WPCE dҎ`pIU (zvrVn-uǜ{gd:k]BmU/}i;,PH/$[-֠(d4{a tg谷284'JiwyF)mѴce`ym -CƹřQ$bT՞ C>KIf/n1#8lrb>[?spq1D˾O8D艩ݿvC Zrhu hg9zo;v>&)d z0Öɧs4*+$ [?oR& ;/;3KL*77 UNu " b  0N$ 0M1&E~'f'UN' 0M'^ )))  +s%+f, 0, 0K). (t. .a.e.f. B. .a/f//a/  / 0 $00 T0r0 1u8 1w8 0c@9 9 0e)9 =9 #: !>: -_:a:: m:U: 1u< 0w< 0Z< D+T> 0M> 0J? AM@ 0Mc@ 0A 0:B 0B zC jDrD XRE E 0)E 0E 0F 0GyHJy2OQtԀCountySuperiorCourtNo.PA040926 /  % ) TheHonorableMeredithC.Taylor%),Judge /   % ! RESPONDENTSSUPPLEMENTALBRIEF%!  /   *xddd!` dd!` 4(#(#x,[dd ,d +  -#-- -f &% ƥ# ƥ% &Z# '5 '% ' %'fEDMUNDG.BROWNJR. - AttorneyGeneraloftheStateofCalifornia - DANER.GILLETTE e! ChiefAssistantAttorneyGeneral e" PAMELAC._HAMANAKA_ -$ SeniorAssistantAttorneyGeneral -% DONALDE.DENICOLA e' DeputySolicitorGeneral e( _KRISTOFER_Ԁ_JORSTAD_ - * DeputyAttorneyGeneral -!+ LAWRENCEM.DANIELS "e- SupervisingDeputyAttorneyGeneral #e . CHUNGL.MAR -%!0 DeputyAttorneyGeneral -&"1 StateBarNo.174004 -'#2  300SouthSpringStreet,Suite1702 (e%4 LosAngeles,CA90013 )e&5 Telephone:(213)8972368 *e'6 Fax:(213)8972806 +e(7   AttorneysforRespondent-#!--)9 0  -  ].+9   HXHINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA    *x#%dd[dd [d   x,d!,dd!+  : ' xx: THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA,  (x   PlaintiffandRespondent,   0 ` 0 ` `  v. % u    SHAWN_TOWNE_,      DefendantandAppellant.ӈ 6,!o   6% . S125677%. ( x -#!( x" xx  - ,X 4  ` Respondentrespectfullysubmitsthissupplementalbriefinresponseto   thisCourtsOrderregardingtheeffectoftherecentdecisionin_ C _Cunninghamv. g California(2007)___U.S.___[127_S.Ct_.856],ontheinstantcase.Inthe  Order,theCourtalsorequestedthatthepartiesaddresstwospecificissues: (1) g DoCunninghamv.California,supra,and_Almendarez_ԄTorresv.UnitedStates  (1998)523U.S.224,239247,permitthetrialjudgetosentencedefendantto g theuppertermbasedonanyorallofthefollowingaggravatingfactors,without  submittingthemtoajury:thedefendantspriorconvictionsasanadultare g  numerousandofincreasingseriousness;thedefendanthasservedapriorprison " term;thedefendantwasonparolewhenthecrimewascommitted;the g$ defendantspriorperformanceonprobationorparolewasunsatisfactory(Cal.  & RulesofCourt,Rule4.421,_subds_.(b)(2)-(b)(5))?and (2)Isthereany "g( violationofthedefendantsSixthAmendmentrightsunderCunninghamv. #* California,supra,ifthedefendantiseligiblefortheuppertermbasedupona %g , singleaggravatingfactorthathasbeenestablishedbymeansthatsatisfythe &!. governingSixthAmendmentauthorities-by,forexample,ajuryfinding,the (g#0 defendantscriminalhistory,orthedefendantsadmission-evenifthetrial )$2 judgereliesonotheraggravatingfactors(notestablishedbysuchmeans)in +g&4 exercisinghisorherdiscretiontoselectamongthethreesentencesforwhichthe ,'6 defendantiseligible? .g)8 _ԇ  &  2 6  A  .3  8 4 Summary  44 ' 4  ` In D Cunningham,theSupremeCourtheldthatCaliforniasprocedurefor  imposinganuppertermviolatesthe F SixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrial .~ becauseitexposesadefendanttoasentencegreaterthanthestatutorymaximum   basedonfactsfoundbythetrialcourtbyapreponderanceoftheevidencerather . ~ thanbythejurybeyondareasonabledoubt.TheCourtfoundthatthestatutory    maximumtermunderthe u DeterminateSentencingLawfor R SixthAmendment .~  purposesisthemiddleterm,whichisthelongestsentenceatrialcourtmay   imposeexclusivelyonthebasisoffactsinherentinthejurysverdictoradmitted .~  byadefendanthimself.    4  ` Inlightof D Cunningham,respondentaddressesthreeissuestheremedy .~ forthedefectinCaliforniasuppertermprocedure,theapproachfor  determiningwhetherreversaliswarrantedinpendingcases,andtheapplication .~ ofthisapproachtothiscase.Inordertoremedytheconstitutionalinfirmity  identifiedin D Cunningham,thisCourtshouldreform c PenalCodesection1170by .~ eliminatingtherequirementofanaggravatingcircumstancetoimposeanupper  orlowerterm,leavingtheselectionofthelower,middle,oruppertermtothe .~  trialcourtsbroaddiscretion.Thisisoneofthetworemediesexpressly " suggestedbythe D Cunninghamcourtitself,anditcloselyparallelstheSupreme . ~$ Courtsreformationofthefederalsentencingguidelinesinordertopreserve !& theirconstitutionalityin e UnitedStatesv.Booker(2005)543U.S.220[125S.Ct. .#~( 738,160L.Ed.2d621].Theremediedstatuteshouldbemadeapplicabletoall $* sentencingsandresentencings. .&~!,  4  ` Acaseshouldnotberemandedunder D Cunningham,however,untila '". reviewingcourthasconsideredthreeprincipalquestions.First,thecourtshould .)~$0 determinewhetherthedefendantpreservedtheconstitutionalobjectiontohis *%2 sentencebyobjectingonthatgroundinthetrialcourt.Traditionalforfeiture .,~'4 rulesapplytoclaimsofconstitutionalviolationsinsentencing. -(6  4  ` Second,thereviewingcourtshouldaffirmuppertermsentences,  includingappellants,whenthetrialcourtfindsatleastoneconstitutionally 0 validaggravatingcircumstance.TheSupremeCourtrecognizedin D Cunningham  thatunderCalifornialaw,onlyoneaggravatingcircumstanceisnecessaryto 0  supportanupperterm.Thismeansthatifthetrialcourtfindsoneaggravating   circumstancebasedonthedefendantscriminalhistory,onthedefendants 0   admission,oronafactinherentinthejurysverdict,thereisno D Cunningham   violation.Bythesamereasoning,thetrialcourtinsuchasituationispermitted 0  tofindanyotheraggravatingcircumstancesupportingtheupperterm,regardless   ofwhetherthatfindingwouldindependentlysatisfy D Cunningham. 0   4  ` Third,thereviewingcourtshouldconductaharmlesserroranalysis.A  violationofthe R SixthAmendmentofthekindidentifiedin D Cunninghamis 0 subjecttoharmlesserroranalysisunder g Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.  18,24[87S.Ct.824,17L.Ed.2d705]. D Cunninghamerrorisharmlesswherea 0 reviewingcourtdeterminesthatitisbeyondareasonabledoubtthatajury  wouldhavefoundatleastoneaggravatingcircumstancetobetrue,hadthat 0 aggravatingcircumstancebeenpresented.    4  ` Applyingtheseprinciplestothiscase,thisCourtshouldfindthat 0" appellantforfeitedhis i Blakelyclaimbecausehefailedtoraiseanyobjectionto $ hissentence,letaloneanobjectionbasedonfederalconstitutionalgrounds.If 0!& appellantsclaiminthiscaseisreviewable,therewasnoviolationof "(  D Cunningham,fortworeasons.First,thetrialcourtsfindingthatappellanthad 0$* alengthycriminalhistory,coupledwithappellantsadmissionsregardinghis %!, priorconvictions,qualifiesthiscasefortherecidivismexceptionto 0'".  D Cunningham.Thetrialcourtsfindingandappellantsadmissionswere ($0 sufficienttoauthorizetheimpositionofanuppertermsentence.Second, 0*%2 appellantsadmissionofthetruthofthepriorprisontermallegationsraisedthe +'4 statutorymaximumtoatleasteightyears,i.e.,theactualsentencehereceived. 