WPC66 _ FNn6>P $ү"˞KgkZnh:pJ;+Q4Kg~b$` EZ]ܙ[ڗHKviR1*?q01kڳ(k&+}tEA}e"/ ;IN?ǰ T7 DG#+$I!4.A;^?|[3x\ѯDz+c/ 7>֎Mu _!y /0oUBL_u-oYdȻP zTV*×n 1:B܌nm{[v)ٽízG}=UMDB$bݛ.;{5%X.hqs <3ppU: nZ % 0 0 0 0 0L 0 0 0X 0 0 0 06 0' 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0< 0N$ 0ar 0( 0< 07 0CG> 0 13! 7(8" 0`" # 0=*# 0Fg# 0P# 1# 7$ 0z$b%% 0C% 0C%& Bh& B& D1& AM& 72 ' 0CR' 1k' 0R( 1R( 7 )) 0(') BO)#l)(5,N], 1u_, 72,^ -w-4-*- m,-URC- 0 w- 1s . 0s.. 0c/f0a010 03 0D4 1'5 7255 D55555555555555555555555555 i6<6X9`("Courier 10cpi<6X9`("Courier 10cpiXx6X@8;X@XlE0 D:Technical[1]Technical Document Style    2I.3  Ԁ     .. l:%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style   2A.3  Ԁ   .. l7!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style   21.3  Ԁ   .. l6! ):Technical[4]Technical Document Style   2a.3  Ԁ   .. l= g:Technical[5]Technical Document Style..   2(1)3  Ԁ. l= :Technical[6]Technical Document Style..   2(a)3  Ԁ. l<a~:Technical[7]Technical Document Style..   2i)3  Ԁ. l<a:Technical[8]Technical Document Style..   2a)3  Ԁ. Vc08Document[1]Document Style  @..^    2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ V:8Document[2]Document Style   2A.3  Ԁ   VJ8Document[3]Document Style..   21.3  Ԁ   Vy8Document[4]Document Style.. . 21.3  Ԁ       Ԉ  ted Text (*V 9w8Document[5]Document Style0... 21.3  Ԁ       Ԉ  V 9{8Document[6]Document Style8... 21.3  Ԁ       Ԉ  V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` 1.3  Ԁ       Ԉ  ` xt (*.txt)|V& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` 1.3  Ԁ       Ԉ  ` xt (*.txt)|z` :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..  2I.3  Ԁ..0..zs B:Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..  2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` z :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P   21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z &:Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..   2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z {j:Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..  2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz Ĵ:Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..  2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....  2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..  2a)3  Ԁ..0p..p(&11<:case captionx22PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper       _(2{$ <!   =#HlHd#  jD4Tech InitInitialize Technical Style( # ( CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1# 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fE2Doc InitInitialize Document Style&( *   ('()($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)*a)R& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....  Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2{$ <!  ($      d d12)1 dxd./03A<< cJ1)(2{$ <!  $35;AGMS[c1I.1.A.1)a.(1)(i)(i)R42 SpacingDouble Spacing CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)9a)#|x ($ dCENTRAL OFFICE0!3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ai)p6 OV.6:i+00U- tZ:Palatino Linotype Regular(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)B#:21, 2, 3,NumbersL  .0 L1, 2, 3,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3$2#  0  .3  0   TABLE A  TRAN AHM JCRRESENTENCINGD.A.R. S.CtBlakelyRecuencoHerediaMosleyDevanonHuynh Moy SiuStapon&ThrongcharoenkiatBlytheSonoma DSLfactfinding opnRIVASZWERLINGSIRACOFelkerJWAztecaMontoyaChristiakoffTanuzBernabeSusanvilleApprendi L.EdCal.ApppauperisYulupaFranciso((2ik$ <!  