityinBlacktookthe d surprisingpositionthat therequirementthatanaggravatingfactor x existismerelyarequirementthatthedecisiontoimposetheupper  termbereasonable.Black,29_ Cal.Rptr_ .3dat751(emphasisinorig.).  Thatslimreedcannotsupportthemajoritysweightyconclusionthat  thereisnoconstitutionalrighttoajurytrialonaggravatingfactors. ! InBlakely,thisCourtheldthat,wherestatelawestablishesa #, presumptivesentenceforaparticularoffenseandauthorizesa %@!  greatertermonlyifcertainadditionalfactsarefound(beyondthose (T#" inherentinthepleaorjuryverdict),theSixthandFourteenth *h%$ Amendmentsentitlethedefendanttojurydeterminationofthose  additionalfactsbyproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.Blakely,124  _ S.Ct.at2537.Becausethemiddletermisthepresumptivesentence ( underCaliforniasDSLandadefendantmayonlyreceiveanupper  < termif aggravatingcircumstancesarefound(Pen.Code1170(b)),  P theCaliforniasentencingschemeforjudicialdeterminationofthose d  factsunderapreponderancestandardsuffersfromthesame (x  constitutionaldefectsastheWashingtonregimereviewedinBlakely. < This,infact,was theemergingmajorityviewamongtheCalifornia P CourtsofAppealpriortotheBlackdecision.Peoplev.Harless,22 d Cal.Rptr.3d625,645(6thDist.,2004),rev.grantedby109P.3d68,26 x Cal.Rptr.3d568(Cal.2005).Legalscholarsandcommentatorsagree  thatCaliforniasschemeisamongthoseaffectedbyBlakely.  D.Berman,TheRootsandRealitiesofBlakely,19CriminalJustice5,6  (ABA2005);A.Skove,NationalCenterforStateCourts,Blakelyv. ! Washington:ImplicationsforStateCourts(2004);J.WoolandD. #, Stemen,VeraInstituteofJusticeStateSentencingandCorrections, %@!  AggravatedSentencing:Blakelyv.WashtingtonPracticalImplicationsfor (T#"  StateSentencingSystems,PolicyandPracticeReview (Aug.2004)2;  *\%$ K.Stith,CrimeandPunishmentUndertheConstitution,2004Supreme  CourtReview221,269n.17(2005).   ThestandardofBlakelyandApprendiis,intheCourtswords,a (  brightlinerule.Blakely,124S.Ct.at2540.AndtheCourtdidnot  < retreatfromthatstandardinBooker.AsexplainedinJusticeStevenss  P majorityopinioninBooker,thefederalsentencingguidelineswere d  mandatory,requiringasentenceintherangeestablishedbythe (x  applicationoftheguidelinestothecase.Booker,125S.Ct.at750 < (citing18U.S.S.C.3553(b)).Becausetheguidelineswere P mandatory,themaximumsentenceauthorizedbythejuryverdict d alonewouldbetheupperendoftheguidelinerangethatapplied x withoutanyadditionalcalculationsoradjustmentsbasedonjudicial  factfinding(e.g.thedrugquantitycalculationatissueinBooker).Id.  at750751.TheremedialBookeropinion(authoredbyJusticeBreyer),  createdaconstitutionalschemebyseveringthestatutoryprovisions ! thatmaketheGuidelinesmandatory.Id.at756.OncetheGuidelines #, wererenderedadvisory,themaximumsentenceauthorizedbya %@!   juryverdictwouldbethatstatedinthestatutefortheoffense,_ rather (T#" thantheGuidelines.Id.at75657(Breyer,J.,opinionoftheCourt);  seealsoid.at790(Scalia,J.,dissenting).   