0-(6  4  ` Inanyevent,therewasnoprejudice.Thetrialcourtsfindingsthat  appellanthadalengthycriminalhistoryandthatthevictimfearedforhislife 0 wouldalsohavebeenfoundbyajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.Appellant  admittedhehadfourpriorconvictionsandtherewasnodisputethatthevictim 0  wasinfear.Sinceatleastoneoftheseaggravatingcircumstanceswouldhave   beenfoundbyajury,any R SixthAmendmentviolationinthiscasewasharmless 0   beyondareasonabledoubt.     &  2 6  B  .3  8 4 The D CunninghamDecision  4 44 '4 4  ` In D Cunningham,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatCalifornias   procedureforselectinguppertermsviolatesthedefendants R Sixthand .~  k FourteenthAmendmentrighttojurytrialbecauseit assignstothetrialjudge,  nottothejury,authoritytofindthefactsthatexposeadefendanttoanelevated .~ uppertermsentence.( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.860.)  Cunninghamwasconvictedofcontinuoussexualabuseofachildundertheage .~ of14,whichwaspunishablebyalower,middle,oruppertermof6,12,or16  years,respectively.( D Ibid.)Atsentencing,thetrialcourtimposedtheupperterm .~ afterfindingsixaggravatingcircumstances,includingthevictimsparticularly ! vulnerabilityandCunninghamsviolentconduct.( D Ibid.)Thetrialcourtfound . ~# onecircumstanceinmitigation:thatCunninghamhadnopriorcriminalrecord. !% ( D Id.atpp.860861.)TheCaliforniastatecourtsrejectedCunninghamsclaim .#~' thatCaliforniasprocedureforselectinghisuppertermviolatedhis R Sixthand $)  l FourteenthAmendmentrightstojurytrial.( D Id.atp.861.) .&~!+  4  ` TheSupremeCourtreversed,findingthatCaliforniassentencing '"- procedureunderthe u DeterminateSentencingLaw(DSL)violatesthe R Sixth .)~$/ Amendmentbyallocatingtojudges,notjuries,theauthoritytofindfactswhich *%1 wouldpermittheimpositionofanuppertermsentence.TheSupremeCourts .,~'3 analysisofthisissuewasbasedonareviewofCaliforniassentencingscheme. -(5 Under m PenalCodesection1170,subdivision(b), r  1  /    ׀ thecourtshallorder  impositionofthemiddleterm,unlesstherearecircumstancesinaggravationor 0 mitigationofthecrime.( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.861.)ThePenal  Codealso directedtheStatesJudicialCounciltoadoptRulesguidingthe 0  sentencingjudgesdecisionwhethertoimposethelowerorupperprison   term.( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862,fn.omitted,quoting o 1170.3, 0   subd.(a)(2).)TheCourtexplainedthattherulesserveothersignificant   functions.Therulesrestatethestandardin m section1170,subdivision(b),for 0  selectingaterm( q Cal.RulesofCourt,L r  2  /    ׀rule4.420(a)),defineaggravating   circumstancesas factsjustifyingtheupperterm( s rule4.405(d)),mandatethat 0  thesefacts shallbeestablishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence( t rule  4.420(b)),andrequirethatthesefactsbe statedorallyontherecordif 0 imposingalowerorupperterm( x rules4.406(b), t 4.420(e)).( D Cunningham,supra,  127S.Ct.atp.862&fn.6.) 0  4  ` TheCourtalsonotedthattherulesindicatewhatfactsareappropriatefor  atrialcourttoconsiderinselectingaterm.Therulesgive anonexhaustivelist 0 ofaggravatingcircumstancesforacourttoconsider,includingfactspertaining   tothecrimeanddefendant,andanyotherstatutorilydeclaredaggravating 0" circumstances.( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862,citing z rule4.421(a), $ (b),(c).)Atrialcourtalso isfreetoconsiderany additionalcriteria 0!& reasonablyrelatedtothedecisionbeingmade.( D Cunningham,supra,127 "( S.Ct.atp.862,quoting | Peoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238,1247,quoting 0$*  ~ rule4.408(a).) Afactthatisanelementofthecrime,however,shallnotbe %!, usedtoimposetheupperterm.(  Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862, 0'". quoting t rule4.420(d).)TheCourtfoundthatunderstatelaw,therewasno  indicationthatanuppertermcouldbeauthorizedbasednotonfacts,butonthe 0  [g]eneralobjectivesofsentencingin  rule4.410(a)),whichincludethe  protectionofsociety,punishment,deterrence,andsecuringrestitutionforcrime 0  victims.( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.863.)    4  ` The D CunninghamCourtalsoobservedthatthisCourthad repeatedly 0   referredtocircumstancesinaggravationasfacts.( D Cunningham,supra,127   S.Ct.atp.863,citing  Peoplev.Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1256and  People 0  v.Wiley(1995)9Cal.4th580,587.)TheCourtnotedthattherehadnobeenno   citationtoanyCaliforniacasewhereatrialcourtimposedtheuppertermbased 0  notonafact, butsolelyonthebasisofapolicyjudgmentorsubjectivebelief.  ( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.863.) 0  4  ` TheCourtthenevaluatedCaliforniassentencingprocedurebyapplying  theprincipleitdistilledfromitspreviouscases: theFederalConstitutions 0 jury-trialguaranteeproscribesasentencingschemethatallowsajudgeto  imposeasentenceabovethestatutorymaximumbasedonafact,otherthana 0 priorconviction,notfoundbyajuryoradmittedbythedefendant.   ( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.861,citing,interalia,  Apprendiv.New 0" Jersey(2000)530U.S.466[120S.Ct.2348,147L.Ed.2d435](Apprendi), $   Blakelyv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296[124S.Ct.2531,159L.Ed.2d403] 0!& (Blakely),and  UnitedStatesv.Booker,supra,543U.S.220(Booker).)The "( Courtfoundthat  Blakelyand  Bookerbore mostcloselyonthequestion 0$* presentedinthiscase.( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.861.)TheCourt %!, reiteratedthedefinitionof statutorymaximumithadsetforthin  Blakely: 0'". 8 4 Ourprecedentsmakeclear...thatthestatutorymaximumfor ($0 Apprendipurposesisthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimposesolely 0*%2 onthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythe +'4 defendant....Inotherwords,therelevantstatutorymaximumisnot 0-(6 themaximumsentenceajudgemayimposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,  butthemaximumhemayimposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.When 0 ajudgeinflictspunishmentthatthejurysverdictalonedoesnotallow,  thejuryhasnotfoundallthefactswhichthelawmakesessentialtothe 0  punishment,...andthejudgeexceedshisproperauthority. 44 ( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.865,quoting  Blakely,542U.S.atp.303.) 0    4  ` Applyingthe  BlakelytesttoCalifornias u DeterminateSentencingLaw,   theCourtdeterminedthat themiddleterm,nottheupperterm,istherelevant 0  statutorymaximum.( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.868.)TheCourt   foundthatbecausethePenalCodeandtheimplementingCaliforniaRulesof 0  Courtallowforimposinganuppertermonthebasisofafactthatajudgefinds  byapreponderanceoftheevidence,thejurytrialandreasonabledoubt 0 requirementsofdueprocessaremissinginthe u DSL.( D Ibid.)   4  ` Inreachingthisdecision,thehighcourtrejectedthisCourtsconclusion, 0 setforthin  Peoplev.Black,supra,35Cal.4th1238,thatCaliforniasupperterm  procedurewasconstitutionalunder  Apprendi,  Blakely,and  Booker. 0 ( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.868871.)In  Black,thisCourtfoundthat    thelevelofdiscretionavailabletoaCaliforniajudgeinselectingwhichof 0" threeavailabletermstoimpose...appearscomparabletothelevelofdiscretion $ thatthehighcourthaschosentopermitfederaljudgesinpostBooker 0!& sentencing.( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.869870,quoting  Black, "( supra,35Cal.4thatp.1261.)Thehighcourtfoundthiscomparison 0$*  unavailing.( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.870.)TheCourtexplained %!, thatinCalifornia,unlikeinthepost  Bookerfederalsystem, judgesarenotfree 0'". toexercisetheirdiscretiontoselectaspecificsentencewithinadefined ($0 range.( D Id.,quoting  Booker,supra,543U.S.atp.233.)Instead,thetrialcourt 0*%2 inCunningham wastoselect12years,nothinglessandnothingmore,unless +'4 hefoundfactsallowingtheimpositionofsentenceof6or16years.( D Id.atp. 0-(6 870.)ThehighcourtalsorejectedthisCourtsconclusionthatthepresumptive  middletermwasmerelyareasonablenessrestraintakintothereasonableness 0 standardinthepost  Bookerfederalscheme:  8 4 ThereasonablenessrequirementBookeranticipatedforthefederal 0  systemoperateswithintheSixthAmendmentconstraintsdelineatedin   ourprecedent,notasasubstituteforthoseconstraints.BecausetheDSL 0   allocatestojudgessoleauthoritytofindfactspermittingtheimposition   ofanuppertermsentence,thesystemviolatestheSixthAmendment.0 44 ( D Ibid.)    4  ` Afterholdingthe u DeterminateSentencingLawunconstitutional,the 0   D CunninghamCourtstatedthat [a]stotheadjustmentofCaliforniassentencing  systeminlightofourdecision,[t]heball...liesin[Californias]court. 0 ( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.871.)ButtheCourtalsosuggestedtwo   pathsthatCaliforniacourtscouldfollowinadjustingthatsystemtocomply 0 withtheCourts R SixthAmendmentprecedentwhilestillretainingdeterminate  sentencing:(1) callinguponthejury-eitherattrialorinaseparatesentencing 0 proceeding-tofindanyfactnecessarytotheimpositionofanelevated   sentence;or(2)allowingsentencingcourts toexercisebroaddiscretion... 0" withinastatutoryrange,which,everyoneagrees,encountersnoSixth $ Amendmentshoal.( D Ibid.,fn.omitted,quoting  Booker,supra,543U.S.atp. 0!& 233.) "(   &  2 6  C  .3  8 4 Reformation mi2j%!+44 '%?j 4  ` RespondentrespectfullysubmitsthattheproperremedyisforthisCourt '"- toreform m section1170toallowtrialcourtstoexercisebroaddiscretionin .)~$/ selectingatermofimprisonment.Inordertoaccomplishthis,theCourtshould *%1 interpret m section1170toeliminatetherequirementthattrialcourtsmustengage .,~'3 infactfindingbeforeatermotherthanthemiddletermcanbeimposed.This -(5 wouldallowtrialcourtstocontinueexercisingtheirbroaddiscretioninselecting  oneofthreeterms,includingtheconsiderationofallrelevantcircumstances 0 relatingtotheoffenseandtheoffender.   4  ` Respondentwilldemonstratethatthissuggestedstatutoryreformation 0  bestreflectstheLegislaturesintentinenactingthedeterminatesentencing   scheme.Thisisshowninthreemajorways.First,theproposedreformationis 0   consistentwiththisCourtspriorinterpretationofthe u DSL.Second,this   remedycloselyresemblesthehighcourtsownmethodforpreservingthe 0  federalsentencingsystembyexcisingitsunconstitutionalfeatures.Third,this   optionisconsistentwiththestatutoryreformationsundertakenbytheSupreme 0  CourtsofbothNewJerseyandOhio,bothofwhichhadsentencingschemes  similartoCalifornias.Notleastofall,thisremedywouldpreservetheessential 0 policiesandproceduresofasystemthathasdispensedfairandeffectivejustice  inCaliforniaforcloseto30years. 0  4 &   2 6  1  .3  8 ` ThisCourtShouldReformTheUnconstitutionalStatutory 0 ProvisionsToConformWithTheLegislaturesIntentIn .~ EnactingThe u DSL mir,|` x` x '0r 4  ` ThisCourtwillreconstrueorrewriteastatutetopreservethestatutes *z! constitutionalitywhenappropriate.In  Koppv.FairPoliticalPractices  # Commission(1995)11Cal.4th607,626662,theCourtaffirmedthejudiciarys *"z% criticalroleinreinterpretingandreforminglegislativeenactmentsconsistent #' withlegislativeintent,inordertoresolveconstitutionalinfirmitieswhen *%z ) possible,ratherthaninvalidatingtheenactmentorsubvertingtheintentofthe &!+ Legislature.Theissuein  Koppwaswhethercertainprovisionsof  Proposition *(z#- 73,acampaignreformmeasurethatthefederalcourthadheldunconstitutional, )$/ couldbereformedtomeetconstitutionalrequirements,ratherthansimplybe *+z&1 declaredunenforceable.(  Id.atp.614.)TheCourtrepudiated theviewthata ,'3 courtlacksauthoritytorewriteastatuteinordertopreserveitsconstitutionality *.z)5 orthattheseparationofpowersdoctrine...invariablyprecludessuchjudicial  rewriting.(  Id.atp.615.)TheCourtexplainedthat establisheddecisionsof 0 thiscourtandtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdemonstratedthat areviewing  courtmay,inappropriatecircumstances,andconsistentlywiththeseparationof 0  powersdoctrine,reformastatutetoconformtoconstitutionalrequirementsin   lieuofsimplydeclaringitunconstitutionalandunenforceable.(  Ibid.;see  id. 0   atpp.627653[broadlysurveyingfederalandCaliforniastatecasesapplying   reformation].)TheCourtalsorejectedanydistinctionbetweencaseswherethe 0  Court simplyplacedasavingconstructiononthestatutorylanguage,thereby   constrictingthereachofthestatute,andcaseswhereaCourtwouldhave to 0  disregardlanguageandtosubstitutereformedlanguage[.](  Id.atp.646.)The  Courtexplainedthatthisdistinction suggestsadifferenceofdegree,notkind, 0 andthat inallofthesecases,werewroteeachstatuteinordertopreserveits  constitutionality.(  Ibid.) 0  4  ` TheCourtthensetoutthetestforwhethertoreformorsimplyinvalidate  astatute: 0 8 4 TheguidingprincipleisconsistencywiththeLegislatures[]intent:a   courtmayreformastatutetosatisfyconstitutionalrequirementsifitcan 0" concludewithconfidencethat(i)itispossibletoreformthestatuteina $ mannerthatcloselyeffectuatespolicyjudgmentsclearlyarticulatedby 0!& theenactingbody,and(ii)theenactingbodywouldhavepreferredsuch "( areformedversionofthestatutetoinvalidationofthestatute.0$*44 (  Kopp,supra,11Cal.4thatp.615.)Underthistest,theCourtequated %!, reformingastatutewithrewritingastatute.