TRX3'Avery 5164 ShippingX3' Letter3'Letter164 Shipping3' Letter3'LetterT 4   0  (#$  0  8 CSY_ekqw}Numbers 2Numbers1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.S1.1111)!dxdx  <!  _HXXXXHXHX!/@ INTHESUPERIORCOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  @. . FORTHECOUNTYOFSONOMA  `  InreRAFAELRIVAS, 0 < 0<!<!0!!No. p !!   4 onhabeascorpus. 0  0!!RelatedCaseNos:$ !!  4    <     SuperiorCourtNo.SCR32686    4    <     AppealNo.A107031 8   4    <     SupremeCourtNo.S132284 8 , 4    <     ,   PETITIONFORWRITOFHABEASCORPUS X ANDREQUESTFORRESENTENCING 0 AFTERCUNNINGHAMV.CALIFORNIA X (January22,2007,No.05-6551)򀀀U.S.򀀀 2 [166L.Ed.2d856,27S.Ct.856]     MATTHEWZWERLING % ' ExecutiveDirector z&!( ALANSIRACO,StaffAttorney R'") (StateBarNo.168763) *(z#* FirstDistrictAppellateProject )R$+ 730HarrisonStreet,Suite201 )*%, SanFrancisco,CA94107 *&- (415)4953119 +&. AttorneysforPetitioner :-(0 !/ !8HHdd8 !   @LL"TABLEOFCONTENTS  ( ( D!Page  ` TABLEOFAUTHORITIES!!F!. ii ` PETITION!!G!. 1   VERIFICATION!!G!. 5 p  MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIES!!G!.06  p   J(33A0 4 THEIMPOSITIONOFANUPPERTERMSENTENCEVIOLATED   PETITIONERSFEDERALCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSTOPROOF   OFEACHSENTENCINGFACTBEYONDAREASONABLE   DOUBTANDDUEPROCESSUNDERTHESIXTHAND X  FOURTEENTHAMENDMENTSTOTHEUNITEDSTATES 0  CONSTITUTION#!!G!.4!4!#6 X "I;"  I;> 0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  UnderCunningham,CaliforniaUpperTermsBasedOnFacts  EnumeratedInRule4.421FoundTrueByAJudgeByA  PreponderanceOfTheEvidenceAreUnconstitutional.#!!G!.I ! !#6I;> k ݌ h Ќ  "I;"  I; 0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  PetitionerIsEntitledToAReductionInHisPrisonSentence#!!G!. R ! !#9I; + ݌ h Ќ  CONCLUSION$!$!F!. 11  DECLARATIONOFALANSIRACO$!$!F!.&13 x @" INDEXOFEXHIBITS  (x EXHIBITA (  4 February15,2005decisionbytheCourtofAppealfortheStateof   California,FirstAppellateDistrict  ! EXHIBITB 8"#  4 April20,2005denialofpetitionersPetitionforReviewinthe #`$ CaliforniaSupremeCourt #8% EXHIBITC % '  4 August2,2004andFebruary17,2005ordersappointingthe p&!( undersignedcounselforpetitionerintheCourtofAppeal H'") EXHIBITD (H$+  4 PACERDocketreportforRivasv.Felker(NorthernDistrictNo.06 ) %, 04567JW)printedMarch5,2007  *%-  @ TABLEOFAUTHORITIES  88A!Page(s)  `  FEDERAL ` UnitedStatesConstitution    AmendmentV!!G!.h h 1 p  AmendmentVI D!. 1,6  p  AmendmentXIV D!.@ @ 1,6    UnitedStatesSupremeCourt    Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466 0  [147L.Ed.2d435,120S.Ct.2348]  B!.-6,89 X Blakelyv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296  [159L.Ed.2d403,124S.Ct.2531],,?!.-2,6,89  Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18 @ [17L.Ed.2d705,87S.Ct.824]$!$!F!.+10 h Cunninghamv.California(Jan.22,2007;056551)򀀀U.S.___[166L.Ed.2d  856,27S.Ct.856]  B!.  2,78  Hicksv.Oklahoma(1980)447U.S.343 P [65L.Ed.2d175,100S.Ct.2227]!!G!.ff,9 (x Rosev.Clark(1986)478U.S.570 ( [92L.Ed.2d460,106S.Ct.3101]$!$!F!.-10   Sullivanv.Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275 `!" [124L.Ed.2d182,113S.Ct.2078]$!$!F!..10 8"# Washingtonv.Recuenco(2006)򀀀U.S.򀀀 #8% [165L.Ed.2d466,477,26S.Ct.2546,2553]$!$!F!.610 $ &  UnitedStatesCircuitCourtofAppeals  p&!( UnitedStatesv.VelascoHeredia(9thCir.2003)319F.3d1080!!G!.nnJ9   (p#*  CALIFORNIA  Constitution `  ArticleVI,section10!!G!. "2 `  Statutes,rules,etc.    RulesofCourtrule,4.420(b)!!G!.VV)8 p   4 Rule4.421(a)(3)!!G!.!8  p   4 Rule4.421(a)(4)!!G!.!8    CaliforniaSupremeCourt    Peoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238!!G!.@@27 0  Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331!!G!.PP08 0  CaliforniaCourtofAppeal   Peoplev.Mosley(1997)53Cal.App.4th489!!G!.ZZ69 @ Peoplev.Nguyen(1993)21Cal.App.4th518$!$!F!.611 @ Peoplev.Hammond(1986)181Cal.App.3d463$!$!F!.711    (x @INTHESUPERIORCOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  @g g FORTHECOUNTYOFSONOMA ` InreRAFAELRIVAS,0 < 0<!<!0!! D No. !!  4 onhabeascorpus. p  @& PETITION   H  TO:0 4 THEPRESIDINGJUSTICEOFTHESUPERIORCOURTOFTHE   STATEOFCALIFORNIAFORTHECOUNTYOFSONOMA: 4!4!  4 Petitioner,RafaelRivas,byandthroughcounsel,petitionsforaWrit 0  ofHabeasCorpusandbythisverifiedpetitionallegesthefollowing: 0   I. @@*(#(#    4 Petitionerslibertyisrestrainedpursuanttoajudgmentofconviction @ andsentenceenteredonMay27,2004bytheHonorableDeanA.Beaupre @ inSonomaCountySuperiorCourtNo.SCR32686committinghimtothe  custodyoftheCaliforniaDepartmentofCorrections.Petitionerwasfound P guiltyafterentryofaguiltypleaonNovember24,2003,toonecountof P voluntarymanslaughter(Pen.Code192)withpersonalgunuse(Pen.   Code12022.5).HewassentencedonMay27,2002toatermof21years. `!" (See,ExhibitA.) #`$   II.  $ & # 4 Therestraintonpetitionerslibertyisillegalandincontraventionof p&!( rightsguaranteedhimbytheFifth,SixthandFourteenthAmendmentsto  (p#* theUnitedStatesConstitution,becausehewassentencedbasedon ) %, findingsnotproventoajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.(Cunninghamv. +&. California(Jan.22,2007;056551)򀀀U.S.___[166L.Ed.2d856,27S.Ct.856];  Blakelyv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296[159L.Ed.2d403,124S.Ct.2531].) `   III.  ` 3& 4 Thispetitionisbeingfiledinthiscourtpursuanttoitsoriginal   habeascorpusjurisdiction.(Cal.Const.,art.VI,10.)OnJune24,2004, p  whilepetitionersdirectappealwaspending,theUnitedStatesSupreme  p  CourtdecidedBlakely.Petitionersdirectappeal,raisingaBlakelyclaim,   wasdeniedbytheCourtofAppealonFebruary15,2005.TheSupreme   CourtdeniedreviewonApril20,2005.(See,ExhibitB.)Cunninghamwas 0  decidedonJanuary22,2007,holdingthatCaliforniauppertermsbasedon 0  aggravatingfactorsfoundtruebyajudgebyastandardlessthan  beyondareasonabledoubtareunconstitutional.Accordingly,petitioner @ hasfiledthecurrentpetitioninthiscourtrequestingreliefunder @ Cunningham.Nootherpostconvictionproceedingsarepending.  @SS) VI.  P  4 Accordingtopetitionersappellaterecord,thefactspertainingtothe P offenseareasfollows:    4 AlfonsoMares,thecoownerofAztecaMarketonFrazierStreet,in `!" SantaRosa,andhismanager,HectorMontoyahadclosedthestoreabout #`$ 8:20p.m.onJune3,1999.(CT79.)Atabout9:00,inadditiontoMr.Mares $ & andMr.Montoya,avendornamedMr.ChristiakoffandMr.Maress p&!( partner,BenTanuzwereinthestore.(CT9.)Mr.Tanuzwentintothe  (p#* meatdepartmenttoretrievesomemeat,whenMr.Rivasandanotherman ) %, cameintothestore.(CT10.)Bothweredressedinblackandhadski +&. maskscoveringtheirfaces.(CT1112.)Mr.Rivashadagun,andordered  Mr.Maresto Give[him]themoney.Mr.Maressaidhewouldsurrender ` themoney.Heturnedtothesafe,andheheardashot.(CT11,18.) ` ThoughMr.MareswasunawareofanystrugglebetweenMr.Montoya   andMr.Rivas,laterthatnight,Mr.Rivastoldhisfriend,RogerStephenson p  thatthegunaccidentallyfiredwhilehewaswrestlingwithMr.Montoya.  p  (CT5152.)WhenMr.Maresturnedaround,themenweregoneandMr.   Montoyahadbeenshotintheneck.Mr.Tanuzcalledthepolice,andMr.   Marestriedtostoptheblood.(CT13.)Mr.Montoyalaterdiedfromthe 0  gunshotwoundtohisneck.(CT82.) 0 @))( VII.    4 Petitionerwasrepresentedattrialbyappointedcounsel,Bernabe @ Hernandez.Hehasbeenincarceratedsincehisconviction,andhasno @ assets.CurrentcounselwasappointedtorepresentpetitionerintheCourt  ofAppeal.(See,ExhibitC.)Currentcounselforpetitionerisfilingthis P petitioninordertoprotectpetitionersfederalconstitutionalrights. P Petitionerwillrequestappointmentofcounselshouldahearingbe   necessaryintheSuperiorCourt.Currentcounselisavailablefor `!" appointmentifitpleasesthecourt. #`$  @(VIII.  $ &  4 TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasdeniedpetitionersclaimmade p&!( underBlakely.Cunninghamwasdecidedafterpetitionersjudgment  (p#* becamefinalforpurposesofdirectreview.Sincehecouldnothaveraised ) %, theclaimpresentedhereunderCunninghamintheSuperiorCourt,the +&. CourtofAppealortheSupremeCourtaspartofhisdirectappeal,  petitionerhasnootherplain,speedyoradequateremedyatlaw. `  4 WHEREFORE,petitionerrespectfullyrequeststhatthisCourt: ` K:   4 K:7L1  .0   IssueaWritofHabeasCorpusorOrdertoShowCausetothe   CaliforniaDepartmentofCorrectionsandRehabilitationto p  inquireintothelegalityoftherestraintonpetitionersliberty;  p  andK:7@7Lی  ! ! Ќ  K:   4 K:8L2  .0   Afterhearing,issueanordervacatingthejudgmentinthis   matter,remandingforresentencingandgrantingsuchfurther 0  reliefasisappropriateintheinterestofjustice.K:89Lی0 ! ! Ќ  DATED: March6,20070    Respectfullysubmitted,@!!  4    <     By: D 򀀀   4    <      D ALANSIRACO x  4    <      D AttorneyforPetitioner  P :@$ VERIFICATION    4 I,AlanSiraco,declareunderpenaltyofperjury: `  4 IamanattorneyadmittedtopracticelawintheStateofCalifornia, ` andIwasappointedappellatecounselforthepetitionerhereinbythe   CourtofAppealfortheFirstAppellateDistrict.Petitionerisincarcerated p  inSusanville,California,inanothercountyatgreatdistancefromthatin  p  whichIhaveanoffice.    4 Iamauthorizedtofilethispetitionforwritofhabeascorpuson   petitionersbehalf.Allfactsallegedintheabovedocument,nototherwise 0  supportedbyreferencestopetitionersappellaterecord,exhibitsorother 0 documents,aretrueofmyownpersonalknowledge.   4 Executedthis6thdayofMarch,2007,atSanFrancisco,California. @  4    <      D 򀀀   4    <      D ALANSIRACO  x @@  MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIES    THEIMPOSITIONOFANUPPERTERMSENTENCEVIOLATED ` PETITIONERSFEDERALCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSTOPROOF 8 OFEACHSENTENCINGFACTBEYONDAREASONABLEDOUBT ` ANDDUEPROCESSUNDERTHESIXTHANDFOURTEENTH 8 AMENDMENTSTOTHEUNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTION.   7B! ! J(33J"I;"  I;aD0 4 2  A  .3  0 4!4!  UnderCunningham,CaliforniaUpperTermsBasedOn p  FactsEnumeratedInRule4.421FoundTrueByAJudgeByA H   PreponderanceOfTheEvidenceAreUnconstitutional. I;aDD݌ p  ! ! Ќ  D 4 TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasestablishedthat every   defendanthastherighttoinsistthattheprosecutorprovetothejuryall   factslegallyessentialtothepunishment.(Blakelyv.Washington(2004)542 0  U.S.296,313[159L.Ed.2d403,124S.Ct.2531],emphasisinoriginal;U.S. 0 Const.,Amend.VI;id.,Amend.XIV.)Thus,thereisafederal  constitutionalrighttoajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubt @  foranyfact(otherthanpriorconviction)thatincreasesthemaximum @ penaltyforacrime.(Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,476,490  [147L.Ed.2d435,120S.Ct.2348].)The maximumsentencetowhicha P judgecansentenceadefendantwithoutadditionalfactualfindingsbya P juryis themaximumsentenceajudgemayimposesolelyonthebasisofthe   factsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant.(Blakelyv. `!" Washington,supra,542U.S.atp.303,emphasisinoriginal.) #`$  4 Recently,whileacknowledgingthatthemiddletermisthe $ &  presumptivetermunderCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLaw p&!( ( DSL),theCaliforniaSupremeCourtreasonedthatthedeterminatetriad  (p#* representsa statutoryrangewhichthejudgemayimposebasedupon ) %, traditionaljudicialfactfindingattendanttotheimpositionofsentence. +&. Accordingly,thecourtheldthattheuppertermofthetriadisthe   statutorymaximuminCalifornia.(Peoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238.) `  4 However,onJanuary22,2007,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt ` rejectedtheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsreasoninginBlack,andthat   decisionisnolongervalid.CunninghamestablishedthatbecauseaDSL p  uppertermrequiresfindingsofadditionalaggravatingcircumstances  p  beyondtheminimumelementsoftheoffense, themiddletermprescribed   inCaliforniasstatutes,nottheupperterm,istherelevantstatutory   maximumforApprendiBlakelypurposes.(Cunninghamv.California,supra, 0  slipopn.atpp.1516[166L.Ed.2datp.873].) Becausecircumstancesin 0 aggravationarefoundbythejudge,notthejury,andneedonlybe  establishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence,notbeyondareasonable @ doubt[citation],theDSLviolatesApprendi'sbrightlinerule.(Ibid.) @  4 SpecificallyrejectingthereasoninginBlack,theHighCourtheld,   BecausetheDSLauthorizesthejudge,notthejury,tofindthefacts P permittinganuppertermsentence,thesystemcannotwithstand P measurementagainstourSixthAmendmentprecedent.[Fn.]   (Cunninghamv.California,supra,slipopn.atp.21[166L.Ed.2datp.876].) `!" Cunninghamconfirmsthatthesentencingjudgesdeterminationof #`$ aggravatingfactorsandhisrelianceonthosefactorstoimposethemiddle $ & termviolatedappellantsconstitutionalrightstoajurytrialanddue p&!( process.  (p#*  4 UnderCunningham,BlakelyandApprendi, Otherthanthefactofa ) %, priorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondthe +&. prescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury,andproved  beyondareasonabledoubt.(Cunninghamv.California,supra,slipopn.at ` p.1[166L.Ed.2datp.864];Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.atp.490; ` Blakelyv.Washington,supra,542U.S.atp.301.)Thesentencingcourthere   imposedtheupperbasetermafterfinding:thevictimparticularly p  vulnerable(Cal.RulesofCt.,rule4.421(a)(3))becausethestorewasclosed  p  lateatnight;Mr.Rivasappearedtobealeader(Cal.RulesofCt.,rule   4.421(a)(4));and [_t]he_Ԁfactsandcircumstancesofthiscasearesimplyoff   thescaleintermsofbeingcomparedtoothermanslaughters.(RT12.) 0  Thelatterfindingappearstobeaparaphraseoftherulerequiringafinding 0 that thecircumstancesinaggravationoutweighthecircumstancesin  mitigation.(Cal.RulesofCt.,rule4.420(b).)Thoughthecourtfound @ petitionerhadnopriorrecord,thecourtruledthe aggravatingfactors @ outweighedthe mitigatingfactor,and reluctantlyimposedthehigh  termof11yearsforthemanslaughterandthehightermof10yearsforthe P gunuseenhancement.(Ex.A,p.2.) P  4 Thoughpetitionerwaivedhisrighttoajurytrialinfavorofabench   trial,hedidnotwaivehisrighttoproofofthetruthofeachfactonwhich `!" hispunishmentisbasedbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thesentencingcourt #`$ didnotexpresslystatewhatstandardofproofitwasapplyinginmaking $ & thefindingsofaggravatingcircumstances.However,fromitssilencethis p&!( courtmustpresumethatthejudgefoundtheaggravatingfactorstruebya  (p#* merepreponderanceoftheevidenceinaccordancewithrule4.420(b)ofthe ) %, CaliforniaRulesofCourt.(Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331,349 +&. [preponderancestandardapplies];Peoplev.Mosley(1997)53Cal.App.4th  489,496[presumptiononasilentrecordisthatthecourtfollowedsettled ` law].)Inviewofthesentencingcourtsfindingofaggravatingfactorsbya ` lowerstandardofproof,thecourtsselectionoftheuppertermwastainted   byBlakelyerrorandrendersappellantssentenceunconstitutional.(See, p  UnitedStatesv.VelascoHeredia(9thCir.2003)319F.3d1080,1085[Apprendi  p  erroroccurredwhentrialcourtusedthepreponderancestandardat   sentencingtodeterminedrugquantity].)    "I;"  I;:b0 4 2  B  .3  0 4!4!  PetitionerIsEntitledToAReductionInHisPrison 0  Sentence. I;:bgb݌X ! ! Ќ  %b 4 Blakelyreversedthestatecourtjudgmentbasedonthe  unconstitutionalapplicationofstatutewithoutengaginginharmlesserror h analysis.(Blakelyv.Washington,supra,542U.S.atp.313.)NordidApprendi h subjectthestatejudgmentitreversedtoharmlesserroranalysis.(Apprendi  v.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.atp.497.)Harmlesserroranalysisisnot x applicabletoajudgmentimposedunderanunconstitutionalstatute, (x especiallywherethatstatutetakesawayfromthejuryalldeterminationof ( thematterathand.(See,Hicksv.Oklahoma(1980)447U.S.343,345347[65  ! L.Ed.2d175,100S.Ct.2227][rejectingstateappellatecourtsharmlesserror 8"# analysisofsentenceimposedaccordingtounconstitutionalstatute].) #8% Indeed,harmlesserroranalysismakesnosensewhentheerrorisanutter % ' denialoftherighttoajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubt. H'")  Wherethatright[tojurydetermination]isaltogetherdenied,theState (H$+ cannotcontendthatthedeprivationwasharmlessbecausetheevidence *%- establishedthedefendantsguilt;theerrorinsuchacaseisthatthewrong X,'/ entityjudgedthedefendantguilty.(Rosev.Clark(1986)478U.S.570,578  [92L.Ed.2d460,106S.Ct.3101].)However,theUnitedStatesSupreme ` Courthasheldthatfailuretoprovideajurytrialregardingsentencingfacts ` isanalogoustoaninstructionalerrorthatremovesanelementfromajurys   consideration.Asaresult,theHighCourthasappliedtheChapman p  standardtoCunningham/Blakelyerror.(Washingtonv.Recuenco(2006)򀀀  p  U.S.򀀀[165L.Ed.2d466,477,26S.Ct.2546,2553].)    4 UnderChapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,24[17L.Ed.2d705,87   S.Ct.824],theprosecutormustshowthattheerrorwasharmlessbeyonda 0  reasonabledoubt.Thatis,thesentencemusthavebeen surely 0 unattributabletotheerroneousevidentiarystandard.(Sullivanv.  Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275,279[124L.Ed.2d182,113S.Ct.2078].)Here, @ thatstandardcannotbemet.ItisundisputedthattheProbation @ Departmentrecommendedatermlessthanthatimposedbythecourt.(CT  II,p.14;AUGRT,p.4.)Aspreviouslymentioned,petitionerhadnoprior P criminalhistory,andthecourtimposedtheuppertermonly reluctantly. P Further,asdiscussed,theevidencedoesnotcompelafindingthatthe   aggravatingcircumstancesweretruebeyondareasonabledoubtorthat `!" theyoutweighedthemitigatingcircumstanceofappellantslackof #`$ criminalrecord. $ &  4 Thevictimfoundtobeparticularly vulnerablewasanemployeein p&!( astoreopentothepublic.Thoughthestorewasclosed,thevictimwasnot  (p#* alone,andthereissomeindicationthatheinitiatedastruggleagainst ) %, appellantknowinghewasarmed.Thisdoesnotfitthebehaviorprofileof +&. apersoninavulnerableposition.   4 The sophisticationfoundbythetrialcourtwasbasedonlyonthe ` factpetitionerhadobtainedagunpriortoattemptingarobbery.(CTII,p. ` 11.)However,thepresenceofthegunwasthecauseofthefailureofthe   robbery.Thefactthatnoinjurywasintendedinwhateverplanningtook p  placewasdemonstratedbythefactthatpetitionerdidnottakeadvantage  p  oftheshooting.Instead,heandhiscompanionranoutofthestorewithout   takinganything.    4 Whileitisnotentirelyunreasonabletoconcludepetitionerwasthe 0   leaderintherobbery,thatinferenceisbynomeanscompelledbythe 0 facts.Noristheconclusionthattheshootingis offthecharts.Infact,  dischargeofagunistobeexpectedwhenanarmedpersonengagesina @ physicalstrugglewithanother.Theprobabilityofintentionalornegligent @ dischargeofagunisthereasonthatamurdermaybeconsideredanatural  andprobableconsequenceofanarmedrobbery.(See,Peoplev.Nguyen P (1993)21Cal.App.4th518,530[ murderisgenerallyfoundtobea P reasonablyforeseeableresultofaplantocommitrobbery];Peoplev.   Hammond(1986)181Cal.App.3d463,468[attemptedmurderanaturaland `!" probableconsequenceofarmedrobbery].) #`$ @% CONCLUSION  $ &  4 Theprosecutorcannotshowthattheaggravatingfactorswould p&!( surelyhavebeenfoundtruebeyondareasonabledoubt.Therefore,  (p#* petitionerisentitledtohavehisjudgmentvacatedandthematter ) %, remandedforresentencing. +&. ЇDATED: March7,20070  0!!Respectfullysubmitted,!!  4    <     By:0 D 򀀀`D!D!  4    <      D ALANSIRACO 8  4    <      D AttorneyforPetitioner    @  DECLARATIONOFALANSIRACO   ! ! S( 93J 4 I,AlanSiraco,declare: ` "M3"  M3u}2   1  .3  0 4   IamanactivememberoftheCaliforniaStateBar,astaffattorney ` withtheFirstDistrictAppellateProject,andIwasappointedcounsel   forappellantinhisdirectappeal;M3u}}݌p 4!4! Ќ  "M3"  M32   2  .3  0 4   Thedocumentsattachedasexhibitsaretrueandcorrectcopiesof  p  originaldocumentsmaintainedinpetitionersfile;M3A݌ 4!4! Ќ  "M3"  M3i2   3  .3  0 4   AfterissuanceoftheCunninghamdecision,Icontactedpetitionerto   determinewhetherhehadpursuedanypostjudgmentreliefinpro 0  per;M3i݌04!4! Ќ  "M3"  M32   4  .3  0 4   OnFebruary14,2007,Ireceivedfrompetitioneracopyofafederal  habeaspetitionhehadfiledinJuly2006raisingsentencingerror @ underBlakely,aswehadarguedinhisdirectappeal;M3݌@4!4! Ќ  "M3"  M32   5  .3  0 4   OnMarch5,2007,Ideterminedfromthefederaldistrictcourtson  linedocumentretrievalsystem(PACER),thatthoughthefederal P docketreportshowspetitionerpaidthefilingfeeonAugust8,2006, P petitionersfederalpetitionhadbeendismissedduetofailuretopay   thefilingfeeorrequestinformapauperisstatus(ExhibitD).M3Ń݌`!"4!4! Ќ   4 Ideclareunderpenaltyofperjurytheforegoingistrue.Executed $ & this7thdayofMarch,2007atSanFrancisco,California. p&!(  4    <      D   򀀀 ) %,  4    <      D   AlanSiraco  *%-   @  PROOFOFSERVICEBYMAIL    4 8  Iamovertheageof18yearsandnotapartytothisaction.My ` businessaddressis730HarrisonStreet,Suite210,SanFrancisco, ` California,94102.    4 OnMarch7,2007,IservedacopyoftheattachedPETITIONFOR p  WRITOFHABEASCORPUSANDREQUESTFORRESENTENCINGon  p  thefollowingbyplacingatruecopythereofinanenvelopewithfirstclass   postageprepaidanddepositingitintheUnitedStatesmail,addressedas   follows: 0  *N1Ooddd Xdd Xdd X!!, dd , dd +  00 OfficeoftheDistrictAttorney D 600AdministrationDrive l SantaRosa,California95403 D (forrespondent)   ԋ  D   8   8        4 Ideclareunderpenaltyofperjurythattheforegoingistrueand 4 correct.Executedthis7thdayofMarch,2007atSan_Francisco,_ԀCalifornia. x ! 4    <     򀀀 D"%  4    <     ALANSIRACO