ItappearsthattheCalifornia,HawaiiandTennesseecourts(and ( b_eve_b`__`ban_ abtheColoradodissentersc)cd_ too)d,_ Ԁwereledastraybythediscussioninthe  < twoBookermajorityopinionsabouthowtheformerfederalscheme  P wasunconstitutionalbecauseitwasmandatoryandhowthe d  reformedfederalscheme,withadvisoryguidelines,was (x  constitutionalbecauseitinvolvedjudicialdiscretion.Black,29 < _ Cal.Rptr_ .3dat756;Gomez,163S.W.3dat65758;Lopez,113P.3dat P 734(Coats,J.,concurring).ButthisCourthasinnowaydeviseda d testbasedonthedegreeofjudicialdiscretioninasentencing x scheme.Theformerfederalschemewasunconstitutional,notjust  becausefederaljudgeswererequiredtoapplytheGuidelines,but  becausethoseGuidelinespermittedjudicialfactfindingresultingin  sentenceslongerthanthatauthorizedbyajuryverdictora ! defendantsadmission.Gomez,163S.W.3dat665(Anderson,J., #, concurring&dissenting).Andthereformedfederalschemedevised %@!  inJustice_ Breyer_ sopinionfortheCourtwasnotconstitutional (T#" becauseitinvolvedbroadjudicialdiscretion.Rather,itwas *h%$ _ constitutionalbecauseajuryverdictoranadmissionauthorizeda  sentencehigherthananythatresultedfromjudicialfactfinding.The  broadjudicialdiscretiontoselectasentencewithinarangewasthe ( byproductofcreatingaschemeunderwhichajuryverdictoran  < admissionauthorizedasentenceuptothemaximumstatedinthe  P statute.AsthisCourtveryclearlyexplainedinBlakely, [w]hether d  thejudiciallydeterminedfactsrequireasentenceenhancementore (x  merelyallowit,theverdictalonedoesnotauthorizethesentence. < Blakely,124S.Ct.at2538(emphasisinorig.). P AsJusticeKennardexplainedinrejectingthemajorityapproach d inBlack,thejudicialdiscretionfoundintheCaliforniaschemeisno x differentfromthatfoundintheWashingtonschemeddeemed  unconstitutionalinBlakely.Black,29Cal.Rptr.3dat764(Kennard,J.  (concurring&dissenting).(Californiasscheme,infact,issosimilar  toWashingtonsintherelevantrespectsthatfurtherbriefingmay ! notberequiredforthisCourttoconcludethatBlakelymandates #, reversal.) %@!  Underbothschemes,thelistofaggravatingfactorsisnot (T#" exclusive.Cal.R.Ct.4.408;Blakely,124S.Ct.at2535(citingWash. *h%$ Rev.CodeAnn.9.94A.390).TheCaliforniaSupremeacknowledged  thatthisCourt,inBlakely,explainedthatthisfactorisnot  constitutionallysignificant.Black,29Cal.Rptr.3dat752andns.11 ( and12.ThisCourt,indeed,expresslyrejectedsuchlinedrawing  < suggestedbytheStateofWashington.Blakely,124S.Ct.at2538.  P Underbothschemes,anaggravatedsentenceisnotrequired,even d  afterthejudgefindsaggravatingfactorspresent.Black,29 (x  Cal.Rptr.3dat755( thejudgehasconsiderablediscretiontoselect < amongtheupper,middle,andlowerterms);Wash.Rev.CodeAnn. P 9.94A.120(2)( Thecourt may imposeasentenceoutsidethe d standardsentencerangeforthatoffenseifitfinds...thatthereare x substantialandcompellingreasonsjustifyinganexceptional  sentence)(emphasisadded).Underbothschemes,judicial  discretionisguidedbytherequirementthataggravatingfactorsbe  reasonablyrelatedtothedecisionbeingmade.Black,29Cal.Rptr.3d ! at764(Kennard,J.,concurring&dissenting). #, TheBlackmajorityalsoreliedonthefactthat, asahistorical %@!  matterCaliforniasadoptionofthe[DSL]reducedthelengthof (T#" potentialsentencesformostcrimes,ratherthanincreasingthem. *h%$ Black,29Cal.Rptr.3dat751.AsJusticeKennardpointedoutin  dissent,thisCourtappearstoagreethatthesamewastrueof  Washingtonsnewsentencinglaw.Black,29Cal.Rptr.at764(citing ( Blakely,124S.Ct.at2544(OConnor,J.,dissenting)andnotingno  < disagreementfromtheBlakelymajority).  