(  Id.atpp.660661.)TheCourt 0'". foundthattheapplicationofthistestwillavoid judicialpolicymakinginthe ($0 guiseofstatutoryreformation,andtherebyavoidencroachingonthelegislative 0*%2 functioninviolationoftheseparationofpowersdoctrine.(  Id.atp.661.) +'4  4  ` TheCourtin  Koppalsocautionedthat inallcases,reformationshould 0-(6 betestedobjectivelyagainstthestandardsetoutherein.(  Kopp,supra,11  Cal.4thatp.663.)Citinga1979lawreviewarticlebyJusticeGinsburg,a 0 memberofthe  Bookerremedialmajorityandtheauthorof D Cunningham,this  Courtdeterminedthat 0  8 4 courtsmaylegitimatelyemploythepowertoreforminorderto   effectuatepolicyjudgmentsclearlyarticulatedbytheLegislatureor 0   electorate,wheninvalidatingastatutewouldbefarmoredestructiveof   theelectorateswill.And, ofcourse...ultimateauthoritytorecastor 0  scrapthelawinquestionremainswiththepoliticalbranches[and,asin   thiscase,theelectorate].0 44 (  Id.atp.661,quoting  Ginsburg,SomeThoughtsonJudicialAuthoritytoRepair  UnconstitutionalLegislation(1979)23Clev.St.L.Rev.301,324.) 0  4  ` The  KoppCourtultimatelydeterminedthatunderthistest,reformation  oftheunconstitutionalprovisionsofthecampaignreformmeasurewas 0 inappropriate.(  Kopp,supra,11Cal.4thatp.615.)Astothesectionspertaining  totheunconstitutional intercandidateban,thefederalcourthadfoundthe 0 sectionunconstitutionalon  FirstAmendmentgroundsthatwouldremain   unenforceable whetherornotwereformthelattertwosections.(  Id.atp. 0" 615.)Andastothesectionspertainingtotheunconstitutionalstatutes $ regulatingcontributionstoindividualcandidates,politicalcommittees,or 0!& parties,reformationwasimpermissiblebecauseitwouldnot closelyeffectuate "( policyjudgmentsclearlyexpressedbytheelectorate.(  Id.atpp.615616,662 0$* 663.)Morespecifically,theproposedreformationswouldaltertheamountof %!, fundingthatthe electorateplannedintheproposition.(  Id.atpp.615616, 0'". 664670.) ($0  4  `   KoppsexpressrecognitionofthisCourtsroleinreformingstatuteswas 0*%2 foreshadowedby  Peoplev.Roder(1983)33Cal.3d491.In  Roder,thisCourt +'4 heldthattheprovisionsof  section496createdanunconstitutionalmandatory 0-(6 presumption.(  Id.atp.504.)Inordertosavethestatutesconstitutionalityand  preventitfrombeingstruckdowninitsentirety,thePeoplerequestedthatthis 0 Courtconstruethestatuteasalegislativelyprescribedpermissiveinference.(  Id.  atp.507.)AlthoughthePeoplesrequestrequired somecreativestatutory 0  construction,the  RoderCourtfoundthetransformationofthestatutory   presumptionintoapermissiveinferencereasonableandfeasible.(  Id.atpp.505 0   506.)ThisCourtexplainedthatpreservingthestatutoryprovisionsina   restrainedformstillenabledthetrialcourtstoinformthejuryofaninference 0  thattheLegislaturehadconcludedcouldbereasonablydrawnfromproofofthe   basicfacts,andthatthepermissiveinferenceservedanimportantsubstantive 0  functioninregulatingtheconductaddressedinthesection.(  Id.atpp.506507.)  ThisCourtorderedthatonretrial,thetrialcourtshouldapplythis 0 reinterpretationofthestatute.(  Id.atp.507.)   4  ` Thisapproachofreconstruingastatutetopermitaconstitutional 0 interpretationwasfollowedbytheCourtofAppealin  Peoplev.Forrester  (1994)30Cal.App.4th1697.In  Forrester,theCourtofAppealfirstheldthat 0   section1320,subdivision(b),containedanunconstitutionalmandatory   presumption.(  Id.atpp.17011703.)Expresslyfollowingtheapproachtaken 0" in  Roder,the  Forrestercourtfurtherheldthatinfutureprosecutionsfor $ violationsof  section1320,subdivision(b),thesectionshouldbeconstruedas 0!& containingapermissiveinferenceinordertopreservethestatutes "( constitutionality.(  Id.atp.1703.) 0$*  4  ` ThisCourtsrecentdecisionin  InreHowardN.(2005)35Cal.4th117 %!, alsodemonstratesitswillingnesstoreformastatutesoastopreserveits 0'". constitutionality.(See  InreHowardN.,supra,35Cal.4thatp.132,citing ($0 generallyto  Kopp,supra,11Cal.4thatpp.615,641661.)In  HowardN.,this 0*%2 Courtconcludedthattocomplywithdueprocess,thejuvenileextended +'4 detentionschemeneededtocontainaprovisionrequiringafindingthatthe 0-(6 personhas seriousdifficultyincontrollingdangerousbehavior.(  Id.atp.  132.)Althoughthisprovisionwasnotanexplicitpartofthestatute,theCourt 0 nonethelessreformedthestatutetoadditonthegroundthatdoingso doesnot  appearinconsistentwithlegislativeintentand do[es]noviolencetothewords 0  ofthestatute;rather,thewordsaresusceptibleofthatinterpretation.(  Id.atp.   133.)Inmakingthisaddition,theCourtfoundthat construingthestatutory 0   schemetoavoidconstitutionalinfirmitydemonstratesgreaterdeferencetothe   Legislaturethansimplyinvalidating,astheCourtofAppealdid,thelegislative 0  scheme.(  Ibid.)    4  ` Theseprinciplesarereadilyapplicabletothiscase,andwillpermitthe 0  CourttoreformCaliforniassentencingschemetobringitintocompliancewith  thefederalConstitution.Respondentsuggeststhefollowingspecificrevisions 0 tothepertinentstatutesandrules.First,theCourtshouldstrikethelanguageof   m section1170,subdivision(b),thattheSupremeCourtfoundunconstitutional: 0  Whenajudgmentofimprisonmentistobeimposedandthestatutespecifies  threepossibleterms,thecourtshallorderimpositionofthemiddleterm,unless 0 therearecircumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime.(See    D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.861,868.)Withthisamendment,the 0" subdivisionwouldthengiveatrialcourtthebroaddiscretiontoimposealower, $ middle,oruppertermwithouttherequirementofadditionalfactfinding.(See 0!&  D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.871.)This broaddiscretionstandard "( wouldpermit,consistentwiththeeliminationofthefactfindingrequirement, 0$* andsubjecttoabuseofdiscretionreview,theimpositionofaterm solelyonthe %!, basisofapolicyjudgmentorsubjectivebelief,suchasthe [g]eneralized 0'". objectivesofsentencingin  rule4.410(a),including,forexample,the ($0  protectionofsociety,punishment,deterrence,andsecuringrestitution.(See 0*%2  D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.863.)S r  3  /        4  ` Inthesamemanner,theCourtshouldreplacethephrasein m section1170, 0 subdivision(b),thatbegins, Indeterminingwhethertherearecircumstances  thatjustifyimpositionoftheupperorlowerterm...,with Indeterminingthe 0  appropriateterm....T r  4  /    ׀Thischangeisnecessarytoremovethe   unconstitutionalrequirementthatanupperorlowertermmustbejustifiedbyan 0   aggravatingormitigatingcircumstancefoundbythecourt.Underthereformed   system,areasonwithoutafactualfindingissufficienttoimposeanyterm.For 0  similarreasons,theCourtshouldadjusttherequirementthatthetrialcourt set   forthontherecordthefactsandreasonsforimposingtheupperorlowerterm, 0  torequirethatthetrialcourt setforthontherecordthereasonsforimposingthe  termselected.Thisalterationalsoeliminatestheneedforfurtherjudicial 0 factfinding,andalsoprovidesthesameprocedureformiddletermsasforupper  orlowerterms.UX  r  5  /    ׀Further,  section1170.3,authorizingtheJudicialCouncilto 0 adoptrulesguidingtheselectionofthelowerorupperterms,shouldbe  reformedtoauthorizetheJudicialCounciltoadoptrulesfortheselectionofthe 0 lower,middle,orupperterm,sothatagain,theprocedureforselectingmiddle  termswillbenodifferentthantheprocedureforselectinglowerorupperterms. 