WPCkT 4og)Mge|_}]e#`xk~\2P9 ] uEma~QG0읧uB16!*d`ҍߛl\Fag=CAG{YaGXJ&+&Qhϑ#đ>_SM_&N-cLSmfA٧BGbke@{ >xvV= Lۯ2A_) s&"! OP02prҭonCYv(Ys?st鵻)<~E1@>fxeuϧ’A0d7UU䩐&7,Ab{LsXB'4se~wlm+$40v@gTE.l }B7(U'H"eJT./~Yy!2 l[C &@qzyn=Q#!n" %#N# 0z2#w$4$$ 0c$U>S&UN& "&b'' 0N* 0MM,E-f-UN- 0M-^ 9/ =E/  /s/f1 01 0K2 (2 3a13eE3fF3 BH3 e3a3f33a]4  q4 4 $4 44 1uu< 1< 0c= > 0k)0> Y> !t> ->>a?? m? D? 1u@ 0w@ 0Z@ D+YB 0MB 0JC AMD 0MhD 0E 0?F 0F  G G ^H NI UI 0)jI 0I 0ZJ 05K 0N$LrLNOPTZ']B_fHa:h $je k zql %jloUm zn>o jpwJqEr zt jt.t fv V~vkv z?x jx#y Z+zz z| j|(| Z ~2z~ n  \#  b z  \- dx   `-u d  \,k b zs{Q lӒQ? l X \T  \ z( ZD1 lϛ \; J  ` PL z+h z . f1 lL1 lU z j`ʩ zX]ҫ z/ Nخ z_<ٰ z j(./ h fWS pq z-k f: z8 z̿-F ds  dMH d0 j) x<" z^ zl z8 z; z5G t|  `  i \r f*4 ^^ f V0, b R f|- dl+ z  ^2N n. f Z zf vV xm0 jN f V3) \M d[ T  \0x j: zL f:  4< $ ?M D/s Om I g ow &Z  ]  } Hk &{  ~ *  $ P :5 " (   F   R ^  : X  (A i  @F  *   (     (   (   (  (    (  N 1i % ! + ' % 0N< ! 1 -  (h z   -f5a77pK   0; 0I" 0#]k 0qb9 ================================================================== jT  \)#  \L!.! f"<# $% &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& ''''''''''''''''''b))w,w,w,w,RL3L3L3L3L33333333333333333333Y77777777777=====u@@@@@@@<|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|EGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGJJJJJJJJJJJJ$oLoLoLOOOOOOOOOOfUTaWTHP LaserJet 4,,,,0 ( &g$#cddd$P<7XXXHHHHT X7     `       =pO6R8.3|xrJ2PLEADINGPleading Format - 28-Line PaperXX X XXX  X X      `    (A Z&Times New Romanx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularPldCaptionHere   H(X    hhTXA )h 0dEh 0AA )h 0dEh 0AA )p&h 0dEp&h 0A   T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9dd T10dd T11dd T12dd T13dd T14dd T15dd T16dd T17dd T18dd T19dd T20dd T21dd T22dd T23dd T24dd T25dd T26dd T27dd T28P.+(&3$ &g!#cddd$P<  HHT       `        (%2K$ &g!#cddd$P<  HHT       `        ~6Times New Roman Regular(%2K$ &g!#cddd$P<  HHT       `        u6c/Constitutional ProvisionsPldCourtText2 i K'#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ       _T@z z  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES(continued)  B Page `(B%2?s$ &g!#cddd$P<  HHT       `        T `   0  .(r$  0  /PldSignatureStartPldCaseNoTABLE C dPldDocTitleTABLE A`Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5TABLE BPldCourtText1PldAttyNamePldSignatureEndWPldJudgeNameCA Supreme 2 Party / ' AGO - CMS0CMS..CA Supreme 2 Party   @dMPMacroTypeCA Supreme Court"eCourtSupremefMPOffice"gMPApplDist hMPDivisioniMPCountyjMPAttyFor"kMPParty1Name$lMPParty1Title"mMPParty2Name$nMPParty2Title"oMPParty3Name$pMPParty3Title"qMPParty4Name$rMPParty4Title(sMPCaseNoS148917tMPCaseNo2&uMPCaseTypeNone:vMPDocTitleDOCUMENT TITLEwMPApplNoxMPSupNo6yMPSupJudgeJUDGE's NAME"zMPCaptionOps@{MPGenericTextDOCUMENT TITLEMPSigningAtty]Copy signature block fron another portion of document](MPSelectedNames*MPRespectSubmit1:MPDateFormatToday's Date$MPSigningAtty&MPTheOtherDate6637=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(i)(i)1)a)4TCNumbersRAParagraph Numbers only (no styles).1.a.1.A.i.(a)(i)1)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  PldCaseNo1( $/Statutes/Court Rules/Other Authorities &g!#cddd$P< ȿ   ȿ     _U.S.Const.,6thAmend.TABLE B U3SixthConstitutional Provisions3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(23_L$ &g!#cddd$P<  HHT       `         d 'dxd(%2K$ &g!#cddd$P<  HHT       `        ("$ Figure    $<=;A<< c(%2K$ &g!#cddd$P<  HHT       `        (b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#Sixth  &g!#cddd$P< ȿ   ȿ     _Peoplev.Black  (2005)35Cal.4th1238DPeople v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238CasesPeople v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238/Cases( $(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(O$  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   1  .  _AllsubsequentstatutoryreferencesaretothePenalCode,unless  otherwiseindicated.  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   6  .  _Allfurtherreferencesto rulesaretothoseoftheCaliforniaRules  ofCourt.  K)#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ       _Tablecontinuedonnextpage...  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   19  .  _ԀAppellantarguesinothersectionsofherbriefthat thereisno  procedureinCaliforniaforthesubmissionoftheissueofexistenceofaggravatingfactstothejury(ABM27),andthat thereisnostatutoryauthorizationforsuchatrial(ABM39).Appellant,however,doesnotattempttoreconciletheincongruitybetweenherargumentthatajurytrialonaggravatingcircumstancesisnotauthorizedandherargument_that_Ԁ_the__prosecution_Ԁ _waived_therighttoanallegedlynonexistentprocedure.  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   20  .  _Inanyevent,aremandforajurytrialonaggravatingcircumstances  wouldnotbeforbiddenevenifthatwerethemostappropriateremedy.InPeoplev.  _Najera_,supra,8Cal.3d504,theprosecutionfailedtoseekajury  findingonafirearmenhancementundersection " 12022.5.(Id.atp.509.)The  _Najera_courtconcludedthattheprosecutionwasprecludedfromobtaininga  retrialonthefirearmenhancementbecause fundamentalfairnessforbids[such]piecemealjurylitigation...especiallysincethePeoplecouldhaveobviatedsuchaprocedurebytimelymeasuresduringthefirsttrial.(Id.atpp.511512.)   Here,however,theabsenceofajurytrialontheaggravatingcircumstancesdidnotresultfromanyprosecutorialinaction.Unliketheusualjurytrialprocedureforseekingafirearmenhancement,theusualprocedureforseekinganuppertermwasforthecourttodetermineaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances.Thus,_Najera_isentirelyinapposite.  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   22  .  _TheBookerandCunninghamopinionsdonotrevealwhetherthere  wasanobjectionon C SixthAmendmentgroundsatsentencing.( Z Cunningham,  supra,127_S.Ct_.atpp.860861; ^ Booker,supra,543U.S.atpp.227229.)  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   24  .  _TheCourtofAppeallatercorrectedthissentencetooneyear,which  wasonethirdofthemiddleterm.(_Opn_.atp.10.) 8 ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   2  .  __Yessenia_ԀRomero,a_codefendant_Ԁinthesameinformationonall  counts,wasfoundguiltyofinvoluntarymanslaughteroncounts1and2.(10RT19971998.)Sheisnotapartytothisappeal. \ ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   25  .  _Appellantcontendsthatthereisnojurytrialprocedureforfinding  aggravatingcircumstancesinCalifornia,andthereforethataharmlesserrorfindingisimpossible.(ABM2628.)Butthequestionofwhetherjurytrialsonaggravatingcircumstancesareauthorizedunderstatelawisirrelevanttotheharmlesserrorquestionofwhatahypotheticaljurywouldhavedonehadit  decidedtheexistenceofthefactthatthecourtfound.Inotherwords,acourtdoesnotneedtobeabletoactuallyorderajuryimpaneledtoengageinaharmlesserroranalysis.Furthermore,appellantiswrongthattheSupremeCourtdefinitivelydecidedin_Recuenco_thatanabsenceofaWashingtonstate   procedureforjurydeterminationsonaggravatingcircumstanceswouldprecludeaharmlesserrorinquiry.Thehighcourtdoubtedthat_Recuenco_ԀwascorrectaboutWashingtonstatelawinthisregardandmerelystatedindictathat_Recuenco_Ԁwasfreetoattempttoshowonremandthatanunavailabilityofsuchaprocedureunderstatelawcouldbarashowingofharmlesserrorinhisparticularcase.(  _Recuenco_,supra,126_S.Ct_.atpp.25502551.)Inanyevent,  underCalifornialaw,trialcourtswouldhavethelegalauthoritytoconvenejury   trialsonaggravatingcircumstances.(Seefn.13,ante.) 0 ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   21  .  _Theprosecutorerroneouslycalculatedthemaximumtermincount  3asoneyearandfourmonths.Themidtermforattemptedvoluntarymanslaughteristhreeyears( 1 193,  664);onethirdofthattermisoneyear.SelectionString [ &g!#cddd$P< ȿ   ȿ     _Cunninghamv.California  (2007)򀀀U.S.򀀀  127_S.Ct_.856XCunningham v. California (2007) ___ U.S. ___ [127 S.CasesCunningham v. California (2007) ___ U.S. ___ [127 S. e &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv.Booker  (2005)543U.S.220125_S.Ct_.738,160_L.Ed_.2d621[United States v. Booker (2005) 543 U.S. 220 [125 S.CCases  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   3  .  _ Tweakerisgenerallyusedtodescribesomeonewhouses  methamphetamine.(6RT1262.)United States v. Booker (2005) 543 U.S. 220 [125 S.C m ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   4  .  _Manyindividualswerereferredtoattrialonlybytheirfirstnames. ; &g!#cddd$P<   \      __Kopp_Ԁv.FairPoliticalPracticesCommission  (1995)11Cal.4th607`Kopp v. Fair Political Practices Commission (1995) 1CasesKopp v. Fair Political Practices Commission (1995) 1 $ &g!#cddd$P< ȿ   ȿ     __Blakely_Ԁv.Washington  (2004)542U.S.296cBlakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 CasesBlakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296  a &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Chapmanv.California  (1967)386U.S.18,87_S.Ct_.824,17_L.Ed_.2d705fChapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [87 S.CCasesChapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [87 S.C &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Wiley  (1995)9Cal.4th580iPeople v. Wiley (1995) 9 Cal.4th 580Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      __Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey  (2000)530U.S.466120_S.Ct_.2348,147_L.Ed_.2d435kApprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [120 S.CtCasesApprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [120 S.Ct  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev._Roder_Ԁ  (1983)33Cal.3d491nPeople v. Roder (1983) 33 Cal.3d 491Cases ( &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Forrester  (1994)30_Cal.App_.4th1697pPeople v. Forrester (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1697Cases &g!#cddd$P<   \      _InreHowardN.  (2005)35Cal.4th117rIn re Howard N. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 117Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Hernandez  (1988)46Cal.3d194tPeople v. Hernandez (1988) 46 Cal.3d 194Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv.Hernandez  (7thCir.2003)330F.3d964vUnited States v. Hernandez (7th Cir. 2003) 330 F.3d Cases &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Wright  (1982)30Cal.3d705xPeople v. Wright (1982) 30 Cal.3d 705Cases # &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Hove  (1999)76_Cal.App_.4th1266zPeople v. Hove (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1266Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      __Sattazahn_Ԁv.Pennsylvania  (2003)537U.S.101,123_S.Ct_.732,154_L.Ed_.2d588  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Griffin  (2004)33Cal.4th536}People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 536Cases # &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev._Bacigalupo_  (1991)1Cal.4th103People v. Bacigalupo (1991) 1 Cal.4th 103Cases &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Thomas  (1992)2Cal.4th489People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489Cases " &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev._Velasquez_  (1980)26Cal.3d425People v. Velasquez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 425Cases|Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania (2003) 537 U.S. 101, 106 [Cases &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Seel  (2004)34Cal.4th535 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Hall  (1995)8Cal.4th950 G &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev._Cattaneo_  (1990)217_Cal.App_.3d1577People v. Cattaneo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1577Cases G &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev._Knowlden_  (1985)171_Cal.App_.3d1052People v. Knowlden (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1052CasesPeople v. Hall (1995) 8 Cal.4th 950CasesPeople v. Cleveland (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 263 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Holmes  (1960)54Cal.2d442People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      __Monge_Ԁv.California  (1998)524U.S.721,118_S.Ct_.2246,141_L.Ed_.2d615Monge v. California (1998) 524 U.S. 721, 734 [118 S.Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev._Najera_  (1972)8Cal.3d504People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504Cases ' &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev._Sengpadychith_  (2001)26Cal.4th316People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316CasesPeople v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316People v. Najera (1972) 8 Cal.3d 504  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Saunders  (1993)5Cal.4th580People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580CasesPeople v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv._Oano_  (1993)507U.S.725,113_S.Ct_.1770,123_L.Ed_.2d508United States v. Oano (1993) 507 U.S. 725, 731 [113 Cases ^ &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Osbornev.Ohio(1990)  495U.S.103,110_S.Ct_.1691,109_L.Ed_.2d98Osborne v. Ohio (1990) 495 U.S. 103, 122-123 [110 S.Cases $ &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Hill  (2005)131_Cal.App_.4th1089People v. Hill (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1089Cases ' &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Marchand  (2002)98_Cal.App_.4th1056People v. Marchand (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1056Cases ' &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Cleveland  (2001)87_Cal.App_.4th263People v. Cleveland (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 263Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Washingtonv._Recuenco_  (2006)548U.S.___[126_S.Ct_.2546,165_L.Ed_.2d2546Washington v. Recuenco (2006) 548 U.S. ___ [126 S.CtCasesWashington v. Recuenco (2006) 548 U.S. ___ [126 S.Ct  &g!#cddd$P<   \      __Neder_Ԁv.UnitedStates  (1999)527U.S.1,119_S.Ct_.1827,144_L.Ed_.2d135Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 17 [119 S.Cases S &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Chamberlainv._Pliler_  (C.D.Cal.2004)307_F.Supp_.2d1128Chamberlain v. Pliler (C.D. Cal. 2004) 307 F.Supp.2dCases &g!#cddd$P<   \      _U.S.Const.,14thAmend.FourteenthConstitutional Provisions } &g!#cddd$P<   \      __Engle_Ԁv.Isaac  (1982)456U.S.107,102_S.Ct_.1558,71_L.Ed_.2d783Engle v. Isaac (1982) 456 U.S. 107, 130 [102 S.Ct. 1Cases 2 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _PersonalRestraintof_VanDelft_(Wash.2006)  147P.3d573  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   5  .  _Unlessotherwiseindicated,allfurtherstatutoryreferencesaretothe  PenalCode.Personal Restraint of VanDelft (Wash. 2006) 147 P.3dCasesPersonal Restraint of VanDelft (Wash. 2006) 147 P.3d $ &g!#cddd$P<   \      __Smylie_Ԁv.State  (Ind.2005)823N.E.2d679 % &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.ChewLang_Ong_  (1904)141Cal.550People v. Chew Lang Ong (1904) 141 Cal. 550CasesSmylie v. State (Ind. 2005) 823 N.E.2d 679Cases I &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev._Abbaszadeh_  (2003)106_Cal.App_.4th642People v. Abbaszadeh (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 642Cases g &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Harrisv.UnitedStates  (2002)536U.S.545,122_S.Ct_.2406,153_L.Ed_.2d524Harris v. United States (2002) 536 U.S. 545, 558 [12Cases # &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Statev._Kahapea_(Haw.2006)  141P.3d440State v. Kahapea (Haw. 2006) 141 P.3d 440Cases 0 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv._Buckland_  (9thCir.2002)289F.3d558United States v. Buckland (9th Cir. 2002) 289 F.3d 5Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv.Campbell  (6thCir.2002)279F.3d392United States v. Campbell (6th Cir. 2002) 279 F.3d 3Cases # &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Statev._Cubias_  (Wash.2005)120P.3d929State v. Cubias (Wash. 2005) 120 P.3d 929Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Statev.Higgins  (N.H.2003)821A.2d964State v. Higgins (N.H. 2003) 821 A.2d 964Cases C &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Statev._Bramlett_  (_Kan_.2002)41P.3d796State v. Bramlett (Kan. 2002) 41 P.3d 796Cases & &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev._Wagener_  (Ill.2001)752N.E.2d430People v. Wagener (Ill. 2001) 752 N.E.2d 430Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv.Hicks  (5thCir.2004)389F.3d514United States v. Hicks (5th Cir. 2004) 389 F.3d 514Cases 2 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv._Pressley_  (11thCir.2003)345F.3d1205United States v. Pressley (11th Cir. 2003) 345 F.3d Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv.Harrison  (8thCir.2003)340F.3d497United States v. Harrison (8th Cir. 2003) 340 F.3d 4Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv.Lafayette  (D.C.Cir.2003)337F.3d1043United States v. Lafayette (D.C. Cir. 2003) 337 F.3dCases . &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv._Chorin_  (3rdCir.2003)322F.3d274United States v. Chorin (3rd Cir. 2003) 322 F.3d 274Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv.Lott  (10thCir.2002)310F.3d1231United States v. Lott (10th Cir. 2002) 310 F.3d 1231Cases + &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv._Feola_  (2dCir.2001)275F.3d216United States v. Feola (2d Cir.2001) 275 F.3d 216Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Statev.Jacobs  (Iowa2001)644N.W.2d695  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Hallv.State  (Fla.2002)823So.2d757Hall v. State (Fla. 2002) 823 So.2d 757Cases &g!#cddd$P<   \      _InreRichardS.  (1991)54Cal.3d857In re Richard S. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 857CasesState v. Jacobs (Iowa 2001) 644 N.W.2d 695Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev._Gurule_  (2002)28Cal.4th557People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Statev.Foster  (Ohio2006)845N.E.2d470State v. Foster (Ohio 2006) 845 N.E.2d 470CasesState v. Foster (Ohio 2006) 845 N.E.2d 470 " &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Statev._Natale_  (N.J.2005)878A.2d724State v. Natale (N.J. 2005) 878 A.2d 724CasesState v. Natale (N.J. 2005) 878 A.2d 724Fourteenth  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv.White  (2ndCir.2001)240F.3d127 # &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev._Manriquez_  (2005)37Cal.4th547People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547Cases b &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Griffithv.Kentucky  (1987)479U.S.314,107_S.Ct_.708,93_L.Ed_.2d649Griffith v. Kentucky (1987) 479 U.S. 314, 328 [107 SCases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Hanson  (2000)23Cal.4th355  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   23  .  _TheFourthCircuit,althoughnotsquarelyaddressingtheissue,has  implicitlyapprovedthisreasoningbyanalogizingtotheSecondCircuitsresolutionin  UnitedStatesv.White(2ndCir.2001)240F.3d127,135.  United  Statesv.Angle(4thCir.2001)254F.3d514,518519[reasoningthatunder  _Apprendi_,thesentenceonanothercountdoesnotaffectwhetherthesentence  onthiscountiserror,butitcanaffectwhethertheerrorisharmless].)TheFirstCircuithasnotpublishedacaseonthisissue.People v. Hanson (2000) 23 Cal.4th 355Cases ( &g!#cddd$P<   \      __Hankerson_Ԁv.State  (Minn.2006)723N.W.2d232Hankerson v. State (Minn. 2006) 723 N.W.2d 232Cases $ &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Statev._Sawatzky_  (Ore.2005)125P.3d722State v. Sawatzky (Ore. 2005) 125 P.3d 722CasesPeople v. Seel (2004) 34 Cal.4th 535Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      __Lockhart_Ԁv.Nelson  (1988)488U.S.33,109_S.Ct_.205,102_L.Ed_.2d265Lockhart v. Nelson (1988) 488 U.S. 33, 38 [109 S.Ct.CasesUnited States v. White (2nd Cir. 2001) 240 F.3d 1Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv.Angle  (4thCir.2001)254F.3d514United States v. Angle (4th Cir. 2001) 254 F.3d 514Cases & &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Groves  (2003)107_Cal.App_.4th1227People v. Groves (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1227Cases D &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev._Reeder_  (1984)152_Cal.App_.3d900People v. Reeder (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 900CasesPeople v. Reeder (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 900  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev._Giminez_  (1975)14Cal.3d68People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68Cases C &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev._Lepe_  (1987)195_Cal.App_.3d1347People v. Lepe (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1347CasesPeople v. Lepe (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1347 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Martin  (1986)42Cal.3d437People v. Martin (1986) 42 Cal.3d 437Cases & &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Stewart  (2001)89_Cal.App_.4th1209People v. Stewart (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1209Cases 0 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _UnitedStatesv._Fifield_  (9thCir.2005)432F.3d1056United States v. Fifield (9th Cir. 2005) 432 F.3d 10Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Statev.Abdullah  (N.J.2005)878A.2d746 State v. Abdullah (N.J. 2005) 878 A.2d 746Cases &g!#cddd$P< ȿ   ȿ     _Pen.Code,187 187Statutes187 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Pen.Code,1170.31170.3Statutes1170.3 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _CodeCiv.Proc.,187Code Civ. Proc.,  187Statutes &g!#cddd$P< ȿ   ȿ     _Pen.Code,664664Statutes &g!#cddd$P< ȿ   ȿ     _Pen.Code,669669Statutes669664 &g!#cddd$P< ȿ   ȿ     _Pen.Code,12022 12022Statutes &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Pen.Code,13201320Statutes1320 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _18U.S.C.A.3553(b)(1)18 U.S.C.A.  3553(b)(1)Statutes &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Stats.1976,ch.1139,273 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Pen.Code,12022.5!12022.5Statutes &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Pen.Code,1170#1170Statutes1170 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Pen.Code,1170.1&1170.1Statutes Stats. 1976, ch. 1139,  273StatutesStats. 1976, ch. 1139,  273 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Pen.Code,190.3+190.3Statutes*4.420Court Rules4.4204.406 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Pen.Code,1930193Statutes &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.41024.410Court Rules &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Stats.1977,ch.1654Stats. 1977, ch. 165StatutesStats. 1977, ch. 165 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.40574.405Court Rules4.405 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.406:4.406Court Rules4.410 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.437=4.437Court Rules4.437 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.452@4.452Court Rules &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.421  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Cal.RulesofCourt,Intro.Statement  (adoptedJan.1,1992)CCal. Rules of Court, Intro. Statement (adopted Jan. 1Court RulesB4.421Court Rules4.421 &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Cal.RulesofCourt,rule_4.425_G4.425Court Rules4.425$35;AGMU]c1I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)/FEDERAL CASES/STATE CASES/FEDERAL STATUTES/STATE STATUTES/FEDERAL RULES(&3$ &g!#cddd$P<  HHT       `        /STATE RULES/FEDERAL REGULATIONS/STATE REGULATIONS &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.433U4.433Court Rules ^ &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Ringv.Arizona  (2002)536U.S.584122_S.Ct_.2428,153_L.Ed_.2d556WRing v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584 [122 S.Ct. 2428,Cases4.433/OTHER AUTHORITIESTABLE A f K'#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ       _T@  TABLEOFCONTENTS(continued)  B Page TOCBeginsTOCEnds(l$( $0  0 (#(#(4|$0  0 (#(#0\  (# (#(HC$0  0 (#(#0\  (# (#0\ (#\ (# HabcdeRing v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584 [122 S.Ct. 2428, &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Peoplev.Watson  (1956)46Cal.2d818People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818Cases  &g!#cddd$P< ȿ   ȿ     _Peoplev._Avalos_  (1984)37Cal.3d216People v. Avalos (1984) 37 Cal.3d 216Cases $ &g!#cddd$P< ȿ   ȿ     _Peoplev.Kelley  (1997)52_Cal.App_.4th568People v. Kelley (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 568Cases  &g!#cddd$P<   \      __Ginsburg_,SomeThoughtsonJudicialAuthoritytoRepair  UnconstitutionalLegislation(1979)23_Clev_.St._L.Rev_.301Ginsburg, Some Thoughts on Judicial Authority to RepaOther Authorities  &g!#cddd$P<   \      _Cal.Const.,art.VI,6,_subd_.(d)Cal. Const., art. VI,  6, subd. (d)Constitutional ProvisionsH  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   7  .  _Thissameconstructionwouldapplytosection ' 1170.1,subdivision  (d),whichaddressestheprocedureforpunishingsentenceenhancementswiththreepossiblepunishments. X ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   8  .  _Theentiresentencecurrentlyreads: Indeterminingwhetherthereare  circumstancesthatjustifyimpositionoftheupperorlowerterm,thecourtmayconsidertherecordinthecase,theprobationofficersreport,otherreportsincludingreportsreceivedpursuanttoSection1203.03andstatementsin   aggravationormitigationsubmittedbytheprosecution,thedefendant,orthevictim,orthefamilyofthevictimifthevictimisdeceased,andanyfurtherevidenceintroducedatthesentencinghearing.  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   9  .  _Atthetimeofthiswriting,thereisabillpendingintheLegislature  whichwouldamendsection % 1170,subdivision(b),inamannersimilartorespondentsproposedreformation.(SeeS.B.40(20072008Reg.Sess.),asamendedMar.8,2007,availableat4 gLO  5  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html6LLO`  7 [ .)  Atpresent,onedifferencebetweenrespondentsproposedreformationandthebillisthatthereformationemploysCunninghams broaddiscretionstandard   forselectingasentence,whereasthebillreachesthesameendbynamingthestandard sounddiscretion. Broaddiscretionisdefinedbythethreeavailableterms.Thereviewforreasonablenesswillinsurethattheexerciseofdiscretionwillbe sound.Also,thebill,butnotrespondentsproposedreformation,deletesthefollowingphraseregardingthepurposeofthestatementofaggravationormitigationthatthepartiesmaysubmit: todisputefactsintherecordortheprobationofficersreport,ortopresentadditionalfacts.Respondenthasnotsuggestedthisdeletionintheproposedreformbecauseitdoesnotappearnecessarytorendersection % 1170constitutional.http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html.)  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   10  .  _AlthoughtheSupremeCourtvacatedthisCourtsBlackopinionon  February20,2007,andremandedthecaseforreconsiderationinlightofCunningham,itretainsitsprecedentialvalueonanypointnotrejectedin  Cunningham.(See,e.g., ~ Peoplev.Griffin(2004)33Cal.4th536,598[citing    Peoplev.Bacigalupo(1991)1Cal.4th103asvacatedonothergrounds];    Peoplev.Thomas(1992)2Cal.4th489,518[citing_  _Peoplev._Velasquez_(1980)   26Cal.3d425asvacatedonothergrounds].) O ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   11  .  _Theoriginalversionofsection % 1170,subdivision(b),providedin  relevantpart:8 ` Suchcircumstancesshallonlybeconsideredifsetforthinamotionmadepriortooratthetimesetforsentencing.Theuppertermmaybeimposedonlywhenthecircumstancesallegedtobeinaggravationofthecrimearefoundtobetruebythetrialjudgeupontheevidenceintroducedatthehearingonthemotionandanyevidencepreviouslyheardbythejudgeatthetrial,andfactualfindingsandreasonsinsupportthereofaresetforthontherecordatthetimeofsentencing....Thelowertermmaybeimposedonlywhenthecircumstancesallegedtobeinmitigationofthecrimearefoundtobetruebythetrialjudgeupontheevidenceintroducedatthehearingonthemotionandanyevidencepreviouslyheardbythejudgeatthetrial,andfactualfindingsandreasonsinsupportthereofaresetforthontherecordatthetimeofsentencing. ` x` x ( ) Stats.1976,ch.1139,273,p.5140.)  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   12  .  _Evenunderthecurrentsystem,atrialcourtsimpositionofamiddle  termcanstillbereviewedforabuseofdiscretion.(See,e.g.,  Peoplev.Cattaneo  (1990)217Cal.App.3d1577,15871588;_  _Peoplev._Knowlden_(1985)171  _Cal.App_.3d1052,10581059.) k ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   13  .  _Forthisreason,cuttingoffavailablesentencesatthemiddletermin  manycaseswouldevenbelessconsistentwithlegislativeintentthanallowingjurytrialsonaggravatingcircumstances.Thus,ifthisCourtconcludesthatreformationisnottheappropriateremedy,respondentrespectfullyrequeststhatthisCourtrecognizethat,contrarytoappellantscontention(ABM3840),trialcourtshavethelegalauthoritytoconvenejurytrialsonaggravatingcircumstances.(See  CodeCiv.Proc.,187;_  _Peoplev.ChewLang_Ong_(1904)   141Cal.550,552553;seealso_  _Peoplev._Gurule_(2002)28Cal.4th557,632.)   Respondentnonethelessacknowledgesthatjurytrialsonaggravatingcircumstanceswouldraiseahostofother_litigable_Ԁquestionsinsuchareasasnotice,discovery,evidence,andjuryinstructions. 2 ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   14  .  _Thisphrase constrained,tosomedegreeappearstoimplythatthis  Courtconsideredthisrequirementofsection % 1170,subdivision(b),tohavearelativelyminoreffectonthe broaddiscretionstandardinCalifornia.  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   15  .  _Byeliminatingthepresumptiveterms,thecourtdidnoteliminatethe  possibilitythatcourtscouldimposetheseparticulartermswithinthestatutoryranges;rather,thesetermswerenolongerpointsfromwhichsentencescouldonlyincreaseordecreasebasedonthefindingofafact.(See  _Natale_,supra,  878A.2datp.741.)  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   16  .  _Afterinvalidatingtheseprovisions,thisCourtcouldalsodirectthe  JudicialCounciltopromulgatenewrulesconformingtothisCourtsopinion.  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   17  .  _Thesecondsentenceinrule . 4.420(b)provides: Selectionofthe  uppertermisjustifiedonlyif,afteraconsiderationofalltherelevantfacts,thecircumstancesinaggravationoutweighthecircumstancesinmitigation.Inthesamevein,thelastsentenceinrule . 4.420(b)states: Selectionofthelowertermisjustifiedonlyif,consideringthesamefacts,thecircumstancesinmitigationoutweighthecircumstancesinaggravation.  ?s$#cddd$P< ȿ T  ȿ      T `   18  .  _Inthiswayaswellasothers,the_DSL_ԀreviewedinCunninghamis  distinguishablefromthestatutorystandardforimposingadeathsentence ifthetrieroffactconcludesthattheaggravatingcircumstancesoutweighthemitigatingcircumstances.( , 190.3,_subd_.(k).)Unliketheprocessofselectingupperorlowertermsunderthe_DSL_,thecapitalweighingprocessis notsusceptibletoaburdenofproof_quantification_,andisa sentencingfunction[that]isinherentlymoralandnormative,thuscomplyingwith_Apprendi_.(See   _  _Peoplev._Manriquez_(2005)37Cal.4th547,589.)TABLE C &g!#cddd$P< ȿ HHT  ȿ     `        _L +6638LT  8VQXXdd8   INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  *4ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,d!,` dd!+  5 " H xx5%  THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA% <,  x dPlaintiffandRespondent,0 4 0 4d4d v.  x  d d  AIDA_SANDOVAL_,  @   dDefendantandAppellant.ӈ 6,! x   6%  S148917%-#! x" xx  -  % & SecondAppellateDistrict,%&cԀDivision4,No.B187977%  Ԁ%ԀLosAngelesCountySuperiorCourtNo.BA280950% ) TheHonorableLanceA._Ito_%),Judge % ! ANSWERBRIEFONMERITS%!i  8   *xddd!` dd!` 4(#(#x,<dd ,d +  ( 8 (f &(% # % &(# '@ '% '  &(% %'!fEDMUNDG.BROWNJR. 8 AttorneyGeneraloftheStateofCaliforniaDANER.GILLETTEChiefAssistantAttorneyGeneralPAMELAC._HAMANAKA_SeniorAssistantAttorneyGeneral_KRISTOFER_Ԁ_JORSTAD_DeputyAttorneyGeneralSTEVEND.MATTHEWSSupervisingDeputyAttorneyGeneralLANCEE.WINTERSSupervisingDeputyAttorneyGeneralLAWRENCEM.DANIELSSupervisingDeputyAttorneyGeneralDAVIDE._MADEO_DeputyAttorneyGeneralStateBarNo.180106 300SouthSpringStreet,Suite1702LosAngeles,CA90013Telephone:(213)8974925Fax:(213)8976496Email:David.Madeo@doj.ca.gov   % &(AttorneysforPlaintiffandRespondent ȿ Ԁ#  ȿ #-#!-L*> 0  -  .|+> _  HXHINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  *x#%dd<dd <d   x,d!,dd!+  5 "  xx5 THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA,  ( x   PlaintiffandRespondent,0 ` 0 ` `  v. ( x     AIDASANDOVAL,      DefendantandAppellant.ӈ 6,!(x   6% . S148917%.-#!( x" xx  - ,X 4  ` &     ISSUESPRESENTED T  '9   4  ` 1. Didthetrialcourtviolateappellants 7 SixthAmendmentrighttoa  jurytrial,asinterpretedin Y Cunninghamv.California(2007)___U.S.___[127  p S.Ct.856],byimposinganuppertermsentencebasedonaggravatingfactorsnotfoundtruebythejury? 4  ` 2. Ifso,whatistheproperremedy?   4  ` 3. DoesCunninghamaffectthiscourtsconclusionin E Peoplev.Black  p  (2005)35Cal.4th1238,12611264,that d Blakelyv.Washington(2004)542 " U.S.296doesnotapplytotheimpositionofconsecutivesentencesunderPenalCodesection  669?&     STATEMENTOFTHECASE 9 $) '$   4  ` AppellantwaschargedbytheLosAngelesCountyDistrictAttorneyincounts1and2withmurder(Pen.CodeM r  1  /    ׀   187,subd.(a))andincount3with  (p#- attemptedwillful,deliberate,premeditatedmurder(  664/   187,subd.(a)).It )$/ wasalsoallegedastoallcountsthataprincipalwasarmedwithafirearm(  12022,subd.(a)(1)).(1CT6163.) 4  ` Followingajurytrial,appellantwasfoundguiltyofthelesserincludedoffensesofvoluntarymanslaughteroncounts1and2andattemptedvoluntarymanslaughteroncount3;thefirearmenhancementwasfoundnottrue.T r  2  /    ׀(1CT   268275,285287;10RT19992005.) 4  ` Thetrialcourtsentencedappellanttoatotaltermof14yearsand6monthsinstateprison.Appellantreceivedtheuppertermof11yearsforcount1,aconsecutivetermoftwoyears(onethirdthemidterm)forcount2,andaconsecutivetermofoneyearandsixmonthsforcount3.(1CT290292;10RT21522153.) 4  ` Appellantappealed,alleging:(1)thetrialcourtimproperlyadmittedphotographsofthevictimswounds;(2)animpropersentencewasimposedoncount3;and(3)appellantsuppertermsentenceoncount1andconsecutivesentencesoncounts2and3wereerrorunder e Blakelyv.Washington(2004)542  U.S.296[124S.Ct.2531,159L.Ed.2d403]becausethereasonsreliedonbythetrialcourtwereneitheradmittedbyappellantnorfoundbythejury.TheSecondAppellateDistrict,DivisionFour,rejectedappellantsfirstclaim,and,followingrespondentsconcession,orderedthejudgmentmodifiedtoreflectasentenceofoneyear(onethirdthemidterm)oncount3,foratotalsentenceof14years.TheappellatecourtrejectedappellantsBlakelyclaim,citingPeople "( v. F Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238. 0$*  4  ` AppellantfiledapetitionforreviewinthisCourt.OnFebruary7,2007,thisCourtgrantedreview. 0)$0 &     STATEMENTOFFACTS A'&    8 4  &  26  A  .3  0` 44ProsecutionEvidence ` `  '   4  ` OnMonday,February3,2003,appellantandcodefendantYesseniaRomeroworkedintheElDoradoBarinSouthLosAngeles.Theywerepaidtotalk,dance,anddrinkwiththecustomers.Duringthenight,awomanknownas GreenEyes,whoworkedasaprostituteinthebar,becameupsetwithappellant.Latethatnight,astheyleftthebar,awomanknownas Tweaker] r  3  /       pulledappellantshairandstartedtokickher.Somemen,including Cookie,_ r  4  /     0  whosolddrugsatthebar,heldRomerobackandtoldhertoletappellantandTweakerfight.RomerosawRolandoRojas,whowasaregularcustomerinthebar,do somethingtoappellant.RomeroeventuallypulledTweakeroffappellantandhitRojas.(1CT119121,145148,185186.) 4  ` EricaArellanolivedinanapartmentneartheElDoradoBarwithRojas,whowasheruncle.Atabout2:00a.m.,ArellanolookedoutherwindowandsawRojaspushawaysomewomenwhohadapproachedhim.Arellanowentoutsidetothecrowdandbrieflygotintoafightwithoneofthewomen.(4RT845857.) 4  ` AppellantandRomerofoughtwithGreenEyes,andRojastriedtoseparatethem.AppellantandRomerosworeatRojasandyelledthatitwashisfaultthattheyhadgottenintoafight.AppellantthreatenedRojasandsaidthatshewasgoingtobringFlorenciagangmembers tofuckhimup,tokillhim.AppellantalsotoldRojasthathewasgoing topayfor...whatthatbitchdidtome.Arellanotoldthemtoshutupandlaughed.AppellantandRomerodroveoff.Rojaslaughedanddidnottakethemseriously.(1CT148149;4RT 0(#. 857860,862873.) 4  ` OnTuesday,thebarwasclosed.Appellanthadbeenbeatenbadly,andshewantedtofightthewomanwhoattackedher.Shedidnotwanttogobackalonebecauseshewasafraidofsomemeninthebar.AppellantandRomerowantedto jumpRojas,becauseheletappellantgetbeatenbyTweaker.(1CT122130,136137.) 4  ` OnWednesday,February5,2003,appellantandRomeroattendedafuneralforaslainFlorenciagangmember.There,peopleteasedappellantaboutgettingbeatenup.AppellantandRomerodecidedtorecruitsomegangmembersasreinforcementswhentheyreturnedtothebar.Ontheway,theypickedupRomerosfriend,Mary,incasetherewerethreegirlswhowantedtofight.Appellantcalledhercousin,Jairo,andtoldhimtogetthegunsfromhishouse.AfterpickingupJairo,theydrovetoCompton,whereappellantapproachedsomeComptonTrecegangmembersandtoldthemwhathadhappenedtoher.Sheaskedthemtogobacktothebarwithhertoconfrontthepeoplewhoattackedher.Fourorfivegangmembersgotintohervan,andtheydrovetothebar.Appellantsawthemencarrytwosmallguns.Shestatedthatthegangmembersweretheretojumpinonlyifsomemenatthebartriedtofightthem.ButtheyalsowantedtobeatRojasand theotherguy.Onegangmember,JuanNegrete( Creeper),carriedabiggunwrappedinablueblanket.Theyparkedaroundthecornerfromthebar.ThementoldappellantandRomerotobringoutthemenwhotheyweretalkingabout.(1CT141,149159,186190.)Appellantwentintothebar,followedbytheothertwowomen.Themenstayedinthevan.(1CT131,159160.) 4  ` Rojasenteredthebar,andappellanttoldMaryto telltheguysthatheshereandwearingahat.AppellantapproachedRojasandaccusedhimofbeatingher.RojasrepliedthatnoonebeatherexceptTweaker.(1CT131132,167170.)AsappellantandRomerotalkedtoRojasinthedoorwayofthebar, 0-(6 NegretewalkeduptoRojasandshothiminthehead.AfterRojasfell,Negreteshothimfourmoretimes.AppellantandRomerorantothevan.Negretefollowedthem,andappellantyelled, youfuckedup.(1CT132135,169171.)Rojasdiedfromfivegunshotwounds,twoofwhichwereindependentlyfatal.(3RT818822,829.) 4  ` SalvadorDercio(Salvador)andhisbrotherBelenDercio(Belen)hadbeenatthebarsinceabout10:00p.m.Theydidnotknowanyoneelseatthebar,andtheywerenotatthebarduringthepreviousaltercationinvolvingappellant.Theyeachworebaseballcaps.Atabout11:30p.m.,theyheardfourorfivegunshotsoutsidethefrontdoorandimmediatelyleftthebaroutthebackdoor.(3RT761770,775.) 4  ` AsSalvadorandBelenexitedintoanalley,MiguelDelRioshotatthemmultipletimesfromaboutnineortenfeetawaywithalargegun.Belenwasstruckinthebackwithtwoshotsandfelldown.Salvadorwashitinhislefttorsoandalsofell.DelRiothenshotBeleninthehead.HepointedthegunatSalvadorschest,butthegunwouldnotfire.DelRioranintothealley.(3RT771783,786792;4RT10161018,10321035;5RT12021203.)Belendiedfromtwoindependentlyfatalgunshotwoundstotheheadandonegunshotwoundtohisrightmiddleback.Oneoftheheadwoundswasatightcontactwound,indicatingthatthegunwaspressedagainstBelensheadwhenfired.(4RT893900.) 4  ` At11:30p.m.,thatsameevening,OfficerCesarGuitronpassedbytheElDoradoBarashewasonmotorcyclepatrol.Whenhestoppedatanintersection,hesawNegreteapproachthebar,pulloutasmalldarkgun,andholditatRojasshead.AstheofficermadeaUturn,hesawandheardthreegunshots.Negretestoodoverthevictimandfiredthreemoreshotsintohim.Negrete,alongwithappellant,Romero,andanotherman,ransouthbound.OfficerGuitroncalledforassistanceandwatchedthesuspectsfromacrossthe 0-(6 street.Theyranto43rdStreetandturned.TheofficerturnedthecornerandsawthetwoHispanicmalesnexttoawhitevanparkedinanalleywiththepassengerdooropen.AppellantandRomerostoodonthedriverssideofthevan.(2RT616620,625631,634642.) 4  ` Oneofthewomenyelledsomething,andthesuspectsalllookedatOfficerGuitron.Thetwomenrandown43rdStreet,whilethetwowomenranacrossthestreetandthenwest.(2RT642647.)About30secondslater,justafterthetwomenhadcrossedthestreet,OfficerGuitronheardthreeadditionalshotsthatsoundedmuchlouderthanthefirstseries.(2RT649653.) 4  ` Shortlythereafter,OfficerMarioArrizonobservedappellantandRomeroattempttoenterataxiafewblocksfromthebar.AppellantandRomeroweredetainedatagasstation.(4RT911912.)OfficerGuitronidentifiedappellantandRomeroasthetwowomenhehadseenduringtheshooting.(2RT654658.)Withinanhour,OfficerGuitronalsoidentifiedNegreteasthefirstshooterinafieldshowup.(2RT663.)     4  ` Thepolicesearchedappellantsvan.TheyfoundanAKGO8000riflethatcontainedonelive.44calibermagnumround.Aloadedsemiautomatic.22caliberhandgunwasrecoveredinthewheelwelloftherightfronttireofanothercar,parkedaboutablockfromthevan.(4RT930932,938941.)Three.44calibermagnumshellcasingswerefoundintheareawheretheDerciobrotherswereshot.(4RT949951.)SomelargecaliberbulletfragmentswererecoveredfromBelensbody.(4RT967.)Ablueblanketwasfoundinthealleynearthevan.(6RT1267.) 4  ` OnFebruary6,2003,DetectivesElizabethRicoandJesseLinninterviewedappellantandRomeroseparately.Theinterviewswererecordedandplayedforthejury.(1CT119198;6RT12241227,12401260.)AppellantidentifiedNegreteandDelRioastheshootersinseparatesixpackphotographiclineups.(6RT12351239.) 0-(6  4  ` Salvadorspenttwoweeksrecoveringinthehospitalandhadtowearacolostomybag.(3RT792;4RT893900,967.) 4  ` ItwasstipulatedthatMiguelDelRioandJuanNegretehadbeenconvictedoftwocountsoffirstdegreemurderandonecountofattemptedmurderforthecrimesinvolvingthevictimsinthiscase.(9RT16881689.)8 4  &  26  B  .3  0` 44CodefendantRomerosEvidence CB  ` `  ' PB 4  ` Romerotestifiedinherowndefense.Rojaswasaregularinthebarandoftendancedwithappellant.OnFebruary4,2003,appellanthadadisputewithGreenEyes.Atabout2:00a.m.,appellantandRomerowerebothintoxicatedastheyleft.AppellantandRomerofoughtandarguedwithTweakerandArellano.Appellantcomplainedthattheyattackedherwhenshewasdrunkandthatshewasgoingtoreturntofightthem.Romeroheardappellantsaysomethingabout FlorenciatoTweaker.(7RT13181324;8RT1421,15151517,15231525,1532,1540.) 4  ` AppellantandRomerowalkedtothecar.Romeroleftherjacketatthebar,whichhadalotofmoneyinit.Appellantwasswollen,bloody,andlookedbeaten.Shehadcrossmarks,likefromascrewdriver,onhercheekbone,whichRomeroassumedwascausedbyRojasbythewayhehadbeenmovinghishandoverappellantsface.Appellantdrovehome,andRomerohelpedhercleanup.Thenextday,theydecidedtogobacktothebartogetthemoneytheywereowed,toretrieveRomerosjacket,andtofightTweakerandGreenEyes.(7RT13261329,1347;8RT1517,15301532.) 4  ` OnWednesday,February4,2003,appellantandRomerowenttoafuneraldinnerinthelateafternoon.Seeingappellantsinjuries,somepeoplelaughedandteasedherbecauseshehadbeenbeatenbya tweaker.TheyleftandspoketoJairo,whothenwenttohishomeandreturnedwithagun.Hegotintoappellantsvanandputthegunonthefloor.TheythenpickedupRomerosfriend,Mary.(7RT13301331,13631364,13671370;8RT1533 0.)6 1536,15411545) 4  ` Theyencountered Shorty,andappellantandRomerotoldhimaboutgoingbacktothebartofight.Hecalledsomeothergangmembers,andsoonafewmenagreedtogobacktothebarwiththewomen.Oneofthegangmembersaskediftheguysatthebarwere strapped,orcarriedagun,andRomerosaidtheywere.Romerodidnotknowhowmanymenhadguns,butshehadheardthatthepeoplewhoworkedforCookiecarriedguns.RojassolddrugsforCookie.(7RT13331339,13731377;8RT15391540,15471549.) 4  ` Fourgangmembers,includingShorty,DelRio,andNegrete,wentwithappellant,Romero,Mary,andJairointhevantothebar.Negreteenteredthevanwithalargebluetowelandanothermanhadasweateraroundsomething.Anothergangmemberhadarevolver.Romerotoldappellantaboutthegunsshesaw,andappellantrepliedthatnobodywasgoingtouseguns.Thegangmemberssaidtheybroughttheguns justincase.(7RT13431346,13481349,1373;8RT14001402,14041405,15501551.)Romerotestifiedthattheyplannedtofightwiththegirls,andthegangmemberswouldjumpRojasifhegotinvolved.(8RT13851387,1428.) 4  ` Theyarrivedatthebarandparkedaroundthecornerbyanalley.Appellant,RomeroandMarywentinsidethroughthefrontentrance,whiletwoofthemengotoutofthevanandwalkedtowardthealley.Romerotalkedtothebarowner.ShethensawRojas,inablackcap,andpointedhimouttoMaryastheguywhowasinthefightwiththem.MarythenwentoutsidetotellthegangmemberswhichhatRojaswaswearing.(7RT13481349;8RT14101418,14481450,15551556.) 4  ` AppellantandRomerotalkedwithRojasinthedoorway.WhenRojastoldappellantthathedidnotgetinvolvedinthefight,Romerotoldhimthathewastheonewho shankedher,meaningthathehadstabbedherinthefacewithascrewdriver.NegretethenapproachedRojasfromthesidewalkwitha 0-(6 revolverandsaid, Dontmove,ese.Rojasreachedforsomething,and  Negretepulledthetrigger.Thegunatfirstjustclicked,andthenNegreteshotRojasinthehead.(7RT13461347,13491350;8RT14181419,1440,15631569.) 4  ` AppellantpulledRomeroaway,andtheybothranpastthevan.Romeroturnedandsawanofficeronamotorcycle.Astheywerecomingbacktothebararea,theyheardmoregunshots.Thinkingtheywereindanger,theyranagainandtriedtogetintoataxibeforebeingarrested.(7RT13501351;8RT15691577.)8 4  &  26  C  .3  0` 44AppellantsEvidence pT` `  '}T 4  ` Appellantdidnottestifyorpresentanyevidenceonherbehalf.(9RT1686.)&     SUMMARYOFARGUMENT U 0 '0U   4  ` InCunningham,theSupremeCourtheldthatCaliforniasprocedurefor 0 imposinganuppertermviolatesthe C SixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrialbecauseitexposesadefendanttoasentencegreaterthanthestatutorymaximumbasedonfactsfoundbythetrialcourtbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceratherthanbythejurybeyondareasonabledoubt.TheCourtfoundthatthestatutorymaximumtermundertheDeterminateSentencingLawfor C SixthAmendmentpurposesisthemiddleterm,whichisthelongestsentenceatrialcourtmayimposeexclusivelyonthebasisoffactsinherentinthejurysverdictoradmittedbyadefendanthimself. 4  ` Inthisbrief,respondentaddressesthreeissuesprimarilyrelatingtouppertermstheremedyforthedefectinCaliforniasuppertermprocedure,theapproachfordeterminingwhetherreversaliswarrantedinpendingcases,andtheapplicationofthisapproachtothiscase.Respondentalsoexplainswhy 0-(3 CunninghamdoesnotcallintoquestionCaliforniasconsecutivesentencing  procedureundersection  669. 4  ` InordertoremedytheconstitutionalinfirmityidentifiedinCunningham,  thisCourtshouldreformPenalCodesection $ 1170byeliminatingtherequirementofanaggravatingcircumstancetoimposeanupperorlowerterm,leavingtheselectionofthelower,middle,oruppertermtothetrialcourtsbroaddiscretion.ThisisoneofthetworemediesexpresslysuggestedbytheCunninghamcourtitself,anditcloselyparallelstheSupremeCourts 0  reformationofthefederalsentencingguidelinesinordertopreservetheirconstitutionalityin \ UnitedStatesv.Booker(2005)543U.S.220[125S.Ct.738, 0  160L.Ed.2d621].Theremediedstatuteshouldbemadeapplicabletoallsentencingsandresentencings. 4  ` AcaseshouldnotberemandedunderCunningham,however,untila  reviewingcourthasconsideredthreeprincipalquestions.First,thecourtshoulddeterminewhetherthedefendantpreservedtheconstitutionalobjectiontohissentencebyobjectingonthatgroundinthetrialcourt.Traditionalforfeiturerulesapplytoclaimsofconstitutionalviolationsinsentencing. 4  ` Second,thereviewingcourtshouldaffirmuppertermsentenceswhenthetrialcourtfindsatleastoneconstitutionallyvalidaggravatingcircumstance.Ifthetrialcourtfindsoneaggravatingcircumstancebasedonthedefendantscriminalhistory,onthedefendantsadmission,oronafactinherentinthejurysverdict,thereisnoCunninghamviolation. 0$*  4  ` Third,thereviewingcourtshouldconductaharmlesserroranalysis.Aviolationofthe C SixthAmendmentofthekindidentifiedinCunninghamis 0'". subjecttoharmlesserroranalysisunder g Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S. ($0 18,24[87S.Ct.824,17L.Ed.2d705].Cunninghamerrorisharmlesswhere 0*%2 areviewingcourtdeterminesthatitisbeyondareasonabledoubtthatajurywouldhavefoundtheaggravatingcircumstancetobetrue,hadthataggravating 0-(6 circumstancebeenpresented. 4  ` Applyingtheseprinciplestothiscase,thisCourtshouldfindthatappellantforfeitedhisclaimsbecausehefailedtoraiseanyobjectiontohissentence,letaloneanobjectionbasedonfederalconstitutionalgrounds.Inanyevent,therewasnoprejudicefromanyCunninghamerror.Anyofthetrial   courtsfindingswouldhavebeenfoundbyajurybeyondareasonabledoubt,astheywerebasedonoverwhelmingorundisputedevidence.Thus,any C SixthAmendmentviolationinthiscasewasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Finally,CunninghamhasnoeffectonthisCourtsconclusioninBlackthat   consecutivesentencingdecisionsundersection  669donotimplicateBlakely.  0  &     ARGUMENT g  '~g&   26  I  .3      8 4 8` 44THISCOURTSHOULDREFORMTHEDETERMINATESENTENCINGLAWTOBESTCOMPORTWITHLEGISLATIVEINTENT gB  ԍ.C  'g0 ` x` x  4 8 `  &  26  A  .3  0 ` x` xTheCunninghamDecision i0   x x '0 i 4  ` InCunningham,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatCalifornias 0  procedureforselectinguppertermsviolatesthedefendants C Sixthand  FourteenthAmendmentrighttojurytrialbecauseit assignstothetrialjudge,nottothejury,authoritytofindthefactsthatexposeadefendanttoanelevateduppertermsentence.( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.860.) 0 Cunninghamwasconvictedofcontinuoussexualabuseofachildundertheageof14,whichwaspunishablebyalower,middle,oruppertermof6,12,or16years,respectively.(Ibid.)Atsentencing,thetrialcourtimposedtheupper  termafterfindingsixaggravatingcircumstances,includingthevictimsparticularlyvulnerabilityandCunninghamsviolentconduct.(Ibid.)Thetrial  courtfoundonecircumstanceinmitigation:thatCunninghamhadnopriorcriminalrecord.(Id.atpp.860861.)TheCaliforniastatecourtsrejected ! CunninghamsclaimthatCaliforniasprocedureforselectinghisuppertermviolatedhis C Sixthand  FourteenthAmendmentrightstojurytrial.(Id.atp. "% 861.) 4  ` TheSupremeCourtreversed,findingthatCaliforniassentencingprocedureundertheDeterminateSentencingLaw(DSL)violatesthe C SixthAmendmentbyallocatingtojudges,notjuries,theauthoritytofindfactswhichwouldpermittheimpositionofanuppertermsentence.TheSupremeCourts analysisofthisissuewasbasedonareviewofCaliforniassentencingscheme. +'1 UnderPenalCodesection % 1170,subdivision(b), r  5  /    ׀ thecourtshallorder   impositionofthemiddleterm,unlesstherearecircumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime.( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.861.)ThePenal  Codealso directedtheStatesJudicialCounciltoadoptRulesguidingthesentencingjudgesdecisionwhethertoimposethelowerorupperprisonterm.( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862,fn.omitted,quoting 0     1170.3,subd.(a)(2).)TheCourtexplainedthattherulesserveothersignificantfunctions.Therulesrestatethestandardinsection % 1170,subdivision(b),forselectingaterm(Cal.RulesofCourt,N r  6  /    ׀rule - 4.420(a)),defineaggravating   circumstancesas factsjustifyingtheupperterm(rule 8 4.405(d)),mandatethat 0  thesefacts shallbeestablishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence(rule . 4.420(b)),andrequirethatthesefactsbe statedorallyontherecordifimposingalowerorupperterm(rules ; 4.406(b), . 4.420(e)).( Z Cunningham,  supra,127S.Ct.atp.862&fn.6.) 0  4  ` TheCourtalsonotedthattherulesindicatewhatfactsareappropriateforatrialcourttoconsiderinselectingaterm.Therulesgive anonexhaustivelistofaggravatingcircumstancesforacourttoconsider,includingfactspertainingtothecrimeanddefendant,andanyotherstatutorilydeclaredaggravatingcircumstances.( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862,citingrule E 4.421(a), $ (b),(c).)Atrialcourtalso isfreetoconsiderany additionalcriteriareasonablyrelatedtothedecisionbeingmade.( Z Cunningham,supra,127 "( S.Ct.atp.862,quotingPeoplev. F Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238,1247,quoting 0$* rule4.408(a).) Afactthatisanelementofthecrime,however,shallnotbeusedtoimposetheupperterm.( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862, 0'". quotingrule . 4.420(d).)TheCourtfoundthatunderstatelaw,therewasnoindicationthatanuppertermcouldbeauthorizedbasednotonfacts,butonthe [g]eneralobjectivesofsentencinginrule 3 4.410(a)),whichincludetheprotectionofsociety,punishment,deterrence,andsecuringrestitutionforcrimevictims.( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.863.)    4  ` TheCunninghamCourtalsoobservedthatthisCourthad repeatedly 0   referredtocircumstancesinaggravationasfacts.( Z Cunningham,supra,127   S.Ct.atp.863,citing F Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1256and j Peoplev.Wiley 0  (1995)9Cal.4th580,587.)TheCourtnotedthattherehadnobeennocitationtoanyCaliforniacasewhereatrialcourtimposedtheuppertermbasednotonafact, butsolelyonthebasisofapolicyjudgmentorsubjectivebelief.( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.863.) 0  4  ` TheCourtthenevaluatedCaliforniassentencingprocedurebyapplyingtheprincipleitdistilledfromitspreviouscases: theFederalConstitutionsjury-trialguaranteeproscribesasentencingschemethatallowsajudgetoimposeasentenceabovethestatutorymaximumbasedonafact,otherthanapriorconviction,notfoundbyajuryoradmittedbythedefendant.( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.861,citing,interalia, l Apprendiv.New 0" Jersey(2000)530U.S.466[120S.Ct.2348,147L.Ed.2d435](Apprendi), $  e Blakelyv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296[124S.Ct.2531,159L.Ed.2d403] 0!& (Blakely),and ^ Booker,supra,543U.S.220(Booker).)TheCourtfoundthat "( BlakelyandBookerbore mostcloselyonthequestionpresentedinthiscase. 0$* ( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.861.)TheCourtreiteratedthedefinition %!, of statutorymaximumithadsetforthinBlakely: 0'". 8 4  Ourprecedentsmakeclear...thatthestatutorymaximumforApprendipurposesisthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimposesolely )%1 onthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant....Inotherwords,therelevantstatutorymaximumisnot +'3 themaximumsentenceajudgemayimposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,butthemaximumhemayimposewithoutanyadditionalfindings. -)5 Whenajudgeinflictspunishmentthatthejurysverdictalonedoesnotallow,thejuryhasnotfoundallthefactswhichthelawmakesessentialtothepunishment,...andthejudgeexceedshisproperauthority.? 44 ( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.865,quoting e Blakely,542U.S.atp.303.) 0  4  ` ApplyingtheBlakelytesttoCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLaw,   theCourtdeterminedthat themiddleterm,nottheupperterm,istherelevantstatutorymaximum.( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.868.)TheCourt    foundthatbecausethePenalCodeandtheimplementingCaliforniaRulesofCourtallowforimposinganuppertermonthebasisofafactthatajudgefindsbyapreponderanceoftheevidence,thejurytrialandreasonabledoubtrequirementsofdueprocessaremissingintheDSL.(Ibid.)   4  ` Inreachingthisdecision,thehighcourtrejectedthisCourtsconclusion,setforthinPeoplev. F Black,supra,35Cal.4th1238,thatCaliforniasupper  termprocedurewasconstitutionalunderApprendi,Blakely,andBooker. 0 ( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.868871.)InBlack,thisCourtfoundthat   thelevelofdiscretionavailabletoaCaliforniajudgeinselectingwhichofthreeavailabletermstoimpose...appearscomparabletothelevelofdiscretionthatthehighcourthaschosentopermitfederaljudgesinpostBooker 0  sentencing.(Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.869870,quoting F  F Black, " supra,35Cal.4thatp.1261.)Thehighcourtfoundthiscomparison 0 $  unavailing.( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.870.)TheCourtexplained !& thatinCalifornia,unlikeinthepostBookerfederalsystem, judgesarenotfree 0#( toexercisetheirdiscretiontoselectaspecificsentencewithinadefinedrange.(Id.,quoting ^ Booker,supra,543U.S.atp.233.)Instead,thetrial 0&!, courtinCunningham wastoselect12years,nothinglessandnothingmore, '#. unlesshefoundfactsallowingtheimpositionofsentenceof6or16years.(Id. 0)$0 atp.870.)ThehighcourtalsorejectedthisCourtsconclusionthatthepresumptivemiddletermwasmerelyareasonablenessrestraintakintothereasonablenessstandardinthepostBookerfederalscheme: -)6 8 4 ThereasonablenessrequirementBookeranticipatedforthefederal  systemoperateswithintheSixthAmendmentconstraintsdelineatedinourprecedent,notasasubstituteforthoseconstraints.BecausetheDSLallocatestojudgessoleauthoritytofindfactspermittingtheimpositionofanuppertermsentence,thesystemviolatestheSixthAmendment. 44 (Ibid.) 0   4  ` AfterholdingtheDeterminateSentencingLawunconstitutional,theCunninghamCourtstatedthat [a]stotheadjustmentofCaliforniassentencing 0   systeminlightofourdecision,[t]heball...liesin[Californias]court.( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.871.)ButtheCourtalsosuggestedtwo 0   pathsthatCaliforniacourtscouldfollowinadjustingthatsystemtocomplywiththeCourts C SixthAmendmentprecedentwhilestillretainingdeterminatesentencing:(1) callinguponthejury-eitherattrialorinaseparatesentencingproceeding-tofindanyfactnecessarytotheimpositionofanelevatedsentence;or(2)allowingsentencingcourts toexercisebroaddiscretion...withinastatutoryrange,which,everyoneagrees,encountersnoSixthAmendmentshoal.(Ibid.,fn.omitted,quoting ^ Booker,supra,543U.S.atp.  233.)8 4  &  26  B  .3  0` 44Reformation 0 ` `  '0 4  ` RespondentrespectfullysubmitsthattheproperremedyisforthisCourttoreformsection % 1170toallowtrialcourtstoexercisebroaddiscretioninselectingatermofimprisonment.Inordertoaccomplishthis,theCourtshouldinterpretsection % 1170toeliminatetherequirementthattrialcourtsmustengageinfactfindingbeforeatermotherthanthemiddletermcanbeimposed.Thiswouldallowtrialcourtstocontinueexercisingtheirbroaddiscretioninselectingoneofthreeterms,includingtheconsiderationofallrelevantcircumstancesrelatingtotheoffenseandtheoffender. 4  ` RespondentwilldemonstratethatthissuggestedstatutoryreformationbestreflectstheLegislaturesintentinenactingthedeterminatesentencing -)4 scheme.Thisisshowninthreemajorways.First,theproposedreformationisconsistentwiththisCourtspriorinterpretationoftheDSL.Second,thisremedycloselyresemblesthehighcourtsownmethodforpreservingthefederalsentencingsystembyexcisingitsunconstitutionalfeatures.Third,thisoptionisconsistentwiththestatutoryreformationsundertakenbytheSupremeCourtsofbothNewJerseyandOhio,bothofwhichhadsentencingschemessimilartoCalifornias.Notleastofall,thisremedywouldpreservetheessentialpoliciesandproceduresofasystemthathasdispensedfairandeffectivejusticeinCaliforniaforcloseto30years.8 4  ` &   26  1  .3  0 44ThisCourtShouldReformTheUnconstitutionalStatutory  ProvisionsToConformWithTheLegislaturesIntentInEnactingTheDSL    ' 4  ` ThisCourtwillreconstrueorrewriteastatutetopreservethestatutesconstitutionalitywhenappropriate.In a Koppv.FairPoliticalPractices 0 Commission(1995)11Cal.4th607,626662,theCourtaffirmedthejudiciarys  criticalroleinreinterpretingandreforminglegislativeenactmentsconsistentwithlegislativeintent,inordertoresolveconstitutionalinfirmitieswhenpossible,ratherthaninvalidatingtheenactmentorsubvertingtheintentoftheLegislature.TheissueinKoppwaswhethercertainprovisionsofProposition " 73,acampaignreformmeasurethatthefederalcourthadheldunconstitutional,couldbereformedtomeetconstitutionalrequirements,ratherthansimplybedeclaredunenforceable.(Id.atp.614.)TheCourtrepudiated theviewthat 0$( acourtlacksauthoritytorewriteastatuteinordertopreserveitsconstitutionalityorthattheseparationofpowersdoctrine...invariablyprecludessuchjudicialrewriting.(Id.atp.615.)TheCourtexplainedthat ($.  establisheddecisionsofthiscourtandtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdemonstratedthat areviewingcourtmay,inappropriatecircumstances,andconsistentlywiththeseparationofpowersdoctrine,reformastatutetoconform 0-(4 toconstitutionalrequirementsinlieuofsimplydeclaringitunconstitutionalandunenforceable.(Ibid.;seeid.atpp.627653[broadlysurveyingfederaland 0 Californiastatecasesapplyingreformation].)TheCourtalsorejectedanydistinctionbetweencaseswheretheCourt simplyplacedasavingconstructiononthestatutorylanguage,therebyconstrictingthereachofthestatute,andcaseswhereaCourtwouldhave todisregardlanguageandto 0   substitutereformedlanguage[.](Id.atp.646.)TheCourtexplainedthatthis   distinction suggestsadifferenceofdegree,notkind,andthat inallofthesecases,werewroteeachstatuteinordertopreserveitsconstitutionality.(Ibid.) 0   4  ` TheCourtthensetoutthetestforwhethertoreformorsimplyinvalidateastatute:8 4 TheguidingprincipleisconsistencywiththeLegislatures[]intent:acourtmayreformastatutetosatisfyconstitutionalrequirementsifitcanconcludewithconfidencethat(i)itispossibletoreformthestatuteinamannerthatcloselyeffectuatespolicyjudgmentsclearlyarticulatedbytheenactingbody,and(ii)theenactingbodywouldhavepreferredsuchareformedversionofthestatutetoinvalidationofthestatute.Ϊ 44 ( b Kopp,supra,11Cal.4thatp.615.)Underthistest,theCourtequated 0 reformingastatutewithrewritingastatute.(Id.atpp.660661.)TheCourt ! foundthattheapplicationofthistestwillavoid judicialpolicymakingintheguiseofstatutoryreformation,andtherebyavoidencroachingonthelegislativefunctioninviolationoftheseparationofpowersdoctrine.(Id.atp.661.) 0#'  4  ` TheCourtinKoppalsocautionedthat inallcases,reformationshould $ ) betestedobjectivelyagainstthestandardsetoutherein.( b Kopp,supra,11 0&!+ Cal.4thatp.663.)Citinga1979lawreviewarticlebyJusticeGinsburg,amemberoftheBookerremedialmajorityandtheauthorofCunningham,this 0)$/ Courtdeterminedthat8 4 courtsmaylegitimatelyemploythepowertoreforminordertoeffectuatepolicyjudgmentsclearlyarticulatedbytheLegislatureorelectorate,wheninvalidatingastatutewouldbefarmoredestructiveof 0.)5 theelectorateswill.And, ofcourse...ultimateauthoritytorecastorscrapthelawinquestionremainswiththepoliticalbranches[and,asinthiscase,theelectorate]. 44 (Id.atp.661,quoting  Ginsburg,SomeThoughtsonJudicialAuthorityto 0 RepairUnconstitutionalLegislation(1979)23Clev.St.L.Rev.301,324.) 4  ` TheKoppCourtultimatelydeterminedthatunderthistest,reformation 0  oftheunconstitutionalprovisionsofthecampaignreformmeasurewasinappropriate.( b Kopp,supra,11Cal.4thatp.615.)Astothesections 0  pertainingtotheunconstitutional intercandidateban,thefederalcourthadfoundthesectionunconstitutionalonFirstAmendmentgroundsthatwouldremainunenforceable whetherornotwereformthelattertwosections.(Id.  atp.615.)Andastothesectionspertainingtotheunconstitutionalstatutesregulatingcontributionstoindividualcandidates,politicalcommittees,orparties,reformationwasimpermissiblebecauseitwouldnot closelyeffectuatepolicyjudgmentsclearlyexpressedbytheelectorate.(Id.atpp.615616,662  663.)Morespecifically,theproposedreformationswouldaltertheamountoffundingthatthe electorateplannedintheproposition.(Id.atpp.615616,  664670.) 4  ` KoppsexpressrecognitionofthisCourtsroleinreformingstatuteswas " foreshadowedby o Peoplev.Roder(1983)33Cal.3d491.InRoder,thisCourt 0 $ heldthattheprovisionsofsection496createdanunconstitutionalmandatorypresumption.(Id.atp.504.)Inordertosavethestatutesconstitutionalityand 0#( preventitfrombeingstruckdowninitsentirety,thePeoplerequestedthatthisCourtconstruethestatuteasalegislativelyprescribedpermissiveinference.(Id.atp.507.)AlthoughthePeoplesrequestrequired somecreativestatutory '#. construction,theRoderCourtfoundthetransformationofthestatutory 0)$0 presumptionintoapermissiveinferencereasonableandfeasible.(Id.atpp. *&2 505506.)ThisCourtexplainedthatpreservingthestatutoryprovisionsinarestrainedformstillenabledthetrialcourtstoinformthejuryofaninference -)6 thattheLegislaturehadconcludedcouldbereasonablydrawnfromproofofthebasicfacts,andthatthepermissiveinferenceservedanimportantsubstantivefunctioninregulatingtheconductaddressedinthesection.(Id.atpp.506  507.)ThisCourtorderedthatonretrial,thetrialcourtshouldapplythisreinterpretationofthestatute.(Id.atp.507.)    4  ` ThisapproachofreconstruingastatutetopermitaconstitutionalinterpretationwasfollowedbytheCourtofAppealin q Peoplev.Forrester   (1994)30Cal.App.4th1697.InForrester,theCourtofAppealfirstheldthat 0  section  1320,subdivision(b),containedanunconstitutionalmandatorypresumption.(Id.atpp.17011703.)Expresslyfollowingtheapproachtaken 0  inRoder,theForrestercourtfurtherheldthatinfutureprosecutionsfor  violationsofsection  1320,subdivision(b),thesectionshouldbeconstruedascontainingapermissiveinferenceinordertopreservethestatutesconstitutionality.(Id.atp.1703.) 0  4  ` ThisCourtsrecentdecisionin s InreHowardN.(2005)35Cal.4th117  alsodemonstratesitswillingnesstoreformastatutesoastopreserveitsconstitutionality.(Id.atp.132,citinggenerallyto b Kopp,supra,11Cal.4that   pp.615,641661.)InHowardN.,thisCourtconcludedthattocomplywithdue 0" process,thejuvenileextendeddetentionschemeneededtocontainaprovisionrequiringafindingthatthepersonhas seriousdifficultyincontrollingdangerousbehavior.(Id.atp.132.)Althoughthisprovisionwasnotan "( explicitpartofthestatute,theCourtnonethelessreformedthestatutetoadditonthegroundthatdoingso doesnotappearinconsistentwithlegislativeintentand do[es]noviolencetothewordsofthestatute;rather,thewordsaresusceptibleofthatinterpretation.(Id.atp.133.)Inmakingthisaddition,the ($0 Courtfoundthat construingthestatutoryschemetoavoidconstitutionalinfirmitydemonstratesgreaterdeferencetotheLegislaturethansimplyinvalidating,astheCourtofAppealdid,thelegislativescheme.(Ibid.) 0-(6  4  ` Theseprinciplesarereadilyapplicabletothiscase,andwillpermittheCourttoreformCaliforniassentencingschemetobringitintocompliancewiththefederalConstitution.Respondentsuggeststhefollowingspecificrevisionstothepertinentstatutesandrules.First,theCourtshouldstrikethelanguageofsection % 1170,subdivision(b),thattheSupremeCourtfoundunconstitutional: Whenajudgmentofimprisonmentistobeimposedandthestatutespecifiesthreepossibleterms,thecourtshallorderimpositionofthemiddleterm,unlesstherearecircumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime.(See Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.861,868.)Withthisamendment,the   subdivisionwouldthengiveatrialcourtthebroaddiscretiontoimposealower,middle,oruppertermwithouttherequirementofadditionalfactfinding.(See   Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.871.)This broaddiscretionstandard 0 wouldpermit,consistentwiththeeliminationofthefactfindingrequirement,andsubjecttoabuseofdiscretionreview,theimpositionofaterm solelyonthebasisofapolicyjudgmentorsubjectivebelief,suchasthe [g]eneralizedobjectivesofsentencinginrule < 4.410(a),including,forexample,theprotectionofsociety,punishment,deterrence,andsecuringrestitution.(See Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.863.) r  7  /     0"  4  ` Inthesamemanner,theCourtshouldreplacethephraseinsection % 1170,subdivision(b),thatbegins, Indeterminingwhethertherearecircumstancesthatjustifyimpositionoftheupperorlowerterm...,with Indeterminingtheappropriateterm.... r  8  /    ׀Thischangeisnecessarytoremovethe 0$* unconstitutionalrequirementthatanupperorlowertermmustbejustifiedbyanaggravatingormitigatingcircumstancefoundbythecourt.Underthereformedsystem,areasonwithoutafactualfindingissufficienttoimposeanyterm.Forsimilarreasons,theCourtshouldadjusttherequirementthatthetrialcourt setforthontherecordthefactsandreasonsforimposingtheupperorlowerterm,torequirethatthetrialcourt setforthontherecordthereasonsforimposingthetermselected.Thisalterationalsoeliminatestheneedforfurtherjudicialfactfinding,andprovidesthesameprocedureformiddletermsasforupperorlowerterms.Further,section  1170.3,authorizingtheJudicialCounciltoadoptrulesguidingtheselectionofthelowerorupperterms,shouldbereformedtoauthorizetheJudicialCounciltoadoptrulesfortheselectionofthelower,middle,orupperterm,sothattheprocedureforselectingmiddle 0 termswillbenodifferentthantheprocedureforselectinglowerorupperterms.(See Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862.) r  9  /     0  4  ` Thisstatutoryreformationwouldbefullyconsistentwiththe  Legislaturesoverallintentinenactingthetripartitesentencingscheme.UndertheDeterminateSentencingActof1976,theLegislatureintendedtoprovidethetrialcourtstheabilitytoimposeanyofthethreepossibletermsinanyparticularcase,withthetrialcourtexercisingitsbroaddiscretiontoselecttheappropriatetermonthebasisofthecircumstancesrelatingtothecrimeandthedefendant.( F Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1260; r  10  /    ׀ u Peoplev.Hernandez(1988)46Cal.3d 0   194,205; y Peoplev.Wright(1982)30Cal.3d705,713.)Thus,aninterpretation   ofsection % 1170inamannerthatpreservesitsconstitutionalityunderCunninghamwouldeffectuatetheLegislaturesintenttogivethetrialcourtsthe   fullflexibilitytotailoranappropriatesentenceunderthecircumstancesofeachindividualcase,andwouldpreserveasystemthathasworkedeffectivelyforcloseto30years. 4  ` Respondentsproposedconstructionwouldbefarmoreconsistentwithlegislativeintentthanthealternativeofrequiringajurytrialonaggravatingcircumstancesinordertopermitimpositionoftheupperterm.Initsdeclarationofpurposeinsection % 1170,subdivision(a)(1),theLegislatureexpresseditsintenttoassigntothetrialcourt,ratherthanajury,theroleofidentifyingandimposingtheappropriatesentence.(Ibid.[ TheLegislaturefurtherfindsand 0" declaresthattheeliminationofdisparityandtheprovisionofuniformityofsentencescanbestbeachievedbydeterminatesentencesfixedbystatuteinproportiontotheseriousnessoftheoffenseasdeterminedbytheLegislaturetobeimposedbythecourtwithspecifieddiscretion].)TheLegislaturethenformulatedasystemwhichassignedtothetrialcourttheresponsibilityto %!, identifyandevaluatetheapplicablecircumstancesineachcaseinordertobestachievethegoalsofdeterminatesentencing. 4  ` InenactingtheDeterminateSentencingAct,theLegislaturealsoexpresslyrejectedamorerigidandformalizedtriallikeapproachtosentencingdeterminations,optinginsteadforthecurrentsystem.CaliforniasDeterminateSentencingActwasfirstcreatedin1976bySenateBill42(S.B.42)andhadaneffectivedateofJuly1,1977.( ( Stats.1976,ch.1139,273,p.5140.)UnderthisoriginalversionoftheDeterminateSentencingAct,section % 1170,subdivision(b),providedthatthetrialcourtcouldconsideronlythoseaggravatingormitigatingcircumstancessetforthinformalmotionsbytheparties,andthecourthadtoconductanevidentiaryhearingandmakeformalfindingsoffactandstatementsofreasonsastothosecircumstancesinordertoimposeanupperorlowerterm.( ) Stats.1976,ch.1139,273,p.5140.) r  11  /       4  ` Butinearly1977,priortotheeffectivedateofS.B.42,theLegislatureenactedAssemblyBill476(A.B.476)toresolvenumerousconcernsthathadariseninresponsetoS.B.42.(See 5 Stats.1977,ch.165,pp.639680.)Oneof 0 theLegislaturesspecificamendmentsinA.B.476involvedrewritingsection % 1170,subdivision(b),toeliminatethecumbersomeandformalisticmotionpracticeandevidentiaryfactfindingrequirements,andallowthecourttorelyonabroadarrayofrelevantinformation,includingprobationreports,hearsay,andstatementsbythevictimandfamilymembers.( 6 Stats.1977,ch.165,15,pp.647649.)ToensurethatthemodifiedversionoftheDeterminateSentencingAct,ratherthantheoriginalversion,becameeffectiveonJuly1,1977,theLegislatureenactedA.B.476asanurgencymeasureandmadeitseffectivedatethesameasS.B.42.( 6 Stats.1977,ch.165,100,p.680.) 4  ` Thislegislativehistoryofsection % 1170,subdivision(b),showsthattheLegislatureexpresslyconsideredandrejectedrequiringamoretriallikeapproachtosentencingdeterminationsofaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances,andthislegislativeintentrunsdirectlycountertorequiringaformaljurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtonaggravatingcircumstancesbeforeacourtcouldimposeanupperterm.Thus,construingthestatuteinawaythatretainstheroleofthetrialcourtandthecurrentbroadandinformalnatureofsentencingdeterminationsistheonlywaytopreservethelegislativeobjectivesexpressedinsection % 1170,subdivision(b),andtheentiredeterminatesentencingscheme. 4  ` Inaddition,asenacted,section % 1170placesanequalburdenontheprosecutionandthedefendant!eachmustofferproofoffactstoobtainatermotherthanthemiddleterm,andeachmustmakethatproofbythepreponderanceoftheevidencestandard.Thislegislativemandatetoplacethepartiesonequalfootingwouldbeviolatediftheprosecutionsburdenwastoproveaggravatingfactstoajurybeyondareasonabledoubt,butthedefendantwasrequiredonlytoprovefactsinmitigationtoajudgebyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Thatdisparity,whichwouldmakemitigatedtermsmucheasiertoachievethanaggravatedterms,andwouldemployadramaticallyless 0-(6 cumbersomeandcostlyprocessforattaininglowertermsthanupperterms,wouldseriouslyerodetheLegislaturesstatedgoalof attainingtermsproportionatetotheseriousnessoftheoffense.( % 1170,subd.(a)(1).) 4  ` Similarly,construingsection % 1170toeliminatetherequirementoffactfindingwouldnotgrantthePeopleabenefitattheexpenseofdefendants.Byeliminatinganyrequirementthatatrialcourtmustfindadditionalfactsbeforeimposingatermotherthanthemiddleterm,defendantswouldbeabletoreceivethelowtermwithouttheneedforanyfactualfindingsonmitigatingcircumstances. 4  ` Furthermore,suchastatutoryconstructionwouldnotpreventthetrialcourtfromtakingintoaccountallrelevantconsiderationsinselectingtheappropriateterm,norwoulditmaketheselectionoftheappropriatetermunboundedorarbitrary.Thepartieswouldstillbepermittedtopresentevidenceandarguethatthereareaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances,thetrialcourtwouldstillberequiredtoconsiderwhateverevidenceandargumentthepartiessubmitted,andthetrialcourtwouldcontinuetoexerciseitsbroaddiscretioninselectingaterm.AsexplainedinSectionC.4,post,the   enumeratedaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancescurrentlyidentifiedintherulesofcourtwouldcontinuetoplayanillustrativeroleinprovidingguidanceforthecourtinitsexerciseofdiscretion.Additionally,thetrialcourtsdecisiontoimposeallterms,includingthemiddleterm,wouldcontinuetobereviewableonappealforabuseofdiscretion,muchlikeanyotherdiscretionarysentencingdecision. r  12  /    ׀Finally,thetrialcourtsstatementofreasonsfortheimpositionof %!, aparticulartermwouldbetakenintoconsiderationbytheappellatecourtinreviewingthedecision. ($0  4  ` TheproposedreformationwouldalsobefarmoreconsistentwiththelegislativeintentbehindtheDSLthanthealternativeofremovingthechoiceofanuppertermanddeemingthemiddletermthehighestsentencethatatrialcourtcanlawfullyimpose.TheLegislatureprovidedthatallthreetermsshouldbeavailable,anditwouldplainlydisservethegoalsofpunishmentanduniformityinsentencingtograntdefendantsanunwarrantedwindfallbasedonaconstitutionaldefectintheprocedureforselectingupperterms.  r  13  /        4  ` ThisCourtsrecentexpositionofstatelawinPeoplev. F Black,supra,35 0  Cal.4th1238,alsoconfirmsthatreformingthestatutetoreflecta broaddiscretionstandardandtoeliminatethejudicialfactfindingrequirementistheappropriateremedyinthiscase.AlthoughtheCunninghamCourtdisagreed  withthisCourtslegalconclusions,itreliedheavilyonthisCourtsstatementsinBlackaboutCaliforniasentencingprocedureinordertoresolvethe  constitutionalissue.(See Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.861863,868 0 871.)Indiscussingthisprocedure,thisCourtspecificallystatedthatjudgeshave broaddiscretionundercurrentlawtoselectanupperterm,althoughthatbroaddiscretionis constrained,tosomedegreebythemandateinsection  % 1170,subdivision(b), thatanaggravatingfactorexist....( F Black,supra,35 0" Cal.4thatpp.1255,1260.) r  14  /    ׀TheCourtalsopointedoutthat,exceptforusing   afacttwicetoimposeanuppertermandanenhancement,ortoimposeanuppertermandasanelementofthecrime, ajudgeisfreetobaseanuppertermsentenceonanyaggravatingfactorthejudgedeemssignificant....(Id. 0  atp.1255.)And [a]lthoughsubdivision(b)iswordedinmandatorylanguage,therequirementthatanaggravatingfactorexistismerelyarequirementthatthedecisiontoimposetheuppertermbereasonable.(Ibid.)Giventhis   interpretationoftheDSLinBlack,theLegislaturesurelywouldhavepreferred 0  theproposedreformationremedybecauseitretainstheessentialelementsofthesystemwithinCunninghamsconstraints:retainingthebroaddiscretion 0  standard,i.e.,areasonablenessrequirement,butremovingtherequirementofjudicialfactfindingtoimposeanupperorlowerterm,whilestillallowinganyfact(savefactsalsousedaselementsorenhancements)tobeusedtoimposeanyterm. 4  ` Inshort,thisCourtshouldreplacethe mandatorypresumptionofthemiddletermwiththeconstitutionallysoundoptionof broaddiscretiondefinedbythehighcourtinCunningham.Inplaceoftherequirementinthe   statuteandrulesofcourtthatatrialcourtfindafactinordertoimposealowerorupperterm,theCourtshouldinsertaprovisionthatthetrialcourtshouldexerciseitssounddiscretiontochooseanyofthethreelegislativelymandatedterms.Indeed,aspreviouslynoted,thisisinpracticaltermsveryclosetothecurrentstandard,asexplainedinBlack.Itisalsoundoubtedlyaconstitutionally 0$* validstandard,asnotedinCunningham.Anditisundoubtedlytheremedythat %!, wouldbepreferredbytheLegislature.  0(#/ 8 4  ` &    26  2  .3  0 44TheBookerRemedialOpinionProvidesFurtherSupportFor  ThisCourtToReinterpretAndReformTheDSLInTheMannerSuggestedByRespondent    ' 4 % W &    ` '%W~Inadditiontoitsowndecisions,thisCourtlookstoUnitedStatesSupremeCourtcasesas authorityforthisCourtsreformationpower.(See 0   b Kopp,supra,11Cal.4thatpp.627641[ muchofthejurisprudenceofourown   casesrestsonandflowsfromdecisionsoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtaddressingjudicialauthoritytoreformstatutestopreservethemagainstconstitutionalinfirmity].)BecauseBooker,likeCunningham,identifiedaright 0  tohaveajurytrialonanyfactatsentencingusedtoincreaseasentence,thisCourtshouldcloselyevaluatethemannerinwhichtheSupremeCourtfashionedaremedyfortheconstitutionalviolationitfoundintheUnitedStatesSentencingGuidelines( Guidelines).AlthoughthefederalsentencingsystemisdifferentandmorecomplexthanCalifornias,theremedyfashionedbytheSupremeCourtinBookeroffersanaptandusefulmodelforthereformationof 0 DSLsuggestedbyrespondent.InBooker,theSupremeCourtsimplymadethe  mandatoryGuidelinesadvisory,andthenheldthatfederalsentencesaretobereviewedforreasonableness.Asimilarlydirect,clearandpracticalsolutiontothe C SixthAmendmentprobleminthiscasecanbeusedtopreservethebasicshapeofCaliforniasDSLsentencingstructure.TheBookerformulawould  $ alsoleadthisCourttodeletethemandatoryfactfindingrequirementforimposinganupperorlowertermandtoleavetheselectionofasentencewithinthetrialcourtsbroaddiscretion. 4  ` InBooker,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthat,underitsdecisions &", in m Apprendi,supra,530U.S.466,and e Blakely,supra,542U.S.296,the C Sixth 0(#. AmendmentrighttoajurytrialwasviolatedbytheimpositionofanenhancedsentenceundertheGuidelinesbasedonthesentencingjudgesdeterminationofafact(otherthanapriorconviction)thatwasnotfoundbythejuryoradmittedbythedefendant.( ^ Booker,supra,543U.S.atpp.226237.)Thejury 0.)6 foundthedefendantBookerguiltyofpossessionwithintenttodistributeatleast50gramsofcocainebase( crack),basedonevidencethathehad92.5gramsofcrackinhisbag.Thestatuteunderwhichhewasconvictedprescribedaminimumprisonsentenceof10yearsandamaximumsentenceoflifeimprisonment,butbaseduponBookerscriminalhistoryandthequantityofdrugsfoundbythejury,theGuidelinesrequiredthedistrictcourtjudgetoimposea basesentencewithinthemandatorysentencingrangeof210monthsto262monthsinprison.ThejudgeheldasentencinghearingandconcludedbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatBookerhadpossessedanadditional566gramsofcrackandthathewasguiltyofobstructingjustice.UndertheGuidelines,thesejudiciallyfoundfactsprescribedamandatorysentencingrangeof360monthstolifeimprisonment,andthejudgeimposeda360monthsentence.Thus, insteadofthesentenceof21yearsand10monthsthatthejudgecouldhaveimposedonthebasisofthefactsprovedtothejurybeyondareasonabledoubt,Bookerreceiveda30yearsentence.(Id.atp.227.)   4  ` TheSupremeCourtheldthatBookerssentenceviolatedthe C SixthAmendment.( ^ Booker,supra,543U.S.atp.229.)TheBookerCourtfound   thattherewasnodistinctionofconstitutionalsignificancebetweentheGuidelinesandtheWashingtonsentencingproceduresatissueinBlakely $ becausethesentencingrulesinbothsystemsweremandatoryandimposed 0!& bindingrequirementsonallsentencingjudges.(Id.atpp.231235.)The "( BookerCourtexplainedthatBookersactualsentencewasalmost10years 0$* longerthanthemandatoryGuidelinesrangeauthorizedbythejuryverdictalone,andthatthehigherGuidelinesrangewasauthorizedonlybyfactsbeyondthosefoundbythejury(i.e.,possessionofadditional566gramsofcrack).(Id. ($0 atp.235.)TheSupremeCourtthereforeconcludedthatthejurysverdictaloneinBookerscasedidnotauthorizethesentenceandthatthe judgeacquiredthatauthorityonlyuponfindingsomeadditionalfact.(Ibid.)Accordingly, 0-(6 theSupremeCourtheldthattheBlakelyandApprendiholdingsappliedtothe  Guidelines.(Id.atpp.235237.) 0  4  ` Afterconcludingthatthe C SixthAmendmentappliedtothefederalSentencingGuidelines,theBookerCourtthenaddressedthequestionof 0  remedy,i.e.,whetherortowhatextenttheGuidelineswereinapplicable.TheSupremeCourtansweredthisquestion bylookingtolegislativeintentand seek[ing]todeterminewhatCongresswouldhaveintendedinlightoftheCourtconstitutionalholding.Inthisregard,theSupremeCourtwasconfrontedwithtwoalternativeremedies:(1) engraftontotheexistingsystemthejurytrialrequirementandtherebychangetheGuidelinesbypreventingthesentencingcourtfromimposingasentenceonthebasisofafactthatthejurydidnotfindorthedefendantdidnotadmit;or(2)maketheGuidelinessystemadvisorybyseveringandexcisingtheinvalidportionsofthestatute,whilemaintainingastrongconnectionbetweenthesentenceimposedandtheoffendersrealconduct,becausesuchaconnectionwasimportanttothelegislativegoalofsentenceuniformity.( ^ Booker,supra,543U.S.atp.246.) 0  4  ` TheSupremeCourtrecognizedthateitherapproachwouldsignificantlyalterthesystemthatCongressdesigned,buttheBookerCourtexplainedthatthe 0" judicialfactfindinginherentinthemandatoryGuidelinessystemwasnolongerpossibleinlightoftheCourtsconstitutionalholding.( ^ Booker,supra,543U.S. 0!& atp.246.)TheSupremeCourtthereforeadoptedtheadvisoryapproachandrejectedthejurytrialapproachbecausetheremedyofmakingtheGuidelinesadvisorywas morecompatiblewiththelegislativeintentand deviate[d]lessradicallyfromCongressintendedsystem.(Id.atpp.246247.) 0'".  4  ` Bookerexplainedthatthereweremultiplereasonswhytherejected ($0 remedyofengraftingorsuperimposingthejurytrialrequirementontotheexistingsentencingschemewasinconsistentwithCongresssintentinenactingtheGuidelines.TheSupremeCourtfirstnotedthatthestatuteexpressly 0-(6 providedthat thecourtwouldconsiderthenatureandcircumstancesoftheoffenseandthehistoryandcharacteristicsofthedefendantinsentencing,andthatthisreferenceto thecourtmeant,incontext,thejudgeworkingwithoutthejury.TheSupremeCourtalsonotedthatanotherstatutoryprovisionremovedtypical jurytrialevidentiarylimitations,suchasthelimitationsoninformationconcerningthedefendantsbackground,character,andconduct.( ^ Booker,supra,543U.S.atpp.249250.)    4  ` TheSupremeCourtnextfoundthatthebasicstatutorygoalofdiminishingsentencingdisparityandincreasingsentenceuniformitydependedonjudicialeffortstobasethepunishmentontherealconductthatformedthebasisforthecrimeofconviction.( ^ Booker,supra,543U.S.atpp.249254.)  TheCourtexplainedthatthesameoffensecouldbecommittedinahostofdifferentways,butthat,underasystemwiththejurytrialrequirement,thesentencingjudgewouldbeprecludedfromtakingintoaccounttheactualmannerinwhichtheoffensewascommittedunlesstheprosecutorchargedmorethantheelementsofthecrime.(Ibid.)Bookerthenprovidedseveralexamples 0 toillustratehowthegoalof ensuringsimilarsentencesforthosewhohavecommittedsimilarcrimesinsimilarwayswouldbeunderminedbysuchasystem.(Id.atp.252.)TheSupremeCourtalsofoundthatengraftinga C Sixth $ AmendmentrequirementontothesentencingschemewouldcreateasystemmorecomplexthanCongressintended,andthatpleabargainingundersuchasystemwouldleadtodiminisheduniformityinsentencing.(Id.atpp.253257.) 0$* TheSupremeCourtfurtherdeterminedthattherejectedremedywouldcreateanasymmetricalsystembymakingitmoredifficulttoadjustsentencesupwardthantoadjustthemdownward,andthatsucha onewayleverwouldbecontrarytoCongressintent.(Id.atpp.257258.) 0*%2  4  ` AfterconcludingthattheremedyofadvisoryGuidelineswasmoreconsistentwiththelegislativeintent,theSupremeCourtthenseveredand 0-(6 excisedthestatutoryprovisionsthatwereinconsistentwiththe C SixthAmendment,suchastheprovisionthatrequiredsentencingcourtstoimposeasentencewithintheapplicableGuidelinesrange.TheSupremeCourtalsoadoptedanew reasonablenessstandardastheappellatestandardofreviewforsentencesimposedundertheremediedsentencingscheme.( ^ Booker,supra,543   U.S.atpp.259263.)TheSupremeCourtfurtherappliedtheremedialinterpretationofthefederalsentencingstatutestoallcasesondirectreview,andexplainedthatreviewingcourtsshouldapplyprudentialdoctrines,suchasforfeitureandharmlesserror,todeterminewhetheraparticularcaseneededtoberemandedforanewsentencinghearing.(Id.atp.268.)TheSupremeCourt 0  acknowledgedthatitsremedywasnotthe lastword,andthatitwouldbelefttoCongresstodevisealongtermsentencingsystemthatwascompatiblewiththeConstitution.(Id.atp.265.)   4  ` NowthatthehighcourtinCunninghamhasfoundthatthe C Sixth 0 AmendmentjurytrialrightimplicatestheimpositionoftheupperterminCaliforniassentencingscheme,theBookeranalysisprovidesstrongandclear 0 guidanceforthisCourtontheissueofremedy.ThealternativesinthiscasecloselyresembletheoptionstheSupremeCourtconsideredinBooker.The 0" mostradicaloptionwouldbeforthisCourttodeclinetoreinterpretsection % 1170,subdivision(b),inaconstitutionalmanner.Suchanapproachwouldresultinengraftingajurytrialrequirementontothecurrentsystemtoprohibitthetrialcourtfromimposingtheuppertermonthebasisofaggravatingcircumstancesthatwerenotfoundbythejuryoradmittedbythedefendant.ItisaconsiderableunderstatementtosuggestthatthisalternativewoulddrasticallychangethesystemdesignedbytheLegislature. 4  ` Thesecondalternativeremedy,aspreviouslydiscussed,wouldbeforthisCourttoreinterpretsection % 1170,subdivision(b),sothatthereformedstatutewouldallowthetrialcourtthebroaddiscretiontoimposetheupperor 0-(6 lowertermwithoutanyrequirementofadditionalfactfinding.LiketheremedyadoptedinBooker,thisproposedinterpretationofthestatutewouldbefarmore 0 consistentwiththelegislativepoliciesandobjectivesbehindtheDSL,and deviatelessradicallyfromtheLegislaturesintendedsystemthanthealternativeofengraftingajurytrialrequirementontothecurrentstatutoryscheme. 4  ` Thelegislativeintenthasbeenexpressedinseveraldifferentways.First,likethefederalsentencingscheme,theexpressreferencesto thecourtinsection % 1170demonstratethattheLegislaturecontemplatedthatthesentencingjudge,withouttheassistanceofthejury,determinewhethertherewereaggravatingcircumstancestojustifytheimpositionoftheupperterm.(Seealso  1170.3[RulesofCourtprovide criteriaforthetrialjudgeatthetimeofsentencing].)Inenactingsection % 1170,theLegislaturealsorejectedevidentiarylimitationstypicaltojurytrials,andinsteadallowedthesentencingcourttorelyonabroadarrayofrelevantinformation,includingprobationreports,hearsay,andstatementsbythevictimandfamilymembers.(Compare 6 Stats.1977,ch.165,15,pp.647649with ) Stats.1976,ch.1139,273,p.5140.) 4  ` Second,superimposingthe C SixthAmendmentjurytrialrequirementontothedeterminationofaggravatingcircumstanceswouldundercuttheexpresslegislativegoalofachievingsentenceuniformityfor offenderscommittingthesameoffenseundersimilarcircumstances.( % 1170,subd.(a)(1).)Forinstance,undersuchasystem,atrialcourtwouldbeprecludedfromexercisingitsdiscretiontoimposetheuppertermonthebasisoftheseriousnessofthedefendantsactualconductincommittingtheoffense(e.g.,highdegreeofcruelty,viciousness,orcallousness)unlessthoseparticularaggravatingfactswerechargedbytheprosecutorandfoundbythejury.Thus,asinBooker,a +'4 sentencingsystemwithanengraftedjurytrialrequirementwouldweakenthe 0-(6 connectionbetweenthesentenceandthedefendantsactualconduct,andtherebyunderminethelegislativegoalof ensuringsimilarsentencesforthosewhohavecommittedsimilarcrimesinsimilarways.( ^ Booker,supra,543U.S.  atp.252.) 4  ` Third,engraftingthejurytrialrequirementontothecurrentsystemwouldcreateafarmorecomplexsentencingschemethantheonecontemplatedbytheLegislature.Asexplainedabove,theLegislaturedidnotintendtopreconditionthetrialcourtsauthoritytoimposetheuppertermonajurytrialandjuryfindingsastoaggravatingcircumstances,andtheLegislaturecertainlydidnotintendthattheintricateandtimeconsumingpleading,evidentiary,andinstructionalrulesattendanttojurytrialsbeappliedtoadeterminationofaggravatingcircumstances. 4  ` Fourth,itishighlyunlikelythattheLegislatureintendedanasymmetricalsentencingschemewherethetrialcourtcouldconsiderfactsthatwerenotfoundbyajuryorprovedbeyondareasonabledoubtonlyforthepurposeofimposingthediscretionarylowtermbutnotthediscretionaryupperterm.AsinBooker,sucha onewayleverisclearlynotcompatiblewiththelegislative   intent.Bycontrast,respondentsproposedreformationofthestatutewouldpreservethebalancedsystemintendedbytheLegislature. 4  ` TheSupremeCourtsapproachtotheremedyquestioninBookerthus 0!& fullysupportsrespondentsproposedreformationofsection % 1170,subdivision(b).ThisCourtshouldusetheBookerformulatoconformtheDSLtothe 0$* SupremeCourtsinterpretationoftheConstitution.Thestatuteshouldbereformedtoeliminatetherequirementofafacttoimposethelowerorupperterm,andotherwisetoretainthetrialcourtsbroaddiscretioninselectinganyterm.  0+&3 8 4  ` &    26  3  .3  0 44TheRemediesThatTheNewJerseyAndOhioSupreme  CourtsAppliedToTheirStatesSystemsAfterBookerAlso  SupportReformationOfCaliforniasSystem C   'C 4  ` NewJerseyandOhio,likeCalifornia,eachhadasentencingsystemprovidingforapresumptivesentencewithinastatutoryrangeandarequirementthatajudgefindafactbeforeincreasingthesentenceabovethepresumptivesentence.BeforeCunningham,thesestatessupremecourtshadfoundthatthis 0   componentoftheirsystemsviolatedBlakely.Analogizingtothehighcourts   remedialmodelinBooker,eachstatesupremecourtthenjudiciallydeletedthis 0  presumption,thuseliminatingtherequirementofafacttoimposeanincreasedsentencewithinthestatutoryrange,andleavingforthetrialcourtsdiscretiontheselectionofanysentencewithinthisrange.ThesestatesupremecourtsdecisionsarealsoinstructiveandpersuasivefordeterminingtheproperremedyfortheconstitutionaldefectidentifiedinCunningham.(  Statev.Foster(Ohio  2006)845N.E.2d470;  Statev.Natale(N.J.2005)878A.2d724.) 0  4  ` InStatev.  Natale,supra,878A.2d724,theNewJerseySupremeCourt  confrontedaBlakelychallengetoasystemwithcrimespunishablebyrangesof 0 imprisonmentwithpresumptivetermswithintheseranges.Forexample,rangesforcertaincrimesconsistedoffivetotenyears,withapresumptivetermofsevenyears,ortentotwentyyears,withapresumptivetermoffifteenyears.(Id.atp.738.)TheNewJerseystatutoryschemestatedthat thecourtshall 0"& imposethepresumptivetermunlessthepreponderanceofaggravatingormitigatingfactors,assetforthin[N.J.S.A.2C:44-1]aandb.,weighsinfavorofahigherorlowertermwithinthestatutoryrange.(Ibid.)Thecourtfound &", thatunderthisstatute:8 4 beforeanyjudicialfactfinding,themaximumsentencethatcanbeimposedbasedonajuryverdictorguiltypleaisthepresumptiveterm.Accordingly,the statutorymaximumforBlakelyandBookerpurposes +'2 isthepresumptivesentence.kM 44 (Id.atp.739.)Thecourtthereforeheld thattheCodessystemofpresumptive 0.)5 termsentencingviolatestheSixthAmendmentrighttotrialbyjury.(Ibid.)   4  ` TheNewJerseySupremeCourtnextdeterminedthattheproperremedyforthisconstitutionalflawwastoeliminatethepresumptivetermsbecausethissolution bestachievestheLegislaturespurposeinenactingtheCode.(Id.at 0  pp.741742.)' r  15  /    ׀Inreachingthisdetermination,thecourtnotedthattheCode   wasintended toguidejudicialdiscretioninimposingsentencestoensurethatsimilarlysituateddefendantsdidnotreceivedissimilarsentences.(Id.atp.   739,internalquotationmarksomitted.) 4  ` Thecourtthenexplainedwhyitwasrejectingalternativeremedies.First,thecourtstatedthatithadthepowertodo judicialsurgery,andfoundthattheLegislaturewouldprefertohavethecourt severtheoffendingportionoftheCoderatherthaninvalidatetheentireCode.(  Natale,supra,878A.2dat 0 pp.739740.)Second,thecourtfoundthattheLegislaturewouldnothavepreferred tosubstitutejurorsforjudgesasthefactfindersforsentencingfacts.(Id.atp.740.)Thecourtcitedfourreasonsforthisconclusion:(a)the  Legislaturedelegatedtojudgesthefunctionofconsideringaggravatingfactors 0 inordertoimpose fairanduniformsentences;(b)thestatutorilyenumeratedaggravatingfactorsgenerally representthetraditionalfactorsthatjudgeshistoricallyhaveweighedinsentencingadefendantwithinthestatutoryrange;(c)theLegislatureintendedthat trialcourtconsiderallrelevantinformation,includinghearsay,unrestrainedbytherulesofevidence;and(d)requiringjurytrialsonaggravatingfactors wouldleadtoseparate,costly,unwieldy,andperhapsprotractedpenaltytrialsattheconclusionofguiltphasetrials.(Ibid.) %!, Third,theNewJerseySupremeCourtquicklyrejectedtheremedyof 0'". prohibitingallsentencesabovethepresumptiveterm,explaining:8 4 Todosowouldgutthesentencingranges,cuttingtheminhalfandpresentingtoconvictedfelonsanunintendedandundeservedwindfall.WedonotbelievethattheLegislaturewouldhavecontemplatedthatasaviablesolution.wX 44 (Ibid.)    4  ` Accordingly,theNewJerseySupremeCourtchoseasitsremedy eliminatingthepresumptiveterms.(  Natale,supra,878A.2datp.741.)The   courtreasonedthatthisremedywould bestpreservethemajorelementsofoursentencingcodeandcausetheleastdisruptiontoourcriminaljusticesystem....(Ibid.)Thecourtexplainedthat [i]nallotherrespects,the 0  sentencingprocesswillremainessentiallyunchanged.(Ibid.)Inthisregard,  courtswillcontinuetodetermineaggravatingandmitigatingfactorsandwhetherthesefactorspreponderate,andtogiveastatementofreasonsforarrivingataparticularsentence.(Ibid.)Further,appellatecourtswillcontinue 0 toreviewthesesentencingdecisionsforabuseofdiscretion.(Id.atpp.741  742.)Thecourtfoundthatthe touchstoneisthatthesentencemustbeareasonableoneinlightofalltherelevantfactorsconsideredbythecourt.(Id.  atp.741.) 4  ` TheOhioSupremeCourtsimilarlyfoundthatOhiossystemofminimumpresumptivesentenceswithinstatutoryrangesviolatedBlakelyonthe 0!% groundthatjudgesare statutorilyrequiredtomakespecificfindingsbefore "' imposingasentencebeyondthatpresumedsolelybyajuryverdictoradmissionofadefendant.(  Foster,supra,845N.E.2datpp.489494.)Thecourtalso %!+ applied theBookerremedytoOhiosschemebysevering [a]ll[statutory] 0'"- referencestomandatoryjudicialfactfinding,sothat thereisnothingtosuggestapresumptiveterm.(Id.atpp.496497.)ThisgivesOhiojudges 0*%1  fulldiscretiontoimposeaprisonsentencewithinthestatutoryrange....(Id. +'3 atp.498.)Insodoing,thecourtalsorejectedthesolutionsof provid[ing]jury 0-(5 involvementinsentencingandlimitingthemaximumsentencetothepresumptivetermascontrarytowhatOhioslegislaturewouldhaveintended.(  Foster,supra,845N.E.2datpp.495496.)   4  ` TheremediesfashionedbyNewJerseyandOhio,whicharecloselymodeledontheBookerremedy,offeradditionalsubstantialsupportfor   respondentssuggestedcureforthepresumptivetermprobleminCalifornia.Eliminatingthepresumptivemiddleterminsection % 1170,subdivision(b),mostfaithfullyachievestheLegislaturesintentinenactingtheDSL.TheDSLspurposewastohaveterms proportionatetotheseriousnessoftheoffensewithprovisionforuniformityinthesentencesofoffenderscommittingthesameoffenseundersimilarcircumstances.( % 1170,subd.(a)(1).)LikethelegislaturesinNewJerseyandOhio,CaliforniasLegislaturewouldnothavewantedtosubstitutejurorsforjudgestomakefactualfindingsatsentencing.Inthisregard,theLegislaturedelegatedtojudges,notjuries,thefunctionofconsideringaggravatingcircumstances.(See % 1170,subds.(b),(c).)Inaddition,theseaggravatingcircumstancesreflectatraditionalpartofthesentencingprocess.(See F Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1257.)Also,the   Legislatureintendedthatthetrialcourthearallrelevantinformation,whetherornotadmissibleundertherulesofevidence.Section % 1170contemplatesthatinformationbasedonhearsayreportsfromprobationofficersandothers,includingthevictimandthevictimsfamily,beintroducedatthesentencinghearing.(See % 1170,subd.(b);seealso { Peoplev.Hove(1999)76Cal.App.4th 0$* 1266,1275[ sentencingjudgesaregivenvirtuallyunlimiteddiscretionastothekindofinformationtheycanconsiderandthesourcefromwhenceitcomes].)Furthermore,jurytrialsonaggravatingcircumstanceswouldbeexpensiveandtimeconsuming,wouldleadtoconfusionandlitigation,andwouldpotentiallyrequirethesortofelaborateseparatepenaltyphasesrequiredincapitalcases. 4  ` Justasintheothertwostates,theCaliforniaLegislatureclearlywould 0-(6 nothaveintendedtoeliminateuppertermsentences.Section % 1170statesthatthepurposeofimprisonmentispunishment,andthatthecourtshallsentenceadefendanttooneofthethreepossibleterms.( % 1170,subd.(a)(1),(a)(3).)Removingthepossibilityoftheuppertermwouldresultin anunintendedandundeservedwindfallfordefendantsandisnota viablesolution. 4  ` Theappropriateremedyisalsothesimplestone.EliminatingthepresumptivetermlanguagebestpreservestheessentialelementsofCaliforniassentencingsystem.Underthisreformedprocess,courtscanstillfindandconsideraggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesintheirbroaddiscretion,andstillmustgiveastatementofreasons.AsinNewJersey,asentencemuststillbe reasonable,whichishowthisCourthasalreadycharacterizedoursystem  inBlack.(See F Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1255[statingthatsection % 1170, 0 subdivision(b),requiresthatthedecisiontoimposeanuppertermbereasonable]; Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.869&fn.14[acknowledging 0 CaliforniasrequirementthatasentencebereasonablebutrejectingthisstandardassufficingtovalidateCaliforniaslawbasinganuppertermuponajudgesfindingoffact].)Further,reviewingcourtswillcontinuetoreviewthesedecisionsforabuseofdiscretion. 4  ` ThisCourtshouldadopttheeffectiveandexpeditiousapproachtothe C SixthAmendmentproblemidentifiedinBookerandemployedbytheNew 0!& JerseyandOhioSupremeCourts.CaliforniassentencingsystemcanbebroughtintocompliancewithCunninghambyeliminatingthepresumptive 0$* terms,thusdoingawaywiththerequirementthatajudgemustfindafactinordertoimposeanupperterm.8 4  ` &   26  4  .3  0 44DispositionOfTheCaliforniaRulesOfCourt t0)$0   '0) t 4  ` AsnotedinsectionB.,ante,theCourtinCunninghamfoundthatin 0+&2 conjunctionwithcertainprovisionsofsections % 1170and  1170.3,certainrulesofcourtwereunconstitutionaltotheextentthattheypermittedtheimposition 0.)6 oftheuppertermonlyuponthejudicialfindingofafact.IfthisCourtadoptsrespondentsproposedreformationofthestatutes,thisCourtshouldalsodeclareinvalidtheprovisionsinanyrulesofcourtthatcouldindependentlycauseaCunninghamviolation.Similarly,thisCourtshouldinvalidatetheparts 0  ofanyrulesthatconflictwiththestatutesasreformed.(See  Peoplev.Hall   (1995)8Cal.4th950,959[declaringinvalidaprovisioninformerrule428(b)becauseitconflictedwithsection % 1170,subdivision(b)].)6 r  16  /    ׀Toreiterate,this   reformation:(1)replacesthestatutorylanguagerequiringanaggravatingormitigatingcircumstancetoimposeanuppertermorlowerterm,withlanguageinstructingthesentencingcourttoexerciseitsbroaddiscretioninselectinganyofthreeterms;(2)eliminatestheprovisionstatingthatacourtmustdeterminewhethertherearecircumstancesjustifyinganupperorlowertermwithlanguagesimplystatingthatacourtmustdeterminethechoiceoftheappropriateterm;(3)makesthemiddletermatermrequiringastatementofreasons;(4)eliminatestherequirementthatacourtgiveastatementof factsforimposingaterm;and(5)authorizestheJudicialCounciltoadoptrulesforselectingthemiddletermaswellasfortheupperorlowerterm.(SeeSectionC.1,ante.) 0"  4  ` Anotherpossibledispositiontoconformtherulestothereformedsystem,besidesinvalidatingparticularprovisions,wouldbetorenderalltherulesofcourtadvisory,astheSupremeCourtdidwiththeGuidelinesinBooker.(See ^ Booker,supra,543U.S.atpp.246247.)But,applyingthe 0$* Bookerremedialtest,thisdispositionappearslessappropriatethandeclaring %!, invalidafewprovisionsintherulesbutkeepingthelargemajorityofthemintact.Inthisregard,theBookerCourtfoundthatit mustretainthoseportions ($0 oftheActthatare(1)constitutionallyvalid[citation](2)capableoffunctioning 0*%2 independently[citation]and(3)consistentwithCongressbasicobjectivesinenactingthestatute[citation].(Id.atpp.258259.)TheBookerCourtfurther 0 foundthat [m]ostofthestatuteisperfectlyvalid.(Id.atp.258.)Under  18  U.S.C.A.3553(b)(1),however,itwasmandatoryfor sentencingcourtstoimposeasentencewithintheapplicableGuidelinesrange,whichwaswhythe   BookerCourtfoundthefederalsentencingsystemunconstitutional.( ^ Booker, 0   supra,543U.S.atpp.235,259.)Asaresult,theCourtmadethisprovision   advisoryinsteadofmandatory.(Id.atp.245.) 0   4  ` UnliketheGuidelines,mostoftheCaliforniaRulesofCourtareconstitutionallyvalid,capableoffunctioningindependently,andconsistentwiththeLegislaturesbasicobjectivesinenactingsection % 1170.Theserulesalso havetheforceofstatutetotheextentthattheyarenotinconsistentwithlegislativeenactmentsandconstitutionalprovisions.(  InreRichardS.(1991)  54Cal.3d857,863;seealso D Cal.RulesofCourt,Intro.Statement(adoptedJan.1,1992)[ AlltheCaliforniaRulesofCourthavetheforceoflaw].)Also,theLegislatureintendedfortheserulestobeadoptedto promoteuniformityinsentencingunderSection1170....(  1170.3.)Thus,becausemostoftheapplicableprovisionsoftherulesofcourthavenoconstitutionalinfirmityunderthereformedscheme,theyneednotallberenderedadvisoryjustbecauseafewprovisionsmustbedeemedinvalid. 4  ` RespondentthereforesuggeststhefollowingalterationstocertainprovisionsintherulesofcourtinordertocomplywithCunninghamandthe 0$* statuteasreformed,andprovidesatablereflectingthesechanges.RespondentthenexplainswhythisCourtdoesnotneedtoinvalidatecertainotherprovisionsthattheSupremeCourtcitedinCunningham. ($0 8 4  `  0 44 &   26  a  .3  ԀProvisionsRequiringInvalidation *&2   '* 4  ` ThisCourtshouldinvalidatethesecondsentenceofrule . 4.420(a),essentiallyrestatingthestatutoryprovisionrequiringmandatoryjudicial 0.)6 factfindingtoimposetheupperorlowerterm.Thissentenceofrule . 4.420(a)states: Themiddletermmustbeselectedunlessimpositionoftheupperorlowertermisjustifiedbycircumstancesinaggravationormitigation.(See Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862.)Becausethisprovisionofrule 0   . 4.420(a)iscontrarytoCunninghamandcontrarytotheeliminationofthe   relatedprovisioninreformedsection % 1170,subdivision(b),itshouldbestricken. 4  ` ThisCourtshouldalsodeclareinvalidtheprovisionsinrule . 4.420(b)thatanuppertermisjustifiedonlyuponafindingthataggravatingcircumstancesoutweighmitigatingcircumstances,andthatalowertermisjustifiedonlyuponfindingmitigatingcircumstancesoutweighaggravatingcircumstances.B r  17  /    ׀(See Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.863,fn.9.)Because 0 aggravatingcircumstancesareelsewheredefinedas facts(seerules 9 4.405,(4), . 4.420(b),4.421),E r  18  /    ׀thisstandardfordeterminingtheupperorlowerterm 0 contradictsthereformedstatute,whichnolongerrequiresthefindingofany  aggravatingormitigatingcircumstancetoimposeanupperorlowerterm.Theactualstandardunderthereformedstatuteisthatthetrialcourtshallexerciseits    broaddiscretion,andthisstandardisdifferentthanastandardthattheupperorlowertermbeimposedonlyuponfindingthataggravatingormitigatingcircumstancesoutweightheother.Inaddition,thisstandardconflictswiththereformedschemebecauseittreatstheselectionofupperandlowertermsdifferentlythanthatofmiddleterms.(SeeSectionC.1,ante.)Thus,this   provisionshouldbeinvalidatedascontrarytothestatuteasreformed. 4  ` Thedefinitionsofaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesinrule 9 4.405,parts(4)and(5)shouldalsobeinvalidatedinpart.(See Z Cunningham, 0  supra,127S.Ct.atp.862.)Theseprovisionsprovideinrelevantpart,    AggravationorcircumstancesinaggravationmeansfactsthatjustifytheimpositionoftheupperprisontermreferredtoinPenalCodesection1170(b)and Mitigationorcircumstancesinmitigationmeansfactsthatjustifytheimpositionofthelowerofthreeauthorizedprisonterms....ThereisnoimpedimentunderCunninghamandthereformedschemethatpreventsthetrial 0 courtfromconsideringaggravatingcircumstancesinselectingaterm,noristhereaproblemwiththesecircumstancesbeingconsidered facts,solongasthereisnorequirementthatanysuchfactfindingbemadetoimposetheupper   orlowerterm.Thus,thisCourtshouldinvalidatetheclausesintheseprovisionsrequiringaggravatingormitigatingcircumstancesto justifytheupperorlowerterm,andreplacethemwithclausesdefiningthesetermsasfactsthatthecourtmayconsiderinitsbroaddiscretioninimposingoneofthethreeauthorizedtermsundersection % 1170,subdivision(b).ThesedefinitionswouldthereforecoincideratherthanconflictwiththeCunninghamapprovedstandard %!, ofthereformedstatute. 4  ` ThisCourtshouldalsomodify,inpart,threerulesrequiringastatementofreasonstoimposeanupperorlowerterm,sothattheyconformwithCunninghamandthereformedstatutetorequireastatementofreasonsto +'4 imposeanyofthethreeterms.(SeeSectionC.1,ante;seealso Z Cunningham, 0-(6 supra,127S.Ct.atp.862&fn.6.)Toaccomplishthis,thisCourtshould  modifytheprovisioninrule / 4.406(b)(4)requiringastatementofreasonsfor [s]electingatermotherthanthemiddlestatutorytermforeitheranoffenseoranenhancement,torequireastatementofreasonsfor [s]electingthelower,middle,orupperstatutoryterm....Alikemodificationshouldbemadetorule . 4.420(e),tomodifytheprovisionrequiringastatementof reasonsforselectingtheupperorlowertermtorequireastatementof reasonsforselectingtheupper,middle,orlowerterm....Similarly,astorule V 4.433(c)(1),thisCourtshoulddeletethephrase upperorlowerfromthepresentprovisionrequiringthatacourt stateontherecordthefactsandreasonsforimposingtheupperorlowerterm. 4  ` Rule . 4.420(e)andrule4.443(c)(1)shouldalsobeinvalidatedinpartbecausetheyrequirenotonlyastatementofreasons,buttherecitationoffacts  usedtojustifyanupperterm,whichconflictswithCunninghamandthe 0 reformedstatute.(See Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862.)Underrule   . 4.420(e),thisstatementofreasons mustincludeaconcisestatementoftheultimatefactsthatthecourtdeemedtoconstitutecircumstancesinaggravationormitigationjustifyingthetermselected.(See Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct. 0" atp.862.)Asexplainedabove,inordertocomplywithCunningham,the $ reformedschemewouldnolongerrequireafacttojustifyanupperterm.Thus,thissecondclauseofrule . 4.420(e)shouldbeinvalidated.Inthesamevein,rule Y 4.433(c)(1)presentlyrequiresinpartthatacourt stateontherecordthefactsandreasonsforimposingtheupperorlowerterm.ThisCourtthereforeshoulddeletethewords factsand(inadditiontothewords upperorlowerasdiscussedabove)fromthissubsectioninordertocomplywithCunninghamand ($0 thestatuteasreformed. 4  ` Rule > 4.437(c)(1)onstatementsinaggravationandmitigationshouldalsobeinvalidatedinparttoconformwithCunninghamandthereformedstatute. 0-(6 Rule ? 4.437(c)(1)currentlyprovides, Astatementinaggravationormitigationmustinclude:(1)Asummaryoffactsthatthepartyreliesonascircumstancesinaggravationormitigationjustifyingimpositionoftheupperorlowerterm.Byimplication,rule ? 4.437(c)(1)appearstorequireafacttojustifyanupperorlowerterm.Asaresult,thisruleappearstoconflictwiththestatuteasreformed,whichnolongerrequiresafacttoimposeanupperorlowerterm,andprescribesthesameprocedureforselectingmiddletermsasforselectingupperorlowerterms.(SeeSectionC.1,ante.)Thus,thephraseinrule ? 4.437(c)(1), 0   justifyingimpositionoftheupperorlowerterm,shouldbestricken. 4  ` Rule Y 4.433(b),whichgovernstheprocedureforsuspendingimpositionofsentenceduringaperiodofprobation,shouldbemodifiedinpartbecauseitsuggeststhatanadditionalfindingoffactisrequiredtojustifyanupperorlowerterminthissituation.Thisprovisionprovides:8 4 8` 44 Iftheimpositionofsentenceistobesuspendedduringaperiodofprobationafteraconvictionbytrial,thetrialjudgemustmakefactualfindingsastocircumstancesthatwouldjustifyimpositionoftheupperorlowertermifprobationislaterrevoked,basedonevidenceadmittedatthetrial.ۨ ` x` x TocomplywiththereformedstatuteandCunningham,thephrase thetrial   judgemustmakefactualfindingsshouldbechangedto thetrialjudgemaymakefactualfindings,andthephrase upperorlowertermshouldbechangedto upper,middle,orlowerterm.... 4  ` Rule A 4.452,part(3),whichprovidesthatacourtaggregatingasentencewithasentenceinapreviouscaseshouldnotchangethepreviouscourtsdiscretionarydecisions,shouldbemodifiedinpartbecauseitreferencesthepreviouspresumptionofamiddletermnolongerpresentinthereformedstatute.Inthisregard,itcurrentlystates,inpertinentpart, Suchdecisionsincludethedecisionthatatermotherthanthemiddletermwasjustifiedbycircumstancesinmitigationoraggravation....ToconformwiththereformedstatuteandCunningham,thisphraseshouldbemodifiedtostate, 0.)6  Suchdecisionsincludethedecisiontoimposetheupper,middle,orlowerterm....O 4  ` ThefollowingtablesummarizestheappropriatemodificationstotheCaliforniaRulesofCourt:*xO Pddd!dd!#%  x,dHH , dd , dd +  $   $Rule ' d  'UnderCurrentStatute ' d  'UnderReformedStatute # d   #4.405(4)      Aggravationor circumstancesinaggravationmeansfactsthatjustifytheimpositionoftheupperprisontermreferredtoinPenalCodesection1170(b).     Aggravationor circumstancesinaggravationmeansfactsthatthecourtmayconsiderinitsbroaddiscretioninimposingthebasetermasreferredtoinPenalCodesection1170(b).   4.405(5)  <  Mitigationor circumstancesinmitigationmeansfactsthatjustifytheimpositionofthelowerofthreeauthorizedprisontermsorfactsthatjustifythecourtinstrikingtheadditionalpunishmentforanenhancementwhenthecourthasdiscretiontodoso.  <&  Mitigationor circumstancesinmitigationmeansfactsthatthecourtmayconsiderinitsbroaddiscretioninimposingoneofthreeauthorizedprisontermsorfactsthatjustifythecourtinstrikingtheadditionalpunishmentforanenhancementwhenthecourthasdiscretiontodoso.  < 2 4.406(b)(4)  ! 3 Sentencechoicesthatgenerallyrequireastatementofareasoninclude:[]...[](4)Selectingatermotherthanthemiddlestatutorytermforeitheranoffenseoranenhancement;[]....  ' #: Sentencechoicesthatgenerallyrequireastatementofareasoninclude:[]...[](4)Selectingthelower,middle,orupperstatutorytermforeitheranoffenseoranenhancement;[]....  ' #A   'd)$B  '4.420(a)  d Whenasentenceofimprisonmentisimposed,ortheexecutionofasentenceofimprisonmentisordered suspended,thesentencingjudgemustselecttheupper,middle,orlowertermoneachcountforwhichthedefendanthasbeenconvicted,asprovidedinsection1170(b)andtheserules.Themiddletermmustbeselectedunlessimpositionoftheupperorlowertermisjustifiedbycircumstancesinaggravationormitigation.  d Whenasentenceofimprisonmentisimposed,ortheexecutionofasentenceofimprisonmentisorderedsuspended,thesentencingjudgemustselecttheupper,middle,orlowertermoneachcountforwhichthedefendanthasbeenconvicted,asprovidedinsection1170(b)andtheserules.  d  4.420(b)  < Circumstancesinaggravationandmitigationmustbeestablishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Selectionoftheuppertermisjustifiedonlyif,afteraconsiderationofalltherelevantfacts,thecircumstancesinaggravationoutweighthecircumstancesinmitigation.Therelevantfactsareincludedinthecaserecord,theprobationofficersreport,otherreportsandstatementsproperlyreceived,statementsinaggravationormitigation,andanyfurtherevidenceintroducedatthesentencinghearing.Selectionofthelowertermisjustifiedonlyif,consideringthesamefacts,thecircumstancesinmitigationoutweighthecircumstancesinaggravation.  <.'6 Circumstancesinaggravationandmitigationmustbeestablishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Therelevantfactsareincludedinthecaserecord,theprobationofficersreport,otherreportsandstatementsproperlyreceived,statementsinaggravationormitigation,andanyfurtherevidenceintroducedatthesentencinghearing.  <$D 4.420(e)  d  Thereasonsforselectingtheupperorlowertermmustbestatedorallyontherecord,andmustincludeaconcisestatementoftheultimatefactsthatthecourtdeemedtoconstitutecircumstancesinaggravationormitigationjustifyingthetermselected.  d  Thereasonsforselectingtheupper,middle,orlowertermmustbestatedorallyontherecord.   d 4.433(b)  <  Iftheimpositionofsentenceistobesuspendedduringaperiodofprobationafteraconvictionbytrial,thetrialjudgemustmakefactualfindingsastocircumstancesthatwouldjustifyimpositionoftheupperorlowertermifprobationislaterrevoked,basedonevidenceadmittedatthetrial.  < Iftheimpositionofsentenceistobesuspendedduringaperiodofprobationafteraconvictionbytrial,thetrialjudgemaymakefactualfindingsastocircumstancesthatwouldjustifyimpositionoftheupper,middle,orlowertermifprobationislaterrevoked,basedonevidenceadmittedatthetrial.  <& 4.433(c)(1)  ' Ifasentenceofimprisonmentistobeimposed,oriftheexecutionofasentenceofimprisonmentistobesuspendedduringaperiodofprobation,thesentencingjudgemust:(1)Hearevidenceinaggravationandmitigation,anddetermine,undersection1170(b),whethertoimposetheupper,middle,orlowerterm;andstateontherecordthefactsandreasonsforimposingtheupperorlowerterm.  *$6 Ifasentenceofimprisonmentistobeimposed,oriftheexecutionofasentenceofimprisonmentistobesuspendedduringaperiodofprobation,thesentencingjudgemust:(1)Hearevidenceinaggravationandmitigation,anddetermine,undersection1170(b),whethertoimposetheupper,middle,orlowerterm;andstateontherecordthereasonsforimposingtheterm.  +%F   'd- 'G  'O4.437(c)(1)  d Astatementinaggravationormitigationmustinclude:(1)Asummaryoffactsthatthepartyreliesonascircumstancesinaggravationormitigationjustifyingimpositionoftheupperorlowerterm;....   d  Astatementinaggravationormitigationmustinclude:(1)Asummaryoffactsthatthepartyreliesonascircumstancesinaggravationormitigation;....   d 4.452(3)  < Ifadeterminatesentenceisimposedundersection1170.1(a)consecutivetooneormoredeterminatesentencesimposedpreviouslyinthesamecourtorinothercourts,thecourtinthecurrentcasemustpronounceasingleaggregateterm,asdefinedinsection1170.1(a),statingtheresultofcombiningthepreviousandcurrentsentences.Inthosesituations:[]...[](3)Discretionarydecisionsofthejudgesinthepreviouscasesmaynotbechangedbythejudgeinthecurrentcase.Suchdecisionsincludethedecisionthatatermotherthanthemiddletermwasjustifiedbycircumstancesinmitigationoraggravation,makingcountsinpriorcasesconcurrentwithorconsecutivetoeachother,orthedecisionthatcircumstancesinmitigationorinthefurtheranceofjusticejustifiedstrikingthepunishmentforanenhancement.  <.'1 Ifadeterminatesentenceisimposedundersection1170.1(a)consecutivetooneormoredeterminatesentencesimposedpreviouslyinthesamecourtorinothercourts,thecourtinthecurrentcasemustpronounceasingleaggregateterm,asdefinedinsection1170.1(a),statingtheresultofcombiningthepreviousandcurrentsentences.Inthosesituations:[]...[](3)Discretionarydecisionsofthejudgesinthepreviouscasesmaynotbechangedbythejudgeinthecurrentcase.Suchdecisionsincludethedecisiontoimposetheupper,middle,orlowerterm,makingcountsinpriorcasesconcurrentwithorconsecutivetoeachother,orthedecisionthatcircumstancesinmitigationorinthefurtheranceofjusticejustifiedstrikingthepunishmentforan enhancement.  <,%O Ї 8 4  `  0 44 &   26  b  .3  ԀProvisionsNotRequiringInvalidation ,   '  4  ` ThisCourtshouldnotinvalidatetheprovisionofrule . 4.420(b)requiringaggravatingcircumstancestobeestablishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Itistruethatthisprovisionisunconstitutionalinconjunctionwiththerequirementofanaggravatingcircumstancetoimposeanupperterm.(See 0   Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862,868.)Butunderthereformedsystem,    anuppertermnolongerneedstobebasedonanaggravatingcircumstance;instead,itmaybebasedonreasonsthatdonotincludefacts,suchaspolicyjudgmentsbasedonanassessmentofthesentencingobjectivesenunciatedinrule < 4.410.(SeesectionC.1,ante.)Thus,sincethestatutesasreformeddonot  requirethefindingofanaggravatingcircumstancetoimposeanupperterm, 0 thereisneitheranimpedimentunderCunninghamnoraconflictwiththe  reformedstatutestorequirethatafactualfinding,ifmade,beestablishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence. 4  ` ThisCourtalsoshouldnotinvalidatetheprovisioninrule . 4.420(d)specifying, Afactthatisanelementofthecrimemaynotbeusedtoimposetheupperterm.InCunningham,theCourtfoundthatbecauseanaggravating 0  circumstancewasafactthathadtobejudiciallyfoundinordertoimposeanupperterm,andbecausethisfactcouldnotbeanelementoftheoffenseunderstatelaw,ajudgehadtofindafactnotfoundbythejuryinordertoimposeanupperterm.(See Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.862,868;seealso 0#(  e Blakely,supra,542U.S.atpp.303,305,fn.8.)Butunderthereformedstatute, $ * thereisnoconcernunderCunninghamaboutthisrule,becausethereisno 0&!, longerarequirementofanaggravatingcircumstance/facttoimposetheupperterm.Rather,aggravatingcircumstancescansimplybefoundandconsideredbytrialcourtsintheexerciseoftheirbroaddiscretion.Therefore,therulelimitingaggravatingcircumstancesforconsiderationtothosethatarenotelementsofacrimeposesnoconstitutionalproblemorconflictwiththestatute -)6 asreformed. 4  ` ThereisnoneedforthisCourttostriketheprovisioninrule / 4.406(a)statingthatingivingastatementofreasons, thejudgemuststateinsimplelanguagetheprimaryfactororfactorsthatsupporttheexerciseofdiscretion.Instead,underthisrule,thisCourtshouldinterpreta factorasbeinga reasonratherthana fact.ItappearsthatneitherthisCourtnoralowerappellatecourthasdefinedtheterm factororfactorsinthisruleasbeingakintoreasons,tofacts,ortoacombinationofthetwo.However,thetermisintheruleunderthesubjectheading Reasons.Furthermore,theruleisageneralonemeanttoprovideforstatementsofreasonsinawidevarietyofcontexts,manyormostofwhichdonotcontainanyfactfindingrequirement.Therulealsoprovidesthatthis statementneednotbeinthelanguageoftheserules,alsoindicatingthatthestatementofreasonsneednotrecitecircumstancesinaggravationormitigation,i.e.,facts.Thus,thisCourtshouldconstruetheterminthisruleasreferringsolelytoreasons,notfacts.Withsuchaconstruction,thereisnoconflictwithCunninghamorthereformedstatutoryschemeinthat 0 thereisnorequirementthatacourtstateafacttoimposetheupperterm.Withaconstructionthat factororfactorsmeansornecessarilyincludes factorfacts,ontheotherhand,thisprovisionofrule / 4.406(a)wouldhavetobeinvalidatedascontradictingtheeliminationofthestatutoryrequirementthatacourtstateontherecordthefactssupportinganupperterm. 4  ` Finally,the nonexhaustivelistofaggravatingcircumstancesinrule F 4.421shouldnotbeinvalidatedbecauseitdoesnotviolateCunninghamunder %!, thestatutesasreformed.(Seealsorule4.408(a).)Althoughthisrulegivesexamplesof factsconstitutingaggravatingcircumstances,itdoesnotbyitselfrequirethejudge tostartwiththemiddleterm,andtomovefromthattermonlywhenthecourtitselffindsandplacesontherecordfactswhetherrelatedtotheoffenseortheoffenderbeyondtheelementsofthechargedoffense. 0-(6 ( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862.)Since,underthereformedstatute,  itisnolongertruethat anuppertermsentencemaybeimposedonlywhenthetrialjudgefindsanaggravatingcircumstance(id.atp.868),theseillustrative  rulesonaggravatingcircumstancesdonotviolateCunningham. 0  8 4  ` &   26  5  .3  0 44AsInBooker,ThisReformationShouldApplyToAny 0  SentencingAndResentencingHearingOccurringAfterThisCourtsDecision 0     '0 y 4  ` Thisreformationshouldapplytoallappealsondirectreviewwherethereviewingcourtconcludesthatthereisunforfeited,prejudicialCunningham   error.Bookerapplieditsreformationremedytoallcasescurrentlyonappealas 0  wellasfuturesentencings.( ^ Booker,supra,543U.S.at268,citing  Griffithv.  Kentucky(1987)479U.S.314,328[107S.Ct.708,93L.Ed.2d649].)Further, 0 theBookerCourtadmonishedthatthefederalappellatecourt,beforeordering  anewsentencinghearing,shouldapply ordinaryprudentialdoctrinessuchasforfeitureandharmlesserror.( ^ Booker,supra,125S.Ct.atp.769.)ThisCourt  shouldfollowtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtssensibleleadonthispoint. 4  ` Thus,thisCourtshoulddeclarethatbeforeorderingaremandforresentencingunderthereformedsystem,thereviewingcourtshoulddeterminewhetheranygroundexiststoaffirmthesentencebyapplyingsuchdoctrinesasforfeiture,therecidivismexception,andharmlesserror.Thisresentencinghearingshouldbe basedontheoriginalsentencingrecord,asnothinginthesystemasreformedwarrantstheintroductionofnewevidenceoradditionalfactualfindings.(See  Natale,supra,878A.2datp.745;butsee  Foster,supra, %!* 845N.E.2datp.499[underthejudiciallymodifiedsystem, thedefendantsareentitledtoanewsentencinghearing,althoughthepartiesmaystipulatetothe ($. sentencingcourtsactingontherecordbeforeit,italicsadded].) 4  ` Contrarytoappellantscontention(ABM4043),thereisnostateorfederaldoublejeopardyimpedimenttoremandingforresentencing."Whena 0-(4 defendantsuccessfullyappealsacriminalconviction,California'sconstitutionalprohibitionagainstdoublejeopardyprecludestheimpositionofmoreseverepunishmentonresentencing."(  Peoplev.Hanson(2000)23Cal.4th355,357.)  Butthepunishmentonresentencingwouldnotbemoreseverewhereadefendantreceivedanuppertermonremandforresentencingafterreceivinganuppertermintheoriginalsentencinghearing.Further,doublejeopardyisalsonotaconcernunderthefederalConstitutionbecausethereisno secondprosecution,inasmuchasappellanthasneverbeenacquittedoftheaggravatingfactorssupportinghissentence.(See  Hankersonv.State(Minn.2006)723   N.W.2d232,236241;  Statev.Sawatzky(Ore.2005)125P.3d722,724727; 0  seegenerally  Sattazahnv.Pennsylvania(2003)537U.S.101,106[123S.Ct.  732,154L.Ed.2d588](pluralityopinion).)Infact,appellanthasneverbeenplacedin jeopardyontheaggravatingcircumstances,sincehewasneitherchargedwithnortriedontheaggravatingcircumstancesunderourpreCunninghamsentencingsystem.Andunlikein  Peoplev.Seel(2004)34  Cal.4th535,541542,alsorelieduponbyappellant,therehasbeenno acquittalbasedonareviewingcourtsfindingofinsufficientevidencesupportingafactusedtoimposethesentence.Appellantsanalogytoconvictionofalesserincludedoffenseisinapt,sinceany greateroffensewasneverproperlybeforethejury.Thesituationismoreanalogoustoafailuretoinstructastoanelementofanoffense,inwhichsituationretrialonthefulloffenseisnotbarred.(See  Lockhartv.Nelson(1988)488U.S.33,38[109 0$* S.Ct.205,102L.Ed.2d265].)Inanyevent,althoughthetrialcourtfoundappellanthadnopriorrecordinthiscase,recidivistcircumstancespresentinothercaseswouldbeexemptfromthedoublejeopardyruleevenifapriorjury ($0 hadalreadydecidedthem.(See  Mongev.California(1998)524U.S.721,734 0*%2 [118S.Ct.2246,141L.Ed.2d615].) 4  ` Appellantfurthercontendsthatdueprocessprohibitsretrialonthe 0-(6 existenceofaggravatingfactsonthebasisof prosecutorialwaiver.(ABM4346.)Citing  Peoplev.Najera(1972)8Cal.3d504,shespecificallyasserts 0 that fundamentalfairnessprohibitsretrialbecausethe prosecutionmadenoefforttoallegetheexistenceoffactsinaggravation,madenoefforttoaskthatthejurybeinstructedonuppertermaggravatingfactsanddidnotrequestanyverdictsonanyaggravatingfacts.(ABM46.)Appellantisincorrect.P r  19  /    ׀As 0   explainedabove,reformation,notasecondjurytrial,isthemostappropriateremedy,sotheprosecutionsfailuretorequestajurytrialisbesidethepoint.Q r  20  /     0   4  ` TosummarizerespondentsproposedremedyoftheconstitutionalinfirmityidentifiedinCunningham,thisCourtshouldreformtherelevant 0  statutoryprovisionstoeliminatetherequirementofafacttoimposeanupperorlowerterm.ThisCourtshouldalsoinvalidateonlythoseprovisionsintheCaliforniaRulesofCourtthatconflictwiththisreformationorCunningham.  ThisCourtshouldfurtherdirectthatacourtreviewingapreCunninghamupper  termshoulddeterminewhethertheparticularsentenceneedstobereversed,underdoctrinessuchasforfeiture,therecidivismexception,andharmlesserror.Ifthereviewingcourtdecidesthatthereisunforfeited,prejudicialCunningham 0  error,itshouldremandforresentencingunderthereformedsystem.ThisreformationremedyisresponsivetotheSupremeCourtsmandateandfaithfultotheLegislaturesintent.& ~    26  II  .3       8 4 8` 44APPELLANTISNOTENTITLEDTORELIEFUNDERCUNNINGHAM  B  .C  '~0 ` x` x 8 4  &  26  A  .3  0` 44Background |.~` `  '. 4  ` Atsentencing,onDecember1,2005,theprosecutornotedthat,while .~ appellantandRomerodidnotthemselvesshootthevictims,theybroughttheshootersbacktothebar,anticipatingviolence.AppellantandRomerowerenotsimplycaughtupintheevents.(10RT21222123.)Twojurorsspokeatthesentencinghearingtoaskforleniencyinappellantssentence.(10RT21302133.)Theprosecutorarguedthatthemaximumsentenceinthiscase!consecutivetermsof11yearsoncount1,twoyears(onethirdthemidterm)oncount2,andoneyearandfourmonthsoncount3V r  21  /    ׀!didnotinanywayshock  # theconscience.Heagainnotedthatappellantwasabsolutelyresponsibleforthedeathsoftwovictimsandtheshootingofathird.(10RT21382139.) 4  ` Defensecounselarguedthatthemitigatingfactorsoutweighedtheaggravatingfactors.Specifically,hemaintainedthatappellanthadnopriorcriminalrecord,shevoluntarilyacknowledgedherwrongdoingatanearlystateoftheproceeding,andshedidnotparticipateinthehighdegreeofviciousness )$/ inthiscrime.Further,defensecounselstatedthatappellantsearliervictimizationatthebarresultedinherreducedmentalandphysicalabilities.HealsoarguedthatthejurydidnotintendforappellantandRomero,whowasconvictedonlyofinvoluntarymanslaughter,toservesuchdisproportionatepenalties.(10RT21432147.) 4  ` Thetrialcourtdeniedprobationandsentencedappellantasfollows:8 4 TheCourtfindsthefollowingfactorsinaggravation:itisacrimeinvolvingagreatamountofviolence.Thiswasalsoincrediblycallousbehavior.[Appellant]hadnoconcernabouttheconsequencesofheraction.Thevictimswereparticularlyvulnerableinthattheywereunarmed,eachofthem,andastotheDerciobrothers,thattheyweretakenbysurprisebyambushfrombehind.Theywereinebriated,unabletodefendthemselves. 44 8 4  ` Clearly[appellant]alsowasthemotivatingforcebehindtheseactions.Heractionsshowedplanning,premeditationwhichIvealreadymentioned,specificallyhowthebarwasapproached,wherethecarwasparked. 44 8 4  ` TheCourtfindsthefollowingfactorsinmitigation:shehadnopriorcriminal[sic].Shedidgiveastatementtothepoliceearlyduringthe  courseoftheinvestigation. 44 8 4  ` TheCourtfindsthatthefactorsinaggravationsubstantiallyoutweighthefactorsinmitigation.TheCourtwillimposethehightermof11years.Inadditionandconsecutiveastocount2,theCourtwillimposethemidterm!excuseme,onehalfthemidtermwhichistwoyears.Thereasonforthatisthatthisisaseparateactofviolence,separatefromthekillinginthefrontofthebarwhichwascount1. 44 8 4  ` Inadditionandconsecutivefortheattemptedvoluntarymanslaughteroncount3,anadditional18monthswhichisonehalfthemidterm.Thisisconsecutivebecausethereisanindividualvictimwhocontinuestothisdaytosuffertheconsequencesof[appellants]action,foratotalstateprisonsentenceof14yearsandsixmonths. 44 (10RT21512153.)Defensecounseldidnotobjecttoappellantssentenceon 0+&* Blakelygrounds. ,(,  -)- 8 4  &  26  B  .3  0` 44AppellantForfeitedTheInstantClaims  ` `  ' 4  ` Unlikeappellant,thedefendantsinApprendiandBlakelyobjectedwhen  thecourtimposedtheirsentences.(10RT21512153 ;  e Blakely,supra,542U.S. 0 atp.300; m Apprendi,supra,530U.S.atpp.470471.)R r  22  /    ׀Respondentsubmits   thatappellantsfailuretoobjecttohissentence,letaloneraiseanobjectiononfederalconstitutionalgrounds,forfeitedhispresentclaimoferror.8 4 NoproceduralprincipleismorefamiliartothisCourtthanthataconstitutionalright,orarightofanyothersort,maybeforfeitedincriminalaswellascivilcasesbythefailuretomaketimelyassertionoftherightbeforeatribunalhavingjurisdictiontodetermineit.r 44 (  Peoplev.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580,590,quoting  UnitedStatesv.Oano  (1993)507U.S.725,731[113S.Ct.1770,123L.Ed.2d508],internalquotationmarksomitted.)Further,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasupheldastatecourtsfindingofforfeitureastoadueprocessclaimassertingthefailuretohaveajurydeterminethetruthofanelementofacrime.(  Osbornev.Ohio  (1990)495U.S.103,122123[110S.Ct.1691,109L.Ed.2d98].)Additionally,theCourtinBookerindicatedthatforfeitureisadoctrinethata  federalappellatecourtshouldapplyinresolvingaclaimthatafederalguidelinessentenceviolatesthe C SixthAmendment.( ^ Booker,supra,543U.S. ! atp.268.) 4  ` CourtsofappealhaveappliedthisdoctrinetoaBlakelychallengetoan !% uppertermsentence,andtoanApprendichallengetoasexoffenderregistration 6#' requirement.(  Peoplev.Hill(2005)131Cal.App.4th1089,1103[Blakelyclaim $ ) forfeitedbyfailuretoobjectatsentencing];  Peoplev.Marchand(2002)98 6&!+ Cal.App.4th1056,10601061[Apprendiclaimforfeitedbyfailuretoobjectat '#- sentencing];butsee  Peoplev.Cleveland(2001)87Cal.App.4th263,268,fn. 6)$/ 2[rejectingargumentthatApprendichallengetosection654sentencewas  barredbyfailuretoobjectbecauseApprendiwasdecidedafterthesentencing 0 hearingandsection654claimsaregenerallyreviewableabsentafailuretoobject].)Thus,appellantforfeitedhisclaimsbyfailingtoobjecttohissentenceonthefederalconstitutionalgroundthathenowpresentsonappeal. 4  ` WhilethisCourtinSaundersindicatedindictathattheconstitutional 0   righttoajurytrialcannotbeforfeitedbythefailuretoobject(  Saunders,supra,   5Cal.4thatp.589,fn.5,citing  Peoplev.Holmes(1960)54Cal.2d442,443 0  444),thisCourthasnotsoheldinthecontextofApprendierror.Thelatter   contextisaparadigmaticcaseoftrialerror,ratherthanstructuralerror,forwhichtheforfeitureruleshouldapply.(See  Washingtonv.Recuenco(2006)  548U.S.___[126S.Ct.2546,2553,165L.Ed.2d2546][Blakelyerrorcanbe 0 harmless];  Peoplev.Sengpadychith(2001)26Cal.4th316,327[Apprendierror  canbeharmless].) 4  ` TheCourtofAppealruledthatbecauseBlackwasdecidedbefore  appellantssentencinghearing,itwouldhavebeenfutiletoobject.(Opn.atp.10,fn.6.)ButBlackhasneverbeenfinaland,infact,hasnowbeenremanded   tothisCourtforreconsiderationinlightofCunningham.Further,afterBlack, 0" manyotherdefendantspreservedthesameBlakelyclaimsintheCalifornia $ CourtofAppeal,inthisCourt,andintheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,andmanyofthesedefendantswillnowgetreviewoftheseissuesunderCunningham.Also,manyotherdefendantscontinuedtogiveBlakelyguilty 0$* pleawaiversorobjectedtotheirsentencesunderBlakelybecausetheparties %!, understoodthatthelawinthisareawasstillunsettledafterBlack.Inbetween 0'". thedecisionsinBlackandCunningham,evenappellantraisedhisupperterm ($0 andconsecutivesentencingBlakelyclaimsintheCourtofAppeal.Thereisno 0*%2 reasonforhimnottohavealsodonesointhetrialcourt. 4  ` Itistrue,astheCourtofAppealnoted,thatatsentencing,theSupreme 0-(6 CourthadnotyetgrantedcertiorariinCunninghamandthattrialcourtswere  boundtofollowBlack.ButtheuppertermquestioninBlackwasanimportant 0 federalconstitutionalissuecausingaconflictamongstatesupremecourts,makingitripeforhighcourtreview.DefendantsthereforehadastrongchanceofultimatelyprevailingonthisissueeveninfederalcourtafterBlack.(Cf.     Englev.Isaac(1982)456U.S.107,130[102S.Ct.1558,71L.Ed.2d783][a 0   forfeitedfederalconstitutionalclaimisprocedurallybarredonfederalhabeasevenwherethestatecourtspreviouslyrejectedthesameclaiminothercases,for [i]fadefendantperceivesaconstitutionalclaimandbelievesitmayfindfavorinthefederalcourts,hemaynotbypassthestatecourtssimplybecausehethinkstheywillbeunsympathetictotheclaim].) 4  ` Similarly,althoughdefendantsacrossthenationhavehadlittlesuccessarguingBlakelyappliestoconsecutivesentencing(butsee  PersonalRestraint  ofVanDelft(Wash.2006)147P.3d573,578579;Statev.  Foster(Ohio2006) 0 845N.E.2d470,490491),theissuewashotlydebated,andtheSupremeCourtpreviouslyaskedforresponsestopetitionsforwritsofcertiorarionthisissueinatleasttwocases(Swansonv.California(066539)andSmyliev.Indiana   (0410472)),demonstratingahigherlevelofinterest.(See 0" http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/blakely_in_the_st $ ates(Aug.26,2005)( IsSCOTUSinterestedintheconsecutivesentencingBlakelyissue).]Thus,itcannotbefairlysaidthatthechangeinthelaw "( wroughtbyCunninghamcouldnothavebeenanticipatedandwaswholly 0$* unforeseen. 4  ` Injustifyingitsruling,theCourtofAppealcited  Peoplev.Abbaszadeh 0'". (2003)106Cal.App.4th642.InAbbaszadeh,theappellatecourtfoundthatan ($0 objectiontothejudgeserrorduringvoirdirewouldhavebeenfutile.(Id.at 0*%2 p.648.)Thecourtbaseditsfindingonthefactsthat:(1)thetrialcourtfailedtofollowexistinglawbytellingthejurors,forthesecondtimeduringjuryvoir 0-(6 dire,thatiftheyharboredracialbias,theyshouldlietobeexcusedfromthejury;(2)theprosecutorwasequallyatfaultforfailingtoobjecttothecourtserroneousinstruction;(3)andthestructuralerrorrenderedthedefendantstrialfundamentallyunfair.(Id.atpp.648649,citingPeoplev.Mello(2002)97 0  Cal.App.4th511,513519.) 4  ` Abbaszadehisdistinguishable.Here,appellantneveraskedthatajury 0   determinethetruthofthesentencingfactorsbeyondareasonabledoubt.Also,theprosecutordidnothavetherighttomakesucharequestbecausethoserightsbelongedtoappellant,nottheprosecutor;therefore,theprosecutorsharednofaultinfailingtoraiseanobjectionatsentencing.Furthermore,asnotedabove,Apprendierror,unliketheerroraddressedinAbbaszadeh,doesnot  constitutestructuralerror,andthegeneralforfeitureruleapplies.Accordingly,appellantsclaimsareforfeited.8 4  &  26  C  .3  0` 44ThisCourtCorrectlyDeterminedInBlackThatCalifornias  ConsecutiveSentencingSystemDoesNotViolateTheSixthAmendment 3` `  '3 4  ` Appellantcontendsthatthetrialcourtsimpositionofconsecutivesentencesincounts2and3violatedCunninghambecausethedecisionwas 0  basedonafactnotfoundbyajury.(ABM1823.)AppellantiswrongbecauseconsecutivesentencingdecisionsdonotimplicateCunningham,and,moreover, 0!$ becausethereisnopresumptionofconcurrentsentences,orforthatmatter,anyrequirementofjudicialfactfindingtoconsecutivelysentence.8 4  ` &   26  1  .3  0 44Black 70&!*   '0&~7 4  ` Fortwoindependentreasons,thisCourtinBlackheldthatBlakelydid 0(#, notimplicateoursystemfordeterminingwhethersentencesshouldrunconsecutivelyorconcurrently.( F Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1264.)First,this 0+&0 CourtresteditsholdingonthepresenceofdiscretioninCaliforniasconsecutivesentencingprocedure.(Id.atp.1262.)Because,undersection 0.)4   669,acourthasdiscretionwhethertoimposeconsecutiveorconcurrentsentences,anyjudicialfactfindinginexercisingthisdiscretiondoesnotviolateadefendantsBlakelyrights.(Id.atp.1262,quoting  Harrisv.UnitedStates  (2002)536U.S.545,558[122S.Ct.2406,153L.Ed.2d524].) 4  ` ThesecondbasisforthisCourtsholdingwasmorecategorical.ThisCourtreasonedthattheApprendilineofcasesdoesnotapplytoconsecutive 0   sentencinggenerallybecausethesecases areintendedtoprotectthedefendantshistoricalrighttojurytrialonallelementsofthecrime,and [n]osuchdangeriscreatedbyastatutethatpermitsjudgestodecidewhethertoimposeconsecutivesentenceswithoutjuryfactfinding.(Id.atp.1263.)These 0  casesdonotprohibit factualdeterminationsthatdonotserveasthefunctionalequivalentofanelementofacrime,andApprendiitselffoundthesentences 0 onothercounts irrelevanttothedeterminationofthestatutorymaximum.(Id.  atp.1263&fn.18,citing m Apprendi,supra,530U.S.atp.474.)Comparingthe 0 consecutive/concurrentdecisiontothedecisionwhethertostayoneoftwosentencesundersection654,thisCourtheldthatthesewere decisionsmadebythejudgeafterthejuryhasmadethefactualfindingsnecessarytosubjectthedefendanttothestatutorymaximumsentenceoneachoffense,andneitherimplicatesthedefendantsrighttoajurytrialonfactsthatarethefunctionalequivalentofelementsofanoffense.(Id.atp.1264.) 0!& 8 4  ` &   26  2  .3  0 44CunninghamDoesNotImpactThisCourtsConclusionThat 0#( ConsecutiveSentencingDoesNotImplicateTheRightToJuryTrial A0% *   '0#A 4  ` CunninghamrejectedtheCaliforniaSupremeCourtsopinioninBlack 0'", onlyontheissueofuppertermsentencing.NoconsecutivesentencingissuewasraisedinCunningham!nordidthecaseeveninvolvemultiplesentences. 0*%0 NordoesanylanguageinCunninghamsuggesttheCourtwouldintendtoapply +'2 itsholdingtoadecisionofhowajudgeaggregatesthepunishmentformultiple 0-(4 offenses.ThisCourtsreasoningonthisissueremainssound. 4  ` Apprendi,Blakely,andCunninghamdonotapplytotheimpositionof 0 consecutivesentences.Thesecaseswereconcernedwiththefindingofafact thatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutory 0  maximum.( Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.864,italicsadded; e Blakely,   supra,542U.S.atp.301,italicsadded; m Apprendi,supra,530U.S.atp.490, 0   italicsadded.)Apprendiitselfexplainedthattheonlyrelevantissueisthe   sentenceforasingleparticularcrime,nottheaggregateeffectofthedefendantsmultiplesentences.( m Apprendi,supra,530U.S.atp.474,citedin    F Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1263,fn.18.)Thus,aslongasthesentencefor 0  eachcountiswithinthestatutorymaximumforthatconviction,Apprendi,  Blakely,andCunninghamdonotforbidconsecutivelysentencingonmultiple 0 counts. 4  ` Solelyonthissameground,atleastsixotherstatesupremecourtshavealsofoundthattheApprendilineofcasesdoesnotimpacttheirconsecutive  sentencinglaws.(  Statev.Kahapea(Haw.2006)141P.3d440,452;  Statev. 0 Cubias(Wash.2005)120P.3d929,932933;  Statev.Higgins(N.H.2003)821   A.2d964,975976;  Statev.Bramlett(Kan.2002)41P.3d796,797798;  Hall 0" v.State(Fla.2002)823So.2d757,764;  Peoplev.Wagener(Ill.2001)752 $ N.E.2d430,440443.)AllthefederalcircuitsconsideringtheissuehavealsorejectedApprendichallengestoconsecutivesentencingunderthissame "( reasoning.(  UnitedStatesv.Hicks(5thCir.2004)389F.3d514,532;  United 0$* Statesv.Pressley(11thCir.2003)345F.3d1205,1213;  UnitedStatesv. %!, Harrison(8thCir.2003)340F.3d497,500;  UnitedStatesv.Lafayette(D.C. 0'". Cir.2003)337F.3d1043,10491050; w UnitedStatesv.Hernandez(7thCir. ($0 2003)330F.3d964,982;  UnitedStatesv.Chorin(3rdCir.2003)322F.3d274, 0*%2 278279;  UnitedStatesv.Lott(10thCir.2002)310F.3d1231,12421243; +'4   UnitedStatesv.Buckland(9thCir.2002)289F.3d558,570-571(enbanc); 0-(6   UnitedStatesv.Campbell(6thCir.2002)279F.3d392,401-402;  UnitedStates  v.Feola(2dCir.2001)275F.3d216,220&n.1.) r  23  /    ׀TheCaliforniaCourtof 0 Appealalsohasreachedthesameconclusionforthesamereason.(  Peoplev.  Groves(2003)107Cal.App.4th1227,1230-1231.)Cunninghamdidnotalter 0  theanalysissetoutinBlackandtheseothercases.Accordingly,appellants   constitutionalchallengetotheimpositionofconsecutivesentencesiswithoutmerit.8 4  ` &   26  3  .3  0 44CunninghamIsAlsoSatisfiedBecauseThereIsNo   PresumptionOfConcurrentSentencingAndNoRequirementThatACourtFindAnAdditionalFactBeforeChoosingAConsecutiveSentence S   '@S 4  ` EvenifaconsecutivesentencingprocedurecouldimplicateCunningham,Californiasconsecutivesentencingproceduredoesnot.In 0 Black,asindicatedabove,thisCourtcompareditsfirstbasisforrejectingthe  consecutivesentencingclaimtoitsreasoningontheuppertermissue,stating:8 4 Thesamereasoningthatleadsustoconcludethatajurytrialisnotrequiredontheaggravatingfactorsthatjustifyimpositionoftheuppertermleadsustoconcludethatajurytrialisnotrequiredontheaggravatingfactorsthatjustifyimpositionofconsecutivesentences.Undersection669,thejudgehasdiscretiontodeterminewhethertoimposesentencesconsecutivelyorconcurrently. Judicialfactfindinginthecourseofselectingasentencewithintheauthorizedrangedoesnotimplicatetheindictment,jury-trial,andreasonable-doubtcomponentsoftheFifthandSixthAmendments.(Harrisv.United "# States,supra,536U.S.atp.558,122S.Ct.2406.)V#$44 ( F Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1262.)AlthoughtheCunninghamCourt 0% & disagreedwiththisCourtsreasoningontheuppertermissuebecauseafactisrequiredtoimposeanuppertermsentence,thatdisagreementcouldnotbeapplicabletoconsecutivesentencinglawinCalifornia,becausethislawcarriesnopresumptionofconcurrentsentencingandrequiresnoadditionalfactualfindingtoimposeaconsecutivesentence.(See  669;  Peoplev.Reeder(1984)   152Cal.App.3d900,923.)Thus,acourtsdiscretionarydecisiontoimposeaconsecutivesentenceundersection  669doesnotimplicatethe C SixthAmendmentconcernsinCunningham. 0   4  ` Inthiscase,thetrialcourtimposedaconsecutivesentenceoftwoyears,onethirdthemidterm,astothevoluntarymanslaughterincount2,andaconsecutivesentenceof18months,onehalfthemidterm,S r  24  /    ׀astotheattempted  voluntarymanslaughterincount3.(10RT21522153;1CT290292.)TheapplicationofCaliforniaconsecutivesentencinglawtothissentencingchoicedidnotimplicateCunningham. 0  4  ` TounderstandwhyCunninghamisnotimplicated,itisusefulfirstto  reviewconsecutivesentencinglaw.Atrialcourtatsentencingisempoweredto directwhetherthetermsofimprisonmentoranyofthem...shallrunconcurrentlyorconsecutively.(  669; F Black,supra,35Cal.4thatpp.1261 0" 1262.)Undersection % 1170,subdivision(c),atrialcourtmuststatereasonsforthedecisionwhethertoimposeconsecutivesentencesonadeterminateterm.( F Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1262&fn.17.)Thetrialcourtsdecisionwill "( beoverturnedonappealonlyiftherewasaclearabuseofdiscretion.(  People 0$* v.Giminez(1975)14Cal.3d68,71.)AsthisCourthasexplainedinthis %!, context,8 4 [D]iscretionisabusedwheneverthecourtexceedstheboundsofreason,allofthecircumstancesbeingconsidered.[Citation.]However,intheabsenceofaclearshowingthatitssentencingdecisionwasarbitraryor *&2 irrational,atrialcourtshouldbepresumedtohaveactedtoachievelegitimatesentencingobjectivesand,accordingly,itsdiscretionarydeterminationtoimposeconsecutivesentencesoughtnotbesetasideonreview.b 44 (Id.atp.72.)Toguidethisdecision,rule H 4.425setsforthsomenonexclusive 0   criteriaaffectingconcurrentorconsecutivesentences,includingthatthecrimeswerepredominantlyindependentofeachother,involvedseparateactsofviolenceorthreatsofviolence,orwerecommittedatdifferenttimesorseparateplaces.(See F Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1262.) 0   4  ` Turningtothe C SixthAmendmentanalysisoftheseconsecutivesentencingprovisions,Cunninghamappliesonlywhereastatutorysentencing 0  schemepreconditionsthecourtsexerciseofdiscretionontheexistenceofafactbeyondthosereflectedineitherthejurysverdictorthedefendantsadmission.(See Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.868871.)Appellant  arguesthatundersection  669,thereisapresumptionfavoringconcurrenttermsandthecourtmaydeviatefromthatpresumptiononlyuponthefindingofsomeadditionalfact.(ABM20.)Thisargumentisunpersuasive,however,fortwoindependentreasons. 4  ` First,thereisnosuchpresumptionfavoringconcurrentterms.Thelastsentenceofsection  669states, Uponthefailureofthecourttodeterminehowthetermsofimprisonmentonthesecondorsubsequentjudgmentshallrun,thetermofimprisonmentonthesecondorsubsequentjudgmentshallrunconcurrently.Butthislanguagedoesnotcreateapresumptionfavoringconcurrentterms.Instead,itisagapfillerforthoserareinstanceswhereacourtfailstoproperlyindicatewhetherasentenceistobeconsecutiveorconcurrent.Indeed,astheCourtofAppealexplained,inPeoplev.Reeder: ($/ 8 4 Whilethereisastatutorypresumptioninfavorofthemiddletermasthesentencefortheoffense[citation],thereisnocomparablestatutorypresumptioninfavorofconcurrentratherthanconsecutivesentencesformultipleoffensesexceptwhereconsecutivesentencingisstatutorilyrequired.Thetrialcourtisrequiredtodeterminewhetherasentence 0.)5 shallbeconsecutiveorconcurrentbutisnotrequiredtopresumeinfavorofconcurrentsentencing.$l 44 (  Reeder,supra,152Cal.App.3datp.923;seealso  Peoplev.Lepe(1987)195 0 Cal.App.3d1347,1351[ thesentencingcourtsdecisiontoimposeconcurrentorconsecutivetermsisdiscretionaryandnotmandatory.(669)].)Becausethereisnopresumptioninfavorofconcurrentterms,adefendanthasnolegalrighttoconcurrentsentencing,andCunninghamcannotbeimplicatedby 0   consecutivesentencing. 4  ` Second,thereisnostatutoryrequirementthatthecourtmakeanyfindingsoffactbeforeimposingconsecutivesentences.Section  669providesthatthecourt shalldirectwhetherthetermsofimprisonment...shallrunconcurrentlyorconsecutively.Itdoesnotrequireanyfactfindingwhatsoever.Althoughatrialcourtmustgiveastatementofreasonsforimposingconsecutivesentencesondeterminateterms( % 1170,subd.(c);rule / 4.406(b)(5)),thisstatementofreasonsdoesnotrequireaseparatefindingoffactsbeyondthosereflectedintheconviction.Rather,theessentialfunctionofthestatementofreasonsistocreatearecordtofacilitateappellatereviewofthesentencingchoiceforanabuseofdiscretion.(  Peoplev.Martin(1986)42 ! Cal.3d437,449450;  Peoplev.Stewart(2001)89Cal.App.4th1209,1215.) 0#  4  ` AsfortheapplicableRulesofCourt,althoughsection % 1170,subdivision(a)(3),providesthatthecourt shallapplythesentencingrulesoftheJudicialCouncil,thoserulesaremerely criteriadesignedtoaidthecourtinexercisingitsdiscretion(  1170.3).(See  Lepe,supra,195Cal.App.3datp. 0% + 1351[where,inaddressingtheproprietyofadecisionwhethertoimposeconsecutiveorconcurrentsentences,theCourtofAppealstates, Therulesofcourtaremerelyguidelinestoassistthecourtinmakingitssentencingchoicesandinexercisingitsdiscretion].)SincetheLegislaturehasnotmadeconsecutivesentencingconditionalonthefindingofanyfactbeyondthosereflectedintheconviction,theJudicialCouncilcannotimposesucha 0.)7 requirementonitsown.(  Cal.Const.,art.VI,6,subd.(d)[ [t]herulesadoptedshallnotbeinconsistentwithstatute].) 4  ` Nonetheless,thereisnoruleprohibitingatrialcourtfromimposingaconsecutivesentenceabsentthefindingofanyfactnotreflectedintheconviction.Rule I 4.425(a)merelyprovidesnonexclusive [c]riteriaaffectingthedecisiontoimposeconsecutiveratherthanconcurrentsentences,butdoesnotprohibitthecourtfromconsideringthefactsreflectedintheconvictionitself.Rule I 4.425(b)providesthat [a]nycircumstancesinaggravationormitigationmaybeconsideredindecidingwhethertoimposeconsecutiveratherthanconcurrentsentences,except...(iii)afactthatisanelementofthecrimeshallnotbeusedtoimposeconsecutivesentences.Therulemerelylimitsthecourtsconsiderationofaggravatingcircumstancesforconsecutivesentencingpurposes,anddoesnotprohibitconsecutivesentencesabsentthefindingofsomefactnotreflectedintheconviction.Furthermore,rule Y 4.433(c)demonstratesthatconsecutivesentencesrequirenoadditionalfactfindingwhatsoever.Specifically,rule Y 4.433(c)(1)providesthatindecidingthelengthoftheterm,thecourtshall [h]earevidenceinaggravationandmitigation,anddetermine,pursuanttosection1170(b),whethertoimposetheupper,middleorlowerterm;andsetforthontherecordthefactsandreasonsforimposingtheupperorlowerterm.Bycontrast,rule Y 4.433(c)(2)merelyprovidesthatthecourtshall [d]eterminewhetherthesentencesshallbeconsecutiveorconcurrent. 4  ` Thus,consecutivesentencingdecisionsdonotdemandafindingofanyfact.Asaresult,theyareakintothesentencingdecisionsinvolvingbroaddiscretionthattheCourtapprovedinCunningham,Booker,Blakely,and ($0 Apprendi.(See Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.871; ^ Booker,supra,543 0*%2 U.S.atpp.233,264265; e Blakely,supra,542U.S.atpp308309; m Apprendi, +'4 supra,540U.S.atpp.481482.) 0-(6  4  ` TheNinthCircuitandthreestatesupremecourtshavealsorejected C SixthAmendmentchallengestotheirjurisdictionsdiscretionaryconsecutivesentencingdecisionsonthebasisthatnojudicialfactfindingwasrequired,inadditiontorejectingthesechallengesonthebasisdiscussedabovethatApprendiissatisfiedaslongasthestatutorymaximumforeachcrimeisnot   exceeded.(  UnitedStatesv.Fifield(9thCir.2005)432F.3d1056,106667; 0      Statev.Abdullah(N.J.2005)878A.2d746,756757;  Smyliev.State(Ind.   2005)823N.E.2d679,686;  Statev.Jacobs(Iowa2001)644N.W.2d695,698 0  699;butseePersonalRestraintof  VanDelft(Wash.2006)147P.3d573,578   579[anonserious,nonviolent,consecutivesentenceviolatesBlakelybecause 0  itisan exceptionalsentencerequiringanaggravatingfactortosupportitandbecauseWashingtonlawhasapresumptionofconcurrentsentencing];  Foster, 0 supra,845N.E.2datpp.490491[findingBlakelyerrorbecauseofOhios   uniquerulethatsentencesberunconcurrentlyabsentjudicialfactfinding].)ThisCourtshouldfindthatbotharecorrect,alternaterationalesforrejectingtheclaimthatCaliforniasconsecutivesentencingsystemviolatesCunningham. 0 8 4  &  26  D  .3  0` 44AnyCunninghamErrorWasHarmlessInThisCase 9'0F0!` `  8 4  ` &   26  1  .3  0 44ApplicableLaw G0 #   '0 ; 4  ` ApprendiorBlakelyerrorissubjecttoreviewunderChapmanv. 0"% California.(  Recuenco,supra,126S.Ct.atp.2553;  Sengpadychith,supra,26 #' Cal.4thatp.327.)Likewise,sinceCunninghamisanapplicationofApprendi 0% ) andBlakely,itissubjecttoChapmanharmlesserrorreview.UnderChapman, &"+ todeterminewhetherCunninghamerrorwasprejudicial,thereviewingcourt 0(#- mustdeterminewhetherthejurywouldhavefoundanaggravatingcircumstancetruebeyondareasonabledoubt.(See h Chapman,supra,386U.S. 0+&1 atp.24.)Anyerrorastoanaggravatingcircumstanceisharmlessunderthisstandardiftheevidenceattrialandsentencingconsistedofoverwhelmingor 0.)5 uncontradictedevidenceastothatcircumstance.(See  Nederv.UnitedStates  (1999)527U.S.1,17[119S.Ct.1827,144L.Ed.2d135][findingerroneousinstructionomittingelementoftheoffenseharmless whereareviewingcourtconcludesbeyondareasonabledoubtthattheomittedelementwasuncontestedandsupportedbyoverwhelmingevidence],citedwithapprovalin      Recuenco,   supra,126S.Ct.atp.2552[describingNederinquiryas askingwhetherthe 0   jurywouldhavereturnedthesameverdictabsenttheerror];seealso  Cleveland,supra,87Cal.App.4thatp.271[findinganyApprendierrorfora 0  judgessection654findingtobeharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtbecause [w]ehavenodoubtajurywouldhavereachedthesameconclusion[asthetrialcourt]underthereasonabledoubtstandard];  Chamberlainv.Pliler(C.D.Cal.  2004)307F.Supp.2d1128,11421143[holdingthatanyApprendierrorfrom 0 thefailuretosubmitapersonalusefindingtothejurywasharmlessbecause [p]etitionerhasadducednoevidencetocontradicttheevidenceconsideredbythetrialcourt,whichincludedthevictimstestimonythatpetitionerhadpulledoutaknifeandstruckthevictimintheheadwithashinyobjectcuttinghimandleavingascar].)U r  25  /        4  ` Ifthereviewingcourtdeterminesthatthejurywouldhavefoundatleastoneoftheaggravatingcircumstancestruebeyondareasonabledoubt,theprejudiceinquiryendsandthereviewingcourtmustdeemtheCunningham  errornotprejudicial.ThisisbecauseCunninghamerroronlyoccursifthejury 0  didnotfindthenecessaryfactthatauthorizestheimpositionof,ormakesthedefendanteligiblefor,theincreasedsentence.Sinceasingleaggravatingcircumstancecanvalidatetheimpositionofanuppertermorconsecutivesentenceunderstatelaw(Osband,supra,13Cal.4thatpp.728729),a 0  determinationthatthejurywouldhavefoundatleastoneaggravatingcircumstancetruebeyondareasonabledoubtnecessarilyrenderstheCunninghamerrorharmlessbecausethatsingleaggravatingcircumstance  wouldhavepermittedtheuppertermorconsecutivesentence.Thereviewingcourtwouldthereforeaffirmthedefendantssentenceundersuchcircumstances. 4  ` OncethereviewingcourtdeterminesthatanyCunninghamerrorwas  harmlessbecausethejurywouldhavefoundatleastoneaggravatingcircumstancetrue,thereviewingcourtdoesnotneedtofurtherdeterminewhetherthetrialcourtwouldhavesentencedthedefendanttothesameuppertermorconsecutivesentenceinlightoftheCunninghamerror.Suchaninquiry $ isnotrequiredbecausethejurytrialrightinCunninghamfocusesontheissue 0!& ofwhetherthejurymadethenecessaryfindingtoexposethedefendanttoahighersentence,ratherthantheissueofwhetherthetrialcourtmadetheproperdiscretionarysentencingchoice.(See Z Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.860 %!, [ sentenceelevatingfactfindingwhich expose[s]adefendanttoanuppertermviolatestherighttojurytrial].)Thus,theChapmaninquiryrequiredto ($0 vindicatethatrightislimitedtothequestionofwhetherthejurywouldhavefoundatleastoneaggravatingcircumstancetrue,exposingthedefendanttothe +'4 uppertermorconsecutivesentence. 4  ` Thisconclusionthattheultimatesentencingdecisiondoesnotimplicatethe C SixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrialisdemonstratedbytheconcurringopinionin X Ringv.Arizona(2002)536U.S.584[122S.Ct.2428,153L.Ed.2d 0  556],byJusticeScalia,theauthoroftheBlakelyopinion.Inthisconcurring   opinion,JusticeScaliaexplainedthatRing,andimplicitlyApprendi,had 0    nothingtodowithjurysentencing.(  Ring,supra,536U.S.atp.612(conc.   opn.ofScalia,J.).)Instead,theRingdecisionmeantthat 0  8 4 thejurymustfindtheexistenceofthefactthatanaggravatingfactor   existed.ThoseStatesthatleavetheultimatelifeordeathdecisiontothejudgemaycontinuetodoso!byrequiringapriorjuryfindingofaggravatingfactorinthesentencingphaseor,moresimplybyplacingtheaggravatingfactordetermination(whereitlogicallybelongsanyway)intheguiltphase.L 44 (Id.atpp.612613,originalitalics.)Thus,thisconcurringopinionclearly 0 showsthatthefederalconstitutionalconcernsinApprendionlyreachtheissue  offactfindingtoauthorizetheincreasedsentenceanddonotextendtoatrialcourtsultimatesentencingdecision.Accordingly,oncethereviewingcourtdeterminesthatthejurywouldhavefoundatleastoneaggravatingcircumstancetrue,thereviewingcourtneednotfurtherexamineundertheChapmanstandardwhetherthedefendantwouldhavereceivedthesame 0 # sentenceinlightoftheCunninghamerror. !%  4  ` Forexample,supposetheprosecutionsubmitsevidenceattrialthatadefendantcommittedasexualoffensebypretendinghewasadoctorforaseverelymentallyretardedperson.Thedefenseseekstoimpeachthevictimandultimatelyarguestothejurythatherseverementalretardationmakeshertestimonyunreliable.Thejuryconvictsthedefendant.Atsentencing,thetrialcourtimposestheupperterm,afterfindingtwoaggravatingcircumstancesandonemitigatingcircumstance.Oneofthesetwoaggravatingcircumstancesisthatthevictimwasparticularlyvulnerable.(Seerule F 4.421(a)(3).)Inresolving -)5 aCunninghamclaimonappeal,thereviewingcourtdeterminesthatbeyonda  reasonabledoubt,thejurywouldhavefoundtruetheaggravatingcircumstancethatthevictimwasparticularlyvulnerablebasedonherundisputedseverementalretardation.Astotheotheraggravatingcircumstance,however,thereviewingcourtdoesnotfinditharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Inthissituation,appellaterebalancingorreweighingoftheoneremainingaggravatingcircumstancewiththeonemitigatingcircumstanceisinappropriate.Instead,theproperCunninghamharmlesserrorinquiryasks,ifthejuryhadfoundoneof 0  thesetwoaggravatingcircumstancebeyondareasonabledoubt,wouldthetrialcourthavethenhadtheauthoritytoconsidertheotheraggravatingcircumstance?Theanswerisyes,sincetheChapmansurvivingaggravating  circumstancebyitselfwouldhaveauthorizedtheupperterm.Asaresult,thetrialcourtsadditionalaggravatingcircumstancefindingwouldalsohavebeenpermissibleunderCunningham.Giventhis,thetrialcourtsweighingofthe 0 samecircumstancesnecessarilywouldhavebeenthesameaswell. 4  ` Thus,Cunninghamerrordoesnotinvolveanystatelawquestionof 0 whetherthetrialcourterredinitsdiscretionaryweighingoftheaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesandresultingselectionofthebaseterm.ButtotheextentthatthisCourtconcludesthatareviewingcourtmustexaminewhetherthetrialcourtwouldhaveneverthelesssentencedthedefendanttotheuppertermsentencebecausetherewassomestatelawerrorintheselectionofthesentence,thisinquiryshouldbeconductedunderthestatelawstandardof  Peoplev.Watson(1956)46Cal.2d818,836. %!, 8 4  ` &   26  2  .3  0 44UpperTerm &($/   '( 4  ` Here,everyoneofthetrialcourtsreasonsforimposingtheuppertermwereobservationsdrawnfromlargelyuncontestedoroverwhelmingevidence.Thetrialcourtfoundsixaggravatingfactorsinsupportoftheupperterm:(1) -)5 thecrimeinvolvedagreatamountofviolence;(2)appellantshowedincrediblycallousbehavior;(3)appellanthadnoconcernabouttheconsequencesofheractions;(4)thevictimswereparticularlyvulnerable,beingunarmedandinebriated,andtakenbysurprisebyambush;(5)appellantwasthemotivatingforcebehindtheseactions;and(6)heractionsshowedplanningandpremeditation.(10RT21512153.) 4  ` Theevidenceshowedthatthetwokillingsandthethirdshootingundoubtedlyinvolvedagreatamountofviolence.Thejurywastoldbystipulationthattheshooters,NegreteandDelRio,hadbeenconvictedoffirstdegreemurderandattemptedmurderforthecrimesinvolvingthevictimsinthiscase.(9RT16881689.)RojaswasshotinheadbyNegreteatcloserangeashespokewithappellantandRomero.Whenhefelltotheground,Rojaswasshotfourmoretimes.(1CT132135,169171;2RT628631,634642.)SalvadorandBelenDerciowereshotmultipletimesfromabouttenfeetawaywithalargerifle.Belenwasstruckinthebackwithtwoshots,andSalvadorwashitinhislefttorso.DelRiothenshotBeleninthehead.(3RT771783,786792;4RT10161018,10321035;5RT12021203.)Belendiedfromtwoindependentlyfatalgunshotwoundstotheheadandonegunshotwoundtohisrightmiddleback.Oneoftheheadwoundswasatightcontactwound,indicatingthatthegunwaspressedagainstBelensheadwhenfired.Salvadorwasinthehospitalrecoveringfortwoweeksandhadtowearacolostomybag.(3RT792;4RT893900,967.)Rojasdiedfromfivegunshotwounds,twoofwhichwereindependentlyfatal.(3RT818822,829.) 4  ` Theevidencealsodemonstratedthatappellantwasculpableforthekillingssincesherecruitedthekillersandtransportedthemtothebar,knowingthatRojasmightbethere.Appellantwasfullyawarethatthegangmembershadbroughtgunswiththeminhervan.Indeed,sheeveninstructedhercousinJairotoretrievehishandgunfromhishouse.(1CT122130,136137,149159, 0-(6 186190.)Atthebar,appellanttoldherfriendtotelltheshootersthatRojaswaspresentandidentifiedhimaswearingahat.(1CT131132,167170.)Inaddition,appellantmadeexplicitthreatstoRojasafterthefighttwonightsbeforetheshootings.ShesaidshewouldbringFlorenciagangmembersbacktokillRojasbecausehewasresponsibleforallowingTweakertobeather.(1CT148149;4RT857860,863873.)Accordingly,appellantshowedincrediblycallousbehaviorinrecruitingthekillers.Sheplannedandpremeditatedtheshootingwithoutanyconcernabouttheconsequencesofheractions,andshewasthemotivatingforcebehindtheshootings. 4  ` Moreover,eachofthevictimswasunarmedandshotinasurpriseassault.AsappellantandRomerospokewithRojas,Negretecameupbehindhimandshothimthebackofthehead.(1CT132135,169171.)SalvadorandBelenwereexitingthebar,unarmedandapparentlyintoxicated,whentheywereambushedandshotmultipletimesbyDelRio.(3RT761783,786792.) 4  ` Theevidenceshowedclearlythattheshootingsconstitutedgreatviolence,appellantsbehaviorwasincrediblycallous,appellantshowednoconcernabouttheconsequencesofheractions,shewasamotivatingforcebehindtheshootings,sheshowedplanningandpremeditation,andthevictimswereparticularlyvulnerable.Thus,thejurywouldhavefoundeachoftheseaggravatingcircumstancestruebeyondareasonabledoubthadtheybeenpresented.Accordingly,anyCunninghamerrorwasharmlessbecausetheupper "( termsentencewouldhavebeenauthorizedbyanyoneoftheseaggravatingcircumstancesfoundbythetrialcourtinimposingthesentence.8 4  ` &   26  3  .3  0 44ConsecutiveSentences f($/   '(Z 4  ` Anyerrorinsentencingappellanttoconsecutivetermswasharmless.Thetrialcourtclearlystatedthatitimposedconsecutivesentencesbecausetheshootingswereseparateactsofviolencethatinvolvedseparatevictims.(10RT -)5 21522153;seeCal.RulesofCourt,rule I 4.425(a)(2).)Count1involvedRojas,whowasshotinfrontofthebar,whilecounts2and3involvedtheshootingsofBelenandSalvador,respectively,whowereshotinthebackofthebar.Thus,thetrialcourtfoundthatthesentencesforcounts2and3warrantedatermconsecutivetothesentenceforcount1.Further,thecourtfoundthattermsforcounts2and3shouldbeconsecutivetoeachother,andtocount1,sincetheactseachinvolvedaseparatevictim. 4  ` Thejuryimplicitlyfoundthattheinstantcrimesinvolvedseparateactsandthreeseparatevictimsbyfindingappellantresponsibleforeachshootingincounts1,2,and3.Thus,thejuryfoundthefactsthatthetrialcourtreliedontosentenceappellanttoconsecutiveterms.Accordingly,anyallegederrorinsentencingappellanttosuchtermswasharmless. 4  ` Thetrialcourtimposedaconsecutivesentenceoncount3fortheadditionalreasonthat anindividualvictim...continue[d]tothisdaytosuffertheconsequencesof[appellants]action.(10RT21522153.)TheevidencewasuncontrovertedthatSalvadorDerciowasforcedtouseacolostomybagasaresultofhisgunshotwounds.Therefore,anyerrorinrelyingonthisfactorwasalsoharmless. 4  ` Finally,evenifitwereassumedthatthisCourtmustexaminewhetherthetrialcourtwouldhaveimposedtheuppertermsentenceand/orconsecutivesentencesinlightoftheaggravatingcircumstancesthatwereorwouldhavebeenfoundtruebythejury,itisnotreasonablyprobablethetrialcourtwouldhaveimposedalessersentencebecause,asexplainedabove,itisbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthejuryeitherfoundorwouldhavefoundall,oratleastmost,oftheaggravatingcircumstancestrue.Furthermore,thetrialcourtscommentsthattheaggravatingcircumstances substantiallyoutweighthemitigatingcircumstances(10RT2153),demonstratesthateventheomissionofsomeofcircumstancesthatdidnotsurviveChapmanreviewwouldnothave 0-(6 dissuadedthetrialcourtfromimposingthemaximumsentenceallowableinthiscase.Accordingly,anyerrorwasnotprejudicial.(See,e.g.,  Peoplev.Avalos 0 (1984)37Cal.3d216,233;  Peoplev.Kelley(1997)52Cal.App.4th568,581  &fn.18.)  0  &     CONCLUSION :  '   4  ` Forthereasonsstated,respondentrespectfullyasksthatthejudgmentbeaffirmed.%  & r  4  ` Dated:  March21,2007!  f*"d ddHH d dd dd O P  , ,x +          fRespectfullysubmitted, XLX EDMUNDG.BROWNJR.    AttorneyGeneraloftheStateofCaliforniaDANER.GILLETTEChiefAssistantAttorneyGeneralPAMELAC.HAMANAKA &(%X XLSeniorAssistantAttorneyGeneral# XLX% &(# 8  KRISTOFERJORSTADDeputyAttorneyGeneralSTEVEND.MATTHEWSSupervisingDeputyAttorneyGeneralLANCEE.WINTERSSupervisingDeputyAttorneyGeneralLAWRENCEM.DANIELSSupervisingDeputyAttorneyGeneralDAVIDE.MADEODeputyAttorneyGeneral X XLAttorneysforPlaintiffandRespondent *& 'r0 % ( ȿ  ȿLA2007500474#   m##   #Ԁ #'    .(60205509.wpd(60205509.wpd/  #   # $(   h% )  n  ,8VQXXdXXd8 @G G CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE   B  ԍ(seenextpage)0 FormMustBeSignedByAttorneyorUnrepresentedLitigantAndAttachedtothe p( BackofEachCopyoftheBrief`  # # ЎC     P Icertifythattheattached ANSWERBRIEFONMERITS usesa13  pointTimesNewRomanfontandcontains24,085words. XLX & N    P Dated:March21,2007   f*x[\dd x "  x, ,x +    h     h  fRespectfullysubmitted,EDMUNDG.BROWNJR.AttorneyGeneraloftheStateofCaliforniaDAVIDE.MADEODeputyAttorneyGeneralAttorneysforPlaintiffandRespondentd 'N    h !  !P8dXXd8^ f  X XL@``" TABLEOFCONTENTS   B  Page   % _ fof%    H   H   ISSUESPRESENTEDd d E 1H /݌  Ќ  H   H   STATEMENTOFTHECASEd d E 1H ݌   Ќ  H   H F  STATEMENTOFFACTSd d E 3H Fb݌   Ќ  b  b0 0d   A.0 d d ProsecutionEvidenced d E 3b݌   Ќ  b  bɸ0 0d   B.0 d d CodefendantRomerosEvidenced d E 7bɸ݌   Ќ  b  bɝ0 0d   C.0 d d AppellantsEvidenced d E 9bɝ݌  Ќ  H   H y  SUMMARYOFARGUMENTd d E 9H y݌  Ќ  H   H   ARGUMENTD 12H /݌  Ќ  al  al    I.8 d THISCOURTSHOULDREFORMTHE  DETERMINATESENTENCINGLAWTOBESTCOMPORTWITHLEGISLATIVEINTENT D d td t12al݌  Ќ  b  b0 0d   A.0 d d TheCunninghamDecisionD 12b݌  Ќ  b  bɰ0 0d   B.0 d d ReformationD 16bɰ݌  Ќ  c|  c|0 0d 0 d d   1.8| ThisCourtShouldReformTheUnconstitutional ! StatutoryProvisionsToConformWithTheLegislaturesIntentInEnactingTheDSLD |D|D17c|݌ # Ќ  c|  c|0 0d 0 d d   2.8| TheBookerRemedialOpinionProvidesFurther %!! SupportForThisCourtToReinterpretAndReformTheDSLInTheMannerSuggestedByRespondentD |D|D29c| ݌ ($$ Ќ  c|  c|0 0d 0 d d   3.8| TheRemediesThatTheNewJerseyAndOhio *&& SupremeCourtsAppliedToTheirStatesSystemsAfterBookerAlsoSupportReformationOf ,(( CaliforniasSystemD |D|D36c|݌ -)) Ќ  c|  c|*0 0d 0 d d   4.0| DispositionOfTheCaliforniaRulesOfCourtD | | 40c|*F݌ z  Ќ  dC  dC00 0d 0 d d 0|   a.ProvisionsRequiringInvalidationD | | 42dC0L݌ z  Ќ  dC  dC-0 0d 0 d d 0|   b.ProvisionsNotRequiringInvalidationD | | 51dC-I݌ z  Ќ  c|  c|.0 0d 0 d d   5.0| AsInBooker,ThisReformationShouldApplyToAny z SentencingAndResentencingHearingOccurringAfterThisCourtsDecisionD | | 53c|.J݌ z  Ќ  al  al4 4    II.8 d APPELLANTISNOTENTITLEDTORELIEF z  UNDERCUNNINGHAM D d td t56al݌ z  Ќ  b  bɧ0 0d   A.0 d d BackgroundD 56bɧ݌ ~ Ќ  b  bw0 0d   B.0 d d AppellantForfeitedTheInstantClaimsD 58bw݌ ~ Ќ  b  bc0 0d   C.8 d d ThisCourtCorrectlyDeterminedInBlackThat ~ CaliforniasConsecutiveSentencingSystemDoesNotViolateTheSixthAmendmentD D D61bc݌ ~ Ќ  c|  c|0 0d 0 d d   1.0| BlackD | | 61c|݌ ~ Ќ  c|  c|0 0d 0 d d   2.8| CunninghamDoesNotImpactThisCourts ~  ConclusionThatConsecutiveSentencingDoesNotImplicateTheRightToJuryTrialD |D|D62c|݌ ~" Ќ  c|  c|0 0d 0 d d   3.8| CunninghamIsAlsoSatisfiedBecauseThereIsNo ~$ PresumptionOfConcurrentSentencingAndNoRequirementThatACourtFindAnAdditionalFactBeforeChoosingAConsecutiveSentenceD |D|D64c|4݌ ~' Ќ  b  b0 0d   D.0 d d AnyCunninghamErrorWasHarmlessInThisCaseD 69b݌ ~)!! Ќ  c|  c|0 0d 0 d d   1.0| ApplicableLawD | | 69c|݌ ~+## Ќ  c|  c|0 0d 0 d d   2.0| UpperTermD | | 73c|݌ ~-%% Ќ  c|  c|0 0d 0 d d   3.0| ConsecutiveSentencesD | | 75c|݌ z  Ќ  H   H u  CONCLUSIOND 78H u݌ z  Ќ  % `  z  ^  @  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES   B  Page    Cases   G  /   /   Apprendiv.NewJersey   (2000)530U.S.466 120S.Ct.2348, 147L.Ed.2d4350 14,29,58,62,63,68/ )݈   Ќ̌  /   / +  Blakelyv.Washington   (2004)542U.S.296 # XLX L# X XL124S.Ct.2531,   # XLX # X XL159L.Ed.2d403# XLX C# X XL& 1,2,14,15,29,51,58,63,68/ +F݈  Ќ̌  /   /   Chamberlainv.Pliler  (C.D.Cal.2004)307F.Supp.2d1128D 70/ ;݈  Ќ̌  /   /   Chapmanv.California  (1967)386U.S.18, 87S.Ct.824, 17L.Ed.2d705@ 10,69/ ݈  Ќ̌  /   /   Cunninghamv.California  (2007)򀀀U.S.򀀀  127S.Ct.856 1,12-16,21,22,27,40,43-45,51,53,58,63,66,68,71/ !݈  Ќ̌  /   / E  Englev.Isaac   (1982)456U.S.107, 102S.Ct.1558, 71L.Ed.2d783D 60/ E`݈ # Ќ̌  /   / F  Griffithv.Kentucky %!! (1987)479U.S.314, 107S.Ct.708, 93L.Ed.2d649D 53/ Fa݈ ($$ Ќ̌  /   / L  Hallv.State *&& (Fla.2002)823So.2d757D 63/ Lg݈ +'' Ќ̌  /   /   /2 -)) Ќ  /   /   Hankersonv.State z (Minn.2006)723N.W.2d232D 54/ ݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / `  Harrisv.UnitedStates z  (2002)536U.S.545, 122S.Ct.2406, 153L.Ed.2d524D 62/ `{݈ z Ќ̌  /   / k  InreHowardN. z (2005)35Cal.4th117D 20/ k݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / 4  InreRichardS. z  (1991)54Cal.3d857D 42/ 4O݈ z  Ќ̌  /   /   Koppv.FairPoliticalPracticesCommission z (1995)11Cal.4th607= 17-20,29/ ݈ z Ќ̌  /   /   Lockhartv.Nelson z (1988)488U.S.33, 109S.Ct.205, 102L.Ed.2d265D 54/ ݈ z Ќ̌  /   /   Mongev.California z (1998)524U.S.721, 118S.Ct.2246, 141L.Ed.2d615D 54/ ݈ z! Ќ̌  /   /   Nederv.UnitedStates z# (1999)527U.S.1, 119S.Ct.1827, 144L.Ed.2d135D 70/ ݈ z& Ќ̌  /   /   Osbornev.Ohio(1990) z(  495U.S.103, 110S.Ct.1691, 109L.Ed.2d98D 58/  ݈ z+## Ќ̌  /   /   /   z-%% Ќ  /   / q   Peoplev.Abbaszadeh z (2003)106Cal.App.4th642D 60/ q  ݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / D   Peoplev.Avalos z  (1984)37Cal.3d216D 77/ D _ ݈ z  Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Bacigalupo z (1991)1Cal.4th103D 23/ ( ݈ z Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Black z  (2005)35Cal.4th1238 1,2,13-15,23,27,39,40,61,63-66/  ݈ z  Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Cattaneo z  (1990)217Cal.App.3d1577D 26/  ݈ z  Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.ChewLangOng z (1904)141Cal.550D 27/ ݈ z Ќ̌  /   / h  Peoplev.Cleveland z (2001)87Cal.App.4th263@ 58,70/ h݈ z Ќ̌  /   / =  Peoplev.Forrester z (1994)30Cal.App.4th1697D 20/ =X݈ z Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Giminez z  (1975)14Cal.3d68D 65/ *݈ z! Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Griffin z# (2004)33Cal.4th536D 23/ ݈ z$ Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Groves z& (2003)107Cal.App.4th1227D 64/ ݈ z' Ќ̌  /   / s  Peoplev.Gurule z)!! (2002)28Cal.4th557D 27/ s݈ z*"" Ќ̌  /   / =  Peoplev.Hall z,$$ (1995)8Cal.4th950D 41/=X݈ z-%% Ќ  /   /   Peoplev.Hanson z (2000)23Cal.4th355D 54/ ݈ z  Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Hernandez z  (1988)46Cal.3d194D 23/ ݈ z  Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Hill z (2005)131Cal.App.4th1089D 58/ ݈ z Ќ̌  /   / h  Peoplev.Holmes z  (1960)54Cal.2d442D 59/ h݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / 1  Peoplev.Hove z  (1999)76Cal.App.4th1266D 39/ 1L݈ z  Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Kelley z (1997)52Cal.App.4th568D 77/ ݈ z Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Knowlden z (1985)171Cal.App.3d1052D 26/ ݈ z Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Lepe z (1987)195Cal.App.3d1347D 67/ ݈ z Ќ̌  /   / j  Peoplev.Manriquez z  (2005)37Cal.4th547D 43/ j݈ z! Ќ̌  /   / 7  Peoplev.Marchand z# (2002)98Cal.App.4th1056D 58/ 7R݈ z$ Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Martin z& (1986)42Cal.3d437D 67/ #݈ z' Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Najera z)!! (1972)8Cal.3d504D 55/ ݈ z*"" Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Reeder z,$$ (1984)152Cal.App.3d900@ 65,67/݈ z-%% Ќ  _/   / {  Peoplev._Roder_Ԁ z (1983)33Cal.3d491D 19/ {݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / c   Peoplev.Saunders z  (1993)5Cal.4th580@ 58,59/ c ~ ݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / 2!  Peoplev.Seel z (2004)34Cal.4th535D 54/ 2!M!݈ z Ќ̌  /   / !  Peoplev._Sengpadychith_ z  (2001)26Cal.4th316@ 59,69/ !"݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / "  Peoplev.Stewart z  (2001)89_Cal.App_.4th1209D 67/ " #݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / #  Peoplev.Thomas z (1992)2Cal.4th489D 23/ ##݈ z Ќ̌  /   / $  Peoplev._Velasquez_ z (1980)26Cal.3d425D 23/ $$݈ z Ќ̌  /   / %  Peoplev._Wagener_ z (Ill.2001)752N.E.2d430D 63/ %%݈ z Ќ̌  /   / &  Peoplev.Watson z  (1956)46Cal.2d818D 73/ &&݈ z! Ќ̌  /   / M'  Peoplev.Wiley z# (1995)9Cal.4th580D 14/ M'h'݈ z$ Ќ̌  /   / (  Peoplev.Wright z& (1982)30Cal.3d705D 23/ (0(݈ z' Ќ̌  /   / (  PersonalRestraintofVanDelft z)!! (Wash.2006)# XLX # X XL147P.3d573@ 60,69/ ((݈ z*"" Ќ̌  /   / )  / )*̌ z-%% Ќ  /   / r*  Ringv.Arizona z (2002)536U.S.584 122_S.Ct_.2428, 153_L.Ed_.2d556D 72/ r**݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / +  _Sattazahn_Ԁv.Pennsylvania z  (2003)537U.S.101, 123_S.Ct_.732, 154_L.Ed_.2d588D 54/ ++݈ z Ќ̌  /   / -  _Smylie_Ԁv.State z  (Ind.2005)823N.E.2d679D 69/ -;-݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / .  Statev.Abdullah z  (N.J.2005)878A.2d746D 69/ .).݈ z Ќ̌  /   / .  Statev._Bramlett_ z (_Kan_.2002)41P.3d796D 63/ ..݈ z Ќ̌  /   / /  Statev._Cubias_ z (Wash.2005)120P.3d929D 63/ /0݈ z Ќ̌  /   / 0  Statev.Foster z (Ohio2006)845N.E.2d4700 36,38,39,53,60,69/ 00݈ z Ќ̌  /   / 1  Statev.Higgins z! (N.H.2003)821A.2d964D 63/ 11݈ z" Ќ̌  /   / 2  Statev.Jacobs z$ (Iowa2001)644N.W.2d695D 69/ 22݈ z% Ќ̌  /   / S3  Statev.Kahapea z' (Haw.2006)# XLX )# X XL141P.3d440D 63/ S3n3݈ z(  Ќ̌  /   / a4  Statev._Natale_ z*"" (N.J.2005)878A.2d724= 36-38,53/ a4|4݈ z+## Ќ̌  /   / T5  /T5o5 z-%% Ќ  /   / 5  Statev._Sawatzky_ z (Ore.2005)125P.3d722D 54/ 55݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / 6  UnitedStatesv.Angle z  (4thCir.2001)254F.3d514D 64/ 66݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / 7  UnitedStatesv.Booker z (2005)543U.S.220 125_S.Ct_.738, 160_L.Ed_.2d621 10,14-16,29-33,35,41,42,53,58,68/ 77݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / 8  UnitedStatesv._Buckland_ z  (9thCir.2002)289F.3d558D 63/ 89݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / 9  UnitedStatesv.Campbell z (6thCir.2002)279F.3d392D 64/ 9:݈ z Ќ̌  /   / :  UnitedStatesv._Chorin_ z (3rdCir.2003)322F.3d274D 63/ ::݈ z Ќ̌  /   / ;  UnitedStatesv._Feola_ z (2dCir.2001)275F.3d216D 64/ ;;݈ z Ќ̌  /   / <  UnitedStatesv._Fifield_ z (9thCir.2005)432F.3d1056D 69/ <<݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / =  UnitedStatesv.Harrison z" (8thCir.2003)340F.3d497D 63/ ==݈ z# Ќ̌  /   / >  UnitedStatesv.Hernandez z% (7thCir.2003)330F.3d964D 63/ >>݈ z& Ќ̌  /   / k?  UnitedStatesv.Hicks z(  (5thCir.2004)389F.3d514D 63/ k??݈ z)!! Ќ̌  /   / B@  UnitedStatesv.Lafayette z+## (D.C.Cir.2003)337F.3d1043D 63/ B@]@݈ z,$$ Ќ z-%% Ќ  __/   / SA  UnitedStatesv.Lott z (10thCir.2002)310F.3d1231D 63/ SAnA݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / +B  UnitedStatesv._Oano_ z  (1993)507U.S.725, 113_S.Ct_.1770, 123_L.Ed_.2d508D 58/ +BFB݈ z Ќ̌  /   / C  UnitedStatesv._Pressley_ z (11thCir.2003)345F.3d1205D 63/ CC݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / D  UnitedStatesv.White z  (2ndCir.2001)240F.3d127D 64/ DD݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / nE  Washingtonv._Recuenco_ z (2006)548U.S.___ 126_S.Ct_.2546, 165_L.Ed_.2d2546tt< 59,69,70/ nEE݈ z Ќ̌   ConstitutionalProvisions  z   /   / CG  Cal.Const.,art.VI,6,_subd_.(d)D 68/ CG^G݈ z Ќ̌  /   / H  U.S.Const.,6thAmend.BB 1,9-12,16,29-34,40,58,65,66,69,72# XLX 3# X XL/ H-H݈ z! Ќ̌  /   / I  U.S.Const.,14thAmend.D 12/ I6I݈ z# Ќ̌  7G Statutes  z' 0  /   / J  18U.S.C.A.3553(b)(1)D 42/ J(J݈ z)!! Ќ̌  /   / J  Pen.Code,187d d E 1/ JJ݈ z+## Ќ̌  /   / JK  Pen.Code,190.3D 43/JKeK݈ z-%% Ќ  __/   / L  Pen.Code,193D 56/ L"L݈ z Ќ̌  /   / L  Pen.Code,664""A 1,56/ LL݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / @M  Pen.Code,669>>2 1,10,11,62,65-67/ @M[M݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / M  # XLX H# X XLPen.Code,1170 10,13,16,21-28,33-35,39-44,65,67/ MN݈ z Ќ̌  /   / N  Pen.Code,1170.1D 21/ N O݈ z Ќ̌  /   / O  Pen.Code,1170.30 13,22,34,40,42,67/ OO݈ z  Ќ̌  Pen.Code,1320D 20 z  /   / P  # XLX IN# X XLPen.Code,12022d d E 2/ PP݈ z Ќ̌  /   / ]Q  Pen.Code,12022.5D 55# XLX P# X XL/ ]QxQ݈ z Ќ̌  /   / >R  Stats.1976,ch.1139,273@ 24,34/ >RYR݈ z Ќ̌  /   / R  Stats.1977,ch.165tt< 24,25,34/ RS݈ z Ќ̌  J CourtRules  z  1  /   / S  Cal.RulesofCourt,Intro.Statement (adoptedJan.1,1992)D 42/ SS݈ z# Ќ̌  /   / T  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.405tt< 13,43,44/ TT݈ z% Ќ̌  /   / dU  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.406228 13,45,52,67/ dUU݈ z' Ќ̌  /   / V  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.410tt< 14,21,51/ V3V݈ z)!! Ќ̌  /   / V  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.4200 13,14,42,43,45,51/ VV݈ z+## Ќ̌  /   / W  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.421tt< 13,52,72/WW݈ z-%% Ќ  /   / 4X  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.425tt< 66,68,76/ 4XOX݈ z Ќ̌  /   / X  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.433tt< 45,46,68/ XX݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / Y  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.437@ 45,46/ YY݈ z  Ќ̌  /   / @Z  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.452D 46/ @Z[Z݈ z Ќ̌  /   / Z  CodeCiv.Proc.,187D 27/ Z[݈ z Ќ̌  /   / [  # XLX Q# X XL/ [[̌̌  S OtherAuthorities  z  2  /   / \  _Ginsburg_,SomeThoughtsonJudicialAuthoritytoRepair UnconstitutionalLegislation(1979)23_Clev_.St._L.Rev_.301D 19/ \\݈ z Ќ̌  w\# XLX [#