P TheBlackmajorityalsosupporteditsholdingwiththeconclusion d  thattheDSLinvolvesthetypeofjudicialfactfindingthat (x  traditionallyhasbeenperformedbyajudge.Black,29Cal.Rptr.3dat < 74950.Thisinquirymissesthemark.Enforcingtherighttoajury P trialrequiresaninquiryinto,notwhetheraparticularfactisa d traditionalsentencingfactor,butthescopeoftheroleofthejuryas x guaranteedbytheconstitution.ThebrightlineruleofApprendiand  Blakelyarisesfrom afundamentalreservationofpowerinour  constitutionalstructure,andthatrule ensur[es]thatthejudges  authoritytosentencederiveswhollyfromthejurysverdict.Without ! thatrestriction,thejurywouldnotexercisethecontrolthatthe #, Framersintended.Blakely,124S.Ct.at253839(citationsomitted). %@!  UndertheCaliforniaDSLandundertheWashingtonandfederal (T#" schemesatissueinBlakelyandBooker,judicialfactfindingcan *h%$ increasethesentencebeyondthatpermittedbaseduponjustthe  jurysverdictorthedefendantsadmission.AstheCalifornia  SupremeCourtacknowledged, inacaseinwhichno...aggravating ( factorcanbefound,thejudgecannotimposetheupperterm.Black,  < 29Cal.Rptr.3dat755.ThatiswhytheCaliforniaDSL,liketheformer  P Washingtonandfederalschemes,isunconstitutional. d  ThisCourtsdecisionsinApprendi,Blakely,andBookerdo,indeed, (x  drawabrightline.ReviewbythisCourtisnecessarybecausethe < CaliforniaSupremeCourthasfailedtoadheretothatline. P   , & $ E.0 ` TheQuestionisofGreatImportanceandWideApplication d andthisCaseisAnExcellentVehicleforthisCourtto f ResolvetheQuestionPresented. h` `  T ,C /1.0 ` TheIssueisofGreatImportanceandWideApplication.l` `  Atissueinthiscaseisthescopeofdueprocessandjurytrial'$df t protectionsunderthefederalconstitution.Buttheissuespresented  areimportantforreasonsthatgobeyondtheirconnectiontothe ! fairnessandreliabilityofsentencingproceedings. # TheconstitutionalityofCaliforniassentencingschemeaffects %!  countlesscases.AWestlawsearchconductedonJuly28,2005, '(#" turnedup893casesforpublishedandunpublishedCalifornia )<%$ appellatedecisionsinwhichtheword Blakleyappearedinthe ,P'& sameparagraphasthephrase upperterm.Thesenumbers,  moreover,donotreflectthenumerouscasesstillpendinginthe  Californiacourtsofappealandtrialcourts.Nordotheyreflectthe ( casespendinginstatesinwhichthestatehighcourtandstate  < legislaturearestillgrapplingwiththeirresponsestoBlakely.  P & 4  2.0 ` ThiscaseisanidealoneforthisCourttoresolvethequestion d  presented.h ` `   {Thestatecourtssquarelyrejectedappellantsclaimonthemerits,  p  '4iwithoutfindingawaiverandwithoutfindinganyerrorharmless. 4 Thiscaseinvolvesonlyaggravatingfactorsbaseduponcurrent H offenseconduct.UnlikeotherCaliforniaBlakelycases,thesentencing \ courtdidnotrelyonrecidivistfactors,posingquestionsofthe p viabilityandthescopeoftheAlmendarezTorresexceptionforthefact  ofapriorconviction.Thisisafarbettercandidateforreviewthan  Blackitselfbecause,inthiscase,therewerenootherdefendant   admissionsorjuryfindings(suchasthe substantialsexualconduct " findinginBlack)touchingonanyoftheaggravatingfactors.In $$  contrast,Blackitselfpresentsthecomplexitiesofrecidivistfactors &8"! andharmlesserror.EvenJusticeKennard,whodissentedfromthe (L$# mainholding,concurredintheresultbecause thetrialcourt,_ in +`&% Black, reliedinpartonhispriorcriminalhistoryandonfactsfound  bythejury.Black,28_ Cal.Rptr_ .3dat765(Kennard,J.,concurring&  dissenting).)ThiscaseisalsoabettercandidatethattheGomezcase ( fromTennessee,whichwasdecidedonplainerrorreviewand  < includedrecidivismamongtheaggravatingfactors.Gomez,163  P S.W.3dat651(plainerror)and671(Anderson,J.dissenting)(prior d  criminalconduct).ThedefendantintheSmyliecasefromIndianahas (x  petitionedforcertiorari,butthatpetitionpresentsadifferentissue: < whetherBlakelyappliestofactfindingconductedindetermining P whethersentencesshouldrunconsecutively.Smylie,823N.E.2d679, d cert.pet.pending,S.Ct.no.04-10472. x Finally,theCourtneednotworrythatbyacceptingreviewofthis  caseitisembarkingonacourseofstatebystatereviewof  sentencingscheme.Foronething,thequestionspresentedinthis  case"abouttheaffectofbroadjudicialdiscretionandaboutwhether ! thisCourthasdrawnabrightline"wouldapplybeyondCalifornia #, andwouldbecontrollinginthoseotherstates.Foranotherthing,the %@!  legislaturesofmanystates"includingseveraldiscussedabove (T#" (e.g.Arizona,eMinnesotaefeefg,_ gNorth_ ԀCarolina,Oregon,Tennessee)have *h%$ enacted_ Blakelyfixlegislation.Butthereisnofixinsightfor  Californiaandeveryday,defendantsaresentencedtoaggravated  termsbasedonfactsneitherfoundtruebythejurynoradmittedby ( thedefendant.   <    P   CONCLUSION    Fortheforegoingreasons,petitionerrequeststhattheCourtgrant  thepetitionforawritofcertioraritoreviewthejudgmentand  opinionoftheCaliforniaCourtofAppeal,FirstAppellateDistrict,  , affirminghissentence.  @  ` *Zddd Xdd Xdd X  , d , d +  $h h  $Dated:_______________ '|  '  Respectfullysubmitted, |         _______________________  [attorneysname]  AttorneyforPetitioner"0 " B     L  CaliforniaRulesofCourt     Rule4.401.Authority    TherulesinthisdivisionareadoptedpursuanttoPenalCode  section1170.3andpursuanttotheauthoritygrantedtotheJudicial  & CouncilbytheConstitution,articleVI,section6,toadoptrulesfor  0 courtadministration,practiceandprocedure.  :   D Rule4.405.Definitions  H   L  Asusedinthisdivision,unlessthecontextotherwiserequires: P    Z  *** d   n (b)"Baseterm"isthedeterminateprisontermselectedfrom (x amongthethreepossibletermsprescribedbystatuteorthe 2 determinateprisontermprescribedbylawifarangeofthree < possibletermsisnotprescribed. F  P (c)"Enhancement"meansanadditionaltermofimprisonment Z addedtothebaseterm. d  n (d)"Aggravation"or"circumstancesinaggravation"meansfacts x whichjustifytheimpositionoftheupperprisontermreferredtoin  section1170(b).    (e)"Mitigation"or"circumstancesinmitigation"meansfacts   whichjustifytheimpositionofthelowerofthreeauthorizedprison ! termsorfactswhichjustifythecourtinstrikingtheadditional " punishmentforanenhancementwhenthecourthasdiscretiontodo # so. $   %"!  (f)"Sentencechoice"meanstheselectionofanydispositionofthe &,"! casewhichdoesnotamounttoadismissal,acquittal,orgrantofa '6#" newtrial. (@$#  )J%$ *** +T&%  ,^'& (h)"Imprisonment"meansconfinementinastateprison.     ***    Rule4.406.Reasons "   & (a)[Howgiven]Ifthesentencingjudgeisrequiredtogive  * reasonsforasentencechoice,thejudgeshallstateinsimple  4 languagetheprimaryfactororfactorsthatsupporttheexerciseof  > discretionor,ifapplicable,statethatthejudgehasnodiscretion.The  H  statementneednotbeinthelanguageoftheserules.Itshallbe R  deliveredorallyontherecord.  \   f  (b)[Whenreasonsrequired]Sentencechoicesthatgenerallyrequirea j  statementofareasoninclude: n  "r *** &v  0 (2)Imposingaprisonsentenceandtherebydenyingprobation. :  D *** N  X (4)Selectingatermotherthanthemiddlestatutorytermfor b eitheranoffenseoranenhancement. l  v ***    (7)Strikingthepunishmentforanenhancement.    ! *** "  # (10)Strikinganenhancementorpriorconvictionallegationunder $  section1385(a). %!   & "! Rule4.408.Criterianotexclusive;sequencenotsignificant '$#"  (($# (a)Theenumerationintheserulesofsomecriteriaforthemaking ),%$ ofdiscretionarysentencingdecisionsdoesnotprohibitthe *6&% applicationofadditionalcriteriareasonablyrelatedtothedecision +@'& beingmade.Anysuchadditionalcriteriashallbestatedonthe  recordbythesentencingjudge.     (b)Theorderinwhichcriteriaarelisteddoesnotindicatetheir  relativeweightorimportance. (   2 Rule4.409.Considerationofcriteria  <   @ Relevantcriteriaenumeratedintheserulesshallbeconsideredby  J thesentencingjudge,andshallbedeemedtohavebeenconsidered T  unlesstherecordaffirmativelyreflectsotherwise. ^   h  Rule4.420.Selectionofbasetermofimprisonment "r   &v  (a)Whenasentenceofimprisonmentisimposed,orthe *z executionofasentenceofimprisonmentisorderedsuspended,the 4 sentencingjudgeshallselecttheupper,middle,orlowertermon > eachcountforwhichthedefendanthasbeenconvicted,asprovided H insection1170(b)andtheserules.Themiddletermshallbeselected R unlessimpositionoftheupperorlowertermisjustifiedby \ circumstancesinaggravationormitigation. f  p (b)Circumstancesinaggravationandmitigationshallbe z establishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Selectionofthe  uppertermisjustifiedonlyif,afteraconsiderationofalltherelevant  facts,thecircumstancesinaggravationoutweighthecircumstances  inmitigation.Therelevantfactsareincludedinthecaserecord,the  probationofficer'sreport,otherreportsandstatementsproperly   received,statementsinaggravationormitigation,andanyfurther ! evidenceintroducedatthesentencinghearing.Selectionofthelower " termisjustifiedonlyif,consideringthesamefacts,thecircumstances # inmitigationoutweighthecircumstancesinaggravation. $$   %.!  (c)Tocomplywithsection1170(b),afactchargedandfoundas &8"! anenhancementmaybeusedasareasonforimposingtheupper 'B#" termonlyifthecourthasdiscretiontostrikethepunishmentforthe (L$# enhancementanddoesso.Theuseofafactofanenhancementto *V%$  imposetheuppertermofimprisonmentisanadequatereasonfor +`&% strikingtheadditionaltermofimprisonment,regardlessoftheeffect  onthetotalterm.      (d)Afactthatisanelementofthecrimeshallnotbeusedto  imposetheupperterm. (   2 (e)Thereasonsforselectingtheupperorlowertermshallbe  < statedorallyontherecord,andshallincludeaconcisestatementof  F theultimatefactswhichthecourtdeemedtoconstitute  P circumstancesinaggravationormitigationjustifyingtheterm  Z  selected. d   n  Rule4.421.Circumstancesinaggravation "r   &v  Circumstancesinaggravationinclude: *z  4 (a)Factsrelatingtothecrime,whetherornotchargedor > chargeableasenhancements,includingthefactthat: H  R (1)Thecrimeinvolvedgreatviolence,greatbodilyharm,threatof \ greatbodilyharm,orotheractsdisclosingahighdegreeofcruelty, f viciousness,orcallousness. p  z (2)Thedefendantwasarmedwithorusedaweaponatthetime  ofthecommissionofthecrime.    (3)Thevictimwasparticularlyvulnerable.     (4)Thedefendantinducedotherstoparticipateinthecommission ! ofthecrimeoroccupiedapositionofleadershipordominanceof " otherparticipantsinitscommission. #  $$  (5)Thedefendantinducedaminortocommitorassistinthe %.!  commissionofthecrime. &8"!  'B#" (6)Thedefendantthreatenedwitnesses,unlawfullypreventedor (L$# dissuadedwitnessesfromtestifying,subornedperjury,orinany *V%$ otherwayillegallyinterferedwiththejudicialprocess. +`&%  ,j'& (7)Thedefendantwasconvictedofothercrimesforwhich  consecutivesentencescouldhavebeenimposedbutforwhich   concurrentsentencesarebeingimposed.    (8)Themannerinwhichthecrimewascarriedoutindicates ( planning,sophistication,orprofessionalism.  2   < (9)Thecrimeinvolvedanattemptedoractualtakingordamage  F ofgreatmonetaryvalue.  P   Z  (10)Thecrimeinvolvedalargequantityofcontraband. d   n  (11)Thedefendanttookadvantageofapositionoftrustor (x  confidencetocommittheoffense. 2   < (b)Factsrelatingtothedefendant,includingthefactthat: F  P (1)Thedefendanthasengagedinviolentconductwhichindicates Z aseriousdangertosociety. d  n (2)Thedefendant'spriorconvictionsasanadultorsustained x petitionsinjuveniledelinquencyproceedingsarenumerousorof  increasingseriousness.    (3)Thedefendanthasservedapriorprisonterm.    (4)Thedefendantwasonprobationorparolewhenthecrime  wascommitted.    ! (5)Thedefendant'spriorperformanceonprobationorparolewas "" unsatisfactory. #,  $6  (c)Anyotherfactsstatutorilydeclaredtobecircumstancesin %@!  aggravation. &J"!  (T#" Rule4.423.Circumstancesinmitigation )X$#   *\%$ Circumstancesinmitigationinclude: +`&%  ,j'& (a)Factsrelatingtothecrime,includingthefactthat:     (1)Thedefendantwasapassiveparticipantorplayedaminor  roleinthecrime.   ( (2)Thevictimwasaninitiatorof,willingparticipantin,or  2 aggressororprovokeroftheincident.  <   F (3)Thecrimewascommittedbecauseofanunusual  P circumstance,suchasgreatprovocation,whichisunlikelytorecur.  Z   d  (4)Thedefendantparticipatedinthecrimeundercircumstances n  ofcoercionorduress,orthecriminalconductwaspartially (x  excusableforsomeotherreasonnotamountingtoadefense. 2   < (5)Thedefendant,withnoapparentpredispositiontodoso,was F inducedbyotherstoparticipateinthecrime. P  Z (6)Thedefendantexercisedcautiontoavoidharmtopersonsor d damagetoproperty,ortheamountsofmoneyorpropertytaken n weredeliberatelysmall,ornoharmwasdoneorthreatenedagainst x thevictim.    (7)Thedefendantbelievedthatheorshehadaclaimorrightto  thepropertytaken,orforotherreasonsmistakenlybelievedthatthe  conductwaslegal.    (8)Thedefendantwasmotivatedbyadesiretoprovide   necessitiesforhisorherfamilyorself. !  "" (9)Thedefendantsufferedfromrepeatedorcontinuousphysical, #, sexual,orpsychologicalabuseinflictedbythevictimofthecrime; $6  andthevictimofthecrime,whoinflictedtheabuse,wasthe %@!  defendant'sspouse,intimatecohabitant,orparentofthedefendant's &J"! child;andthefactsconcerningtheabusedonotamounttoadefense. (T#"  )^$# (b)Factsrelatingtothedefendant,includingthefactthat: *h%$  "+r&% (1)Thedefendanthasnopriorrecord,oraninsignificantrecord  ofcriminalconduct,consideringtherecencyandfrequencyofprior   crimes.    (2)Thedefendantwassufferingfromamentalorphysical ( conditionthatsignificantlyreducedculpabilityforthecrime.  2   < (3)Thedefendantvoluntarilyacknowledgedwrongdoingpriorto  F arrestoratanearlystageofthecriminalprocess.  P   Z  (4)Thedefendantisineligibleforprobationandbutforthat d  ineligibilitywouldhavebeengrantedprobation. n   (x  (5)Thedefendantmaderestitutiontothevictim. 2   < (6)Thedefendant'spriorperformanceonprobationorparolewas F satisfactory.