0  (See D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862.)    4  ` Thisstatutoryreformationwouldbefullyconsistentwiththe 0   Legislaturesoverallintentinenactingthetripartitesentencingscheme.Under   the  DeterminateSentencingActof1976,theLegislatureintendedtoprovidethe 0  trialcourtstheabilitytoimposeanyofthethreepossibletermsinanyparticular   case,withthetrialcourtexercisingitsbroaddiscretiontoselecttheappropriate 0  termonthebasisofthecircumstancesrelatingtothecrimeandthedefendant.  (  Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1260;X r  6  /    ׀  Peoplev.Hernandez(1988)46Cal.3d 0 194,205;  Peoplev.Wright(1982)30Cal.3d705,713.)Thus,aninterpretation  of m section1170inamannerthatpreservesitsconstitutionalityunder 0  D CunninghamwouldeffectuatetheLegislaturesintenttogivethetrialcourtsthe  fullflexibilitytotailoranappropriatesentenceunderthecircumstancesofeach 0 individualcase,andwouldpreserveasystemthathasworkedeffectivelyfor   closeto30years. 0"  4  ` Respondentsproposedconstructionwouldbefarmoreconsistentwith $ legislativeintentthanthealternativeofrequiringajurytrialonaggravating  circumstancesinordertopermitimpositionoftheupperterm.Inits 0 declarationofpurposein m section1170,subdivision(a)(1),theLegislature  expresseditsintenttoassigntothetrialcourt,ratherthanajury,theroleof 0  identifyingandimposingtheappropriatesentence.(  Ibid.[ TheLegislature   furtherfindsanddeclaresthattheeliminationofdisparityandtheprovisionof 0   uniformityofsentencescanbestbeachievedbydeterminatesentencesfixedby   statuteinproportiontotheseriousnessoftheoffenseasdeterminedbythe 0  Legislaturetobeimposedbythecourtwithspecifieddiscretion].)The   Legislaturethenlaidoutasystemwhichspecificallyplacedthetrialcourtinthat 0  roleofidentifyingandevaluatingtheapplicablecircumstancesinordertobest  achievethegoalsofdeterminatesentencing. 0  4  ` Inenactingthe u DeterminateSentencingAct,theLegislaturealso  expresslyrejectedamorerigidandformalizedtriallikeapproachtosentencing 0 determinations,optinginsteadforthecurrentsystem.Californias u Determinate  SentencingActwasfirstcreatedin1976by  SenateBill42(S.B.42)andhadan 0 effectivedateofJuly1,1977.(  Stats.1976,ch.1139,273,p.5140.)Under   thisoriginalversionofthe u DeterminateSentencingAct, m section1170, 0" subdivision(b),providedthatthetrialcourtcouldconsideronlythose $ aggravatingormitigatingcircumstancessetforthinformalmotionsbythe 0!& parties,andthecourthadtoconductanevidentiaryhearingandmakeformal "( findingsoffactandstatementsofreasonsastothosecircumstancesinorderto 0$* imposeanupperorlowerterm.(  Stats.1976,ch.1139,273,p.5140.)Y r  7  /     %!,  4  ` Butinearly1977,priortotheeffectivedateof  S.B.42,theLegislature  enacted  AssemblyBill476(A.B.476)toresolvenumerousconcernsthathad 0 ariseninresponseto  S.B.42.(See  Stats.1977,ch.165,pp.639680.)Oneof  theLegislaturesspecificamendmentsin  A.B.476involvedrewriting m section 0  1170,subdivision(b)toeliminatethecumbersomeandformalisticmotion   practiceandevidentiaryfactfindingrequirements,andallowthecourttorelyon 0   abroadarrayofrelevantinformation,includingprobationreports,hearsay,and   statementsbythevictimandfamilymembers.(  Stats.1977,ch.165,15,pp. 0  647649.)Toensurethatthemodifiedversionofthe u DeterminateSentencing   Act,ratherthantheoriginalversion,becamethelawofthelandonJuly1,1977, 0  theLegislatureenacted  A.B.476asanurgencymeasureandmadeitseffective  datethesameas  S.B.42.(  Stats.1977,ch.165,100,p.680.) 0  4  ` Thislegislativehistoryof m section1170,subdivision(b),showsthatthe  Legislatureexpresslyconsideredandrejectedrequiringamoretriallike 0 approachtosentencingdeterminationsofaggravatingandmitigating  circumstances,andthislegislativeintentrunsdirectlycountertorequiringa 0 formaljurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtonaggravating   circumstancesbeforeacourtcouldimposeanupperterm.Thus,construingthat 0" sectiontoretaintheroleofthetrialcourtandthecurrentbroadandinformal $ natureofsentencingdeterminationsistheonlywaytopreservethelegislative 0!& purposeof m section1170,subdivision(b),andtheentiredeterminatesentencing "( scheme.   4  ` Inaddition,asenacted, m section1170placesanequalburdenonthe 0 prosecutionandthedefendant!eachmustofferproofoffactstoobtainaterm  otherthanthemiddleterm,andeachmustmakethatproofbythe 0  preponderanceoftheevidencestandard.Thislegislativemandatetoplacethe   partiesonequalfootingwouldbeviolatediftheprosecutionwereforcedtoa 0   standardofproofbeyondareasonabledoubttoajuryforaggravatingfacts,but   thedefendantwereentitledtoprovefactsinmitigationtoajudgeandbya 0  preponderancestandard.Thatdisparity,whichwouldmakemitigatedterms   mucheasiertoachievethanaggravatedterms,andwouldemployadramatically 0  lesscumbersomeandcostlyprocessforattaininglowertermsthanupperterms,  wouldseriouslyerodetheLegislaturesstatedgoalof attainingterms 0 proportionatetotheseriousnessoftheoffense.( m 1170,subd.(a)(1).)   4  ` Similarly,construing m section1170toeliminatetherequirementof 0 factfindingwouldnotgrantthePeopleabenefitattheexpenseofdefendants.  Byeliminatinganyrequirementthatatrialcourtmustfindadditionalfacts 0 beforeimposingatermotherthanthemiddleterm,defendantswouldbeableto   receivethelowtermwithouttheneedforanyfactualfindingsonmitigating 0" circumstances. $  4  ` Furthermore,suchastatutoryconstructionwouldnotpreventthetrial 0!& courtfromtakingintoaccountallrelevantconsiderationsinselectingthe "( appropriateterm,norwoulditmaketheselectionoftheappropriateterm 0$* unboundedorarbitrary.Thepartieswouldstillbepermittedtopresentevidence %!, andarguethatthereareaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances,thetrialcourt 0'". wouldstillberequiredtoconsiderwhateverevidenceandargumenttheparties ($0 proffered,andthetrialcourtwouldcontinuetoexerciseitsbroaddiscretionin 0*%2 selectingaterm.AsexplainedinSectionC.4,post,theenumeratedaggravating +'4 andmitigatingcircumstancescurrentlyidentifiedintherulesofcourtwould 0-(6 continuetoplayanillustrativeroleinprovidingguidanceforthecourtinits  exerciseofdiscretion.Additionally,thetrialcourtsdecisiontoimposeall 0 terms,includingthemiddleterm,wouldcontinuetobereviewableonappealfor  abuseofdiscretion,muchlikeanyotherdiscretionarysentencingdecision.Z r  8  /    ׀ 0  Finally,thetrialcourtsstatementofreasonsfortheimpositionofaparticular   termwouldbetakenintoconsiderationbytheappellatecourtinreviewingthe 0   decision.    4  ` Indeed,suchaconstructioninlightof D Cunninghamwouldalsobefar 0  moreconsistentwiththelegislativeintentbehindthe u DSLthanthealternative   ofremovingthechoiceofanuppertermanddeemingthemiddletermthe 0  highestsentencethatatrialcourtcanlawfullyimpose.TheLegislature  providedthatallthreetermsshouldbeavailable,anditwouldplainlydisserve 0 thegoalsofpunishmentanduniformityinsentencingtograntdefendantsan  unwarrantedwindfallbasedonaconstitutionaldefectintheprocedurefor 0 selectingupperterms.[ r  9  /       4  ` ThisCourtsrecentexpositionofstatelawin  Peoplev.Black,supra,35 0 Cal.4th1238,alsoconfirmsthatreformingthestatutetoreflecta broad   discretionstandardandtoeliminatethejudicialfactfindingrequirementisthe  appropriateremedyinthiscase.Althoughthe D CunninghamCourtdisagreed 0 withthisCourtslegalconclusions,itreliedheavilyonthisCourtsstatements  in  BlackaboutCaliforniasentencingprocedureinordertoresolvethe 0  constitutionalissue.(See D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.861863,868   871.)Indiscussingthisprocedure,thisCourtspecificallystatedthatjudges 0   have broaddiscretionundercurrentlawtoselectanupperterm,althoughthat   broaddiscretionis constrained,tosomedegreebythemandatein m section 0  1170,subdivision(b), thatanaggravatingfactorexist....(  Peoplev.Black,   supra,35Cal.4thatpp.1255,1260.)\ r  10  /    ׀TheCourtalsopointedoutthat,except 0  forusingafacttwicetoimposeanuppertermandanenhancement,orto  imposeanuppertermandasanelementofthecrime, ajudgeisfreetobasean 0 uppertermsentenceonanyaggravatingfactorthejudgedeemssignificant...  .(  Id.atp.1255.)And [a]lthoughsubdivision(b)iswordedinmandatory 0 language,therequirementthatanaggravatingfactorexistismerelya  requirementthatthedecisiontoimposetheuppertermbereasonable.(  Ibid.) 0 Giventhisinterpretationofthe u DSLin  Black,theLegislaturesurelywouldhave   preferredthisreformationremedybecauseitkeepsthesystemtheclosest 0" possibletothepresentsystemwithin D Cunninghamsconstraints:retainingthe $ broaddiscretionstandard,i.e.,areasonablenessrequirement,butremovingthe 0!& requirementofjudicialfactfindingtoimposeanupperorlowerterm,whilestill "( allowinganyfact(savefactsalsousedaselementsorenhancements)tobeused 0$* toimposeanyterm. %!,  4  ` Inshort,thisCourtshouldreplacethe mandatorypresumptionofthe 0'". middletermwiththeconstitutionallysoundoptionof broaddiscretiondefined ($0 bythehighcourtin D Cunningham.Inplaceoftherequirementinthestatuteand  rulesofcourtthatatrialcourtfindafactinordertoimposealowerorupper 0 term,theCourtshouldinsertaprovisionthatthetrialcourtshouldexerciseits  sounddiscretiontochooseanyofthethreelegislativelymandatedterms. 0  Indeed,aspreviouslynoted,thisisinpracticaltermsveryclosetothecurrent   standard,asexplainedin  Black.Itisalsoundoubtedlyaconstitutionallyvalid 0   standard,asnotedin D Cunningham.Anditisundoubtedlytheremedythatwould   bepreferredbytheLegislature. 0   4 &   2 6  2  .3  8 ` The  BookerRemedialOpinionProvidesFurtherSupportFor 0  ThisCourtToReinterpretAndReformThe u DSLInThe .~ MannerSuggestedByRespondent N,|` x` x '0B 4  ` Inadditiontoitsowndecisions,thisCourtlookstoUnitedStates *z SupremeCourtcasesas authorityforthisCourtsreformationpower.(See    Kopp,supra,11Cal.4thatpp.627641[ muchofthejurisprudenceofourown *z casesrestsonandflowsfromdecisionsoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt  addressingjudicialauthoritytoreformstatutestopreservethemagainst *z constitutionalinfirmity].)Because  Booker,like D Cunningham,identifiedaright  tohaveajurytrialonanyfactatsentencingusedtoincreaseasentence,this *z! CourtshouldcloselyevaluatethemannerinwhichtheSupremeCourtfashioned  # aremedyfortheconstitutionalviolationitfoundinthe  UnitedStatesSentencing *"z% Guidelines( Guidelines).Althoughthefederalsentencingsystemisdifferent #' andmorecomplexthanCalifornias,theremedyfashionedbytheSupreme *%z ) Courtin  Bookeroffersanaptandusefulmodelforthereformationof u DSL &!+ suggestedbyrespondent.In  Booker,theSupremeCourtsimplymadethe *(z#- mandatory  Guidelinesadvisory,andthenheldthatfederalsentencesaretobe )$/ reviewedforreasonableness.Asimilarlydirect,clearandpracticalsolutionto *+z&1 the R SixthAmendmentprobleminthiscasecanbeusedtopreservethebasic ,'3 shapeofCalifornias u DSLsentencingstructure.The  Bookerformulawould *.z)5 leadthisCourttodeletethemandatoryfactfindingrequirementforimposingan  upperorlowertermandtoleavetheselectionofasentencewithinthetrial 0 courtsbroaddiscretion.   4  ` In  Booker,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthat,underitsdecisions 0  in  Apprendi,supra,530U.S.466,and  Blakely,supra,542U.S.296,the R Sixth   Amendmentrighttoajurytrialwasviolatedbytheimpositionofanenhanced 0   sentenceunderthe  Guidelinesbasedonthesentencingjudgesdeterminationof   afact(otherthanapriorconviction)thatwasnotfoundbythejuryoradmitted 0  bythedefendant.(  Booker,supra,543U.S.atpp.226237.)Thejuryfoundthe   defendantBookerguiltyofpossessionwithintenttodistributeatleast50grams 0  ofcocainebase( crack),basedonevidencethathehad92.5gramsofcrackin  hisbag.Thestatuteunderwhichhewasconvictedprescribedaminimum 0 prisonsentenceof10yearsandamaximumsentenceoflifeimprisonment,but  baseduponBookerscriminalhistoryandthequantityofdrugsfoundbythe 0 jury,the  Guidelinesrequiredthedistrictcourtjudgetoimposea basesentence  withinthemandatorysentencingrangeof210monthsto262monthsinprison. 0 Thejudgeheldasentencinghearingandconcludedbyapreponderanceofthe   evidencethatBookerhadpossessedanadditional566gramsofcrackandthat 0" hewasguiltyofobstructingjustice.Underthe  Guidelines,thesejudicially $ foundfactsprescribedamandatorysentencingrangeof360monthstolife 0!& imprisonment,andthejudgeimposeda360monthsentence.Thus, insteadof "( thesentenceof21yearsand10monthsthatthejudgecouldhaveimposedon 0$* thebasisofthefactsprovedtothejurybeyondareasonabledoubt,Booker %!, receiveda30yearsentence.(  Id.atp.227.) 0'".   ($0  4  ` TheSupremeCourtheldthatBookerssentenceviolatedthe R Sixth  Amendment.(  Booker,supra,543U.S.atp.229.)The  BookerCourtfoundthat 0 therewasnodistinctionofconstitutionalsignificancebetweenthe  Guidelines  andtheWashingtonsentencingproceduresatissuein  Blakelybecausethe 0  sentencingrulesinbothsystemsweremandatoryandimposedbinding   requirementsonallsentencingjudges.(  Id.atpp.231235.)The  BookerCourt 0   explainedthatBookersactualsentencewasalmost10yearslongerthanthe   mandatory  Guidelinesrangeauthorizedbythejuryverdictalone,andthatthe 0  higher  Guidelinesrangewasauthorizedonlybyfactsbeyondthosefoundbythe   jury(i.e.,possessionofadditional566gramsofcrack).(  Id.atp.235.)The 0  SupremeCourtthereforeconcludedthatthejurysverdictaloneinBookers  casedidnotauthorizethesentenceandthatthe judgeacquiredthatauthority 0 onlyuponfindingsomeadditionalfact.(  Ibid.)Accordingly,theSupreme  Courtheldthatthe  Blakelyand  Apprendiholdingsappliedtothe  Guidelines. 0 (  Id.atpp.235237.)   4  ` Afterconcludingthatthe R SixthAmendmentappliedtothefederal 0 Sentencing  Guidelines,the  BookerCourtthenaddressedthequestionofremedy,   i.e.,whetherortowhatextentthe  Guidelineswereinapplicable.TheSupreme 0" Courtansweredthisquestion bylookingtolegislativeintentand seek[ing] $ todeterminewhatCongresswouldhaveintendedinlightoftheCourt 0!& constitutionalholding.Inthisregard,theSupremeCourtwasconfrontedwith "( twoalternativeremedies:(1) engraftontotheexistingsystemthejurytrial 0$* requirementandtherebychangethe  Guidelinesbypreventingthesentencing %!, courtfromimposingasentenceonthebasisofafactthatthejurydidnotfind 0'". orthedefendantdidnotadmit;or(2)makethe  Guidelinessystemadvisoryby ($0 severingandexcisingtheinvalidportionsofthestatute,whilemaintaininga 0*%2 strongconnectionbetweenthesentenceimposedandtheoffendersreal +'4 conduct,becausesuchaconnectionwasimportanttothelegislativegoalof 0-(6 sentenceuniformity.(  Booker,supra,543U.S.atp.246.)   4  ` TheSupremeCourtrecognizedthateitherapproachwouldsignificantly 0 alterthesystemthatCongressdesigned,butthe  BookerCourtexplainedthatthe  judicialfactfindinginherentinthemandatory  Guidelinessystemwasnolonger 0  possibleinlightoftheCourtsconstitutionalholding.(  Booker,supra,543U.S.   atp.246.)TheSupremeCourtthereforeadoptedtheadvisoryapproachand 0   rejectedthejurytrialapproachbecausetheremedyofmakingthe  Guidelines   advisorywas morecompatiblewiththelegislativeintentand deviate[d]less 0  radicallyfromCongressintendedsystem.(  Id.atpp.246247.)    4  `   Bookerexplainedthatthereweremultiplereasonswhytherejected 0  remedyofengraftingorsuperimposingthejurytrialrequirementontothe  existingsentencingschemewasinconsistentwithCongresssintentinenacting 0 the  Guidelines.TheSupremeCourtfirstnotedthatthestatuteexpressly  providedthat thecourtwouldconsiderthenatureandcircumstancesofthe 0 offenseandthehistoryandcharacteristicsofthedefendantinsentencing,and  thatthisreferenceto thecourtmeant,incontext,thejudgeworkingwithout 0 thejury.TheSupremeCourtalsonotedthatanotherstatutoryprovision   removedtypical jurytrialevidentiarylimitations,suchasthelimitationson 0" informationconcerningthedefendantsbackground,character,andconduct. $ (  Booker,supra,543U.S.atpp.249250.) 0!&  4  ` TheSupremeCourtnextfoundthatthebasicstatutorygoalof "( diminishingsentencingdisparityandincreasingsentenceuniformitydepended 0$* onjudicialeffortstobasethepunishmentontherealconductthatformedthe %!, basisforthecrimeofconviction.(  Booker,supra,543U.S.atpp.249254.) 0'". TheCourtexplainedthatthesameoffensecouldbecommittedinahostof ($0 differentways,butthat,underasystemwiththejurytrialrequirement,the 0*%2 sentencingjudgewouldbeprecludedfromtakingintoaccounttheactual +'4 mannerinwhichtheoffensewascommittedunlesstheprosecutorchargedmore 0-(6 thantheelementsofthecrime.(  Ibid.)  Bookerthenprovidedseveralexamples  toillustratehowthegoalof ensuringsimilarsentencesforthosewhohave 0 committedsimilarcrimesinsimilarwayswouldbeunderminedbysucha  system.(  Id.atp.252.)TheSupremeCourtalsofoundthatengraftinga R Sixth 0  Amendmentrequirementontothesentencingschemewouldcreateasystem   morecomplexthanCongressintended,andthatpleabargainingundersucha 0   systemwouldleadtodiminisheduniformityinsentencing.(  Id.atpp.253257.)   TheSupremeCourtfurtherdeterminedthattherejectedremedywouldcreatean 0  asymmetricalsystembymakingitmoredifficulttoadjustsentencesupward   thantoadjustthemdownward,andthatsucha onewayleverwouldbe 0  contrarytoCongressintent.(  Id.atpp.257258.)   4  ` Afterconcludingthattheremedyofadvisory  Guidelineswasmore 0 consistentwiththelegislativeintent,theSupremeCourtthenseveredand  excisedthestatutoryprovisionsthatwereinconsistentwiththe R Sixth 0 Amendment,suchastheprovisionthatrequiredsentencingcourtstoimposea  sentencewithintheapplicable  Guidelinesrange.TheSupremeCourtalso 0 adoptedanew reasonablenessstandardastheappellatestandardofreviewfor   sentencesimposedundertheremediedsentencingscheme.(  Booker,supra,543 0" U.S.atpp.259263.)TheSupremeCourtfurtherappliedtheremedial $ interpretationofthefederalsentencingstatutestoallcasesondirectreview,and 0!& explainedthatreviewingcourtsshouldapplyprudentialdoctrines,suchas "( forfeitureandharmlesserror,todeterminewhetheraparticularcaseneededto 0$* beremandedforanewsentencinghearing.(  Id.atp.268.)TheSupremeCourt %!, acknowledgedthatitsremedywasnotthe lastword,andthatitwouldbeleft 0'". toCongresstodevisealongtermsentencingsystemthatwascompatiblewith ($0 theConstitution.(  Id.atp.265.) 0*%2  4  ` Nowthatthehighcourtin D Cunninghamhasfoundthatthe R Sixth +'4 Amendmentjurytrialrightimplicatestheimpositionoftheupperterm,the 0-(6   BookeranalysisprovidesstrongandclearguidanceforthisCourtontheissue  ofremedy.Thealternativesinthiscasecloselyresembletheoptionsthe 0 SupremeCourtconsideredin  Booker.Themostradicaloptionwouldbeforthis  Courttodeclinetoreinterpret m section1170,subdivision(b),inaconstitutional 0  manner.Suchanapproachwouldresultinengraftingajurytrialrequirement   ontothecurrentsystemtoprohibitthetrialcourtfromimposingtheupperterm 0   onthebasisofaggravatingcircumstancesthatwerenotfoundbythejuryor   admittedbythedefendant.Itisaconsiderableunderstatementtosuggestthat 0  thisalternativewoulddrasticallychangethesystemdesignedbytheLegislature.    4  ` Thesecondalternativeremedy,aspreviouslydiscussed,wouldbeforthis 0  Courttoreinterpret m section1170,subdivision(b),sothatthereformedstatute  wouldallowthetrialcourtthebroaddiscretiontoimposetheupperorlower 0 termwithoutanyrequirementofadditionalfactfinding.Liketheremedy  adoptedin  Booker,thisproposedinterpretationofthestatutewouldbefarmore 0 consistentwiththelegislativepoliciesandobjectivesbehindthe u DSL,and   deviatelessradicallyfromtheLegislaturesintendedsystemthanthe 0 alternativeofengraftingajurytrialrequirementontothecurrentstatutory   scheme. 0"  4  ` Thelegislativeintenthasbeenexpressedinseveraldifferentways.First, $ likethefederalsentencingscheme,theexpressreferencesto thecourtin 0!&  m section1170demonstratethattheLegislaturecontemplatedthatthesentencing "( judge,withouttheassistanceofthejury,determinewhethertherewere 0$* aggravatingcircumstancestojustifytheimpositionoftheupperterm.(Seealso %!,   1170.3[RulesofCourtprovide criteriaforthetrialjudgeatthetimeof 0'". sentencing].)Inenacting m section1170,theLegislaturealsorejected ($0 evidentiarylimitationstypicaltojurytrials,andinsteadallowedthesentencing 0*%2 courttorelyonabroadarrayofrelevantinformation,includingprobation +'4 reports,hearsay,andstatementsbythevictimandfamilymembers.(Compare 0-(6   Stats.1977,ch.165,15,pp.647649with  Stats.1976,ch.1139,273,p.  5140.) 0  4  ` Second,superimposingthe R SixthAmendmentjurytrialrequirementonto  thedeterminationofaggravatingcircumstanceswouldundercuttheexpress 0  legislativegoalofachievingsentenceuniformityfor offenderscommittingthe   sameoffenseundersimilarcircumstances.( m 1170,subd.(a)(1).)For 0   instance,undersuchasystem,atrialcourtwouldbeprecludedfromexercising   itsdiscretiontoimposetheuppertermonthebasisoftheseriousnessofthe 0  defendantsactualconductincommittingtheoffense(e.g.,highdegreeof   cruelty,viciousness,orcallousness)unlessthoseparticularaggravatingfacts 0  werechargedbytheprosecutorandfoundbythejury.Thus,asin  Booker,a  sentencingsystemwithanengraftedjurytrialrequirementwouldweakenthe 0 connectionbetweenthesentenceandthedefendantsactualconduct,and  therebyunderminethelegislativegoalof ensuringsimilarsentencesforthose 0 whohavecommittedsimilarcrimesinsimilarways.(  Booker,supra,543U.S.  atp.252.) 0  4  ` Third,engraftingthejurytrialrequirementontothecurrentsystemwould   createafarmorecomplexsentencingschemethantheonecontemplatedbythe 0" Legislature.Asexplainedabove,theLegislaturedidnotintendtoprecondition $ thetrialcourtsauthoritytoimposetheuppertermonajurytrialandjury 0!& findingsastoaggravatingcircumstances,andtheLegislaturecertainlydidnot "( intendthattheintricateandtimeconsumingpleading,evidentiary,and 0$* instructionalrulesattendanttojurytrialsbeappliedtoadeterminationof %!, aggravatingcircumstances. 0'".  4  ` Fourth,itishighlyunlikelythattheLegislatureintendedanasymmetrical ($0 sentencingschemewherethetrialcourtcouldconsiderfactsthatwerenotfound 0*%2 byajuryorprovedbeyondareasonabledoubtonlyforthepurposeofimposing +'4 thediscretionarylowtermbutnotthediscretionaryupperterm.Asin  Booker, 0-(6 sucha onewayleverisclearlynotcompatiblewiththelegislativeintent.By  contrast,respondentsproposedreformationofthestatutewouldpreservethe 0 balancedsystemintendedbytheLegislature.   4  ` TheSupremeCourtsapproachtotheremedyquestionin  Bookerthus 0  fullysupportsrespondentsproposedreformationof m section1170,subdivision   (b).ThisCourtshouldusethe  Bookerformulatoconformthe u DSLtothe 0   SupremeCourtsinterpretationoftheConstitution.Thestatuteshouldbe   reformedtoeliminatetherequirementofafacttoimposethelowerorupper 0  term,andotherwisetoretainthetrialcourtsbroaddiscretioninselectingany   term. 0   4 &   2 6  3  .3  8 ` TheRemediesThatTheNewJerseyAndOhioSupreme 0 CourtsAppliedToTheirStatesSystemsAfter  BookerAlso .~ SupportReformationOfCaliforniasSystem in6,|` x` x '06 4  ` NewJerseyandOhio,likeCalifornia,eachhadasentencingsystem *z providingforapresumptivesentencewithinastatutoryrangeandarequirement  thatajudgefindafactbeforeincreasingthesentenceabovethepresumptive *z sentence.Before D Cunningham,thesestatessupremecourtshadfoundthatthis  componentoftheirsystemsviolated  Blakely.Analogizingtothehighcourts *z! remedialmodelin  Booker,eachstatesupremecourtthenjudiciallydeletedthis  # presumption,thuseliminatingtherequirementofafacttoimposeanincreased *"z% sentencewithinthestatutoryrange,andleavingforthetrialcourtsdiscretion #' theselectionofanysentencewithinthisrange.Thesestatesupremecourts *%z ) decisionsarealsoinstructiveandpersuasivefordeterminingtheproperremedy &!+ fortheconstitutionaldefectidentifiedin D Cunningham.(  Statev.Foster(Ohio *(z#- 2006)845N.E.2d470;  Statev.Natale(N.J.2005)878A.2d724.) )$/  4  ` In  Statev.Natale,supra,878A.2d724,theNewJerseySupremeCourt *+z&1 confronteda  Blakelychallengetoasystemwithcrimespunishablebyrangesof ,'3 imprisonmentwithpresumptivetermswithintheseranges.Forexample,ranges *.z)5 forcertaincrimesconsistedoffivetotenyears,withapresumptivetermof  sevenyears,ortentotwentyyears,withapresumptivetermoffifteenyears. 0 (  Id.atp.738.)TheNewJerseystatutoryschemestatedthat thecourtshall  imposethepresumptivetermunlessthepreponderanceofaggravatingor 0  mitigatingfactors,assetforthin[N.J.S.A.2C:44-1]aandb.,weighsinfavor   ofahigherorlowertermwithinthestatutoryrange.(  Ibid.)Thecourtfound 0   thatunderthisstatute:   8 4 beforeanyjudicialfactfinding,themaximumsentencethatcanbe 0  imposedbasedonajuryverdictorguiltypleaisthepresumptiveterm.   Accordingly,the statutorymaximumforBlakelyandBookerpurposes 0  isthepresumptivesentence.44 (  Id.atp.739.)Thecourtthereforeheld thattheCodessystemofpresumptive 0 termsentencingviolatestheSixthAmendmentrighttotrialbyjury.(  Ibid.)   4  ` TheNewJerseySupremeCourtnextdeterminedthattheproperremedy 0 forthisconstitutionalflawwastoeliminatethepresumptivetermsbecausethis  solution bestachievestheLegislaturespurposeinenactingtheCode.(  Id.at 0 pp.741742.)] r  11  /    ׀Inreachingthisdetermination,thecourtnotedthattheCode   wasintended toguidejudicialdiscretioninimposingsentencestoensurethat 0" similarlysituateddefendantsdidnotreceivedissimilarsentences.(  Id.atp. $ 739,internalquotationmarksomitted.) 0!&  4  ` Thecourtthenexplainedwhyitwasrejectingalternativeremedies.First, "( thecourtstatedthatithadthepowertodo judicialsurgery,andfoundthat 0$* theLegislaturewouldprefertohavethecourt severtheoffendingportionof %!, theCoderatherthaninvalidatetheentireCode.(  Natale,supra,878A.2datpp. 0'". 739740.)Second,thecourtfoundthattheLegislaturewouldnothave  preferred tosubstitutejurorsforjudgesasthefactfindersforsentencingfacts. 0 (  Id.atp.740.)Thecourtcitedfourreasonsforthisconclusion:(1)the  Legislaturedelegatedtojudgesthefunctionofconsideringaggravatingfactors 0  inordertoimpose fairanduniformsentences;(2)thestatutorilyenumerated   aggravatingfactorsgenerally representthetraditionalfactorsthatjudges 0   historicallyhaveweighedinsentencingadefendantwithinthestatutoryrange;   (3)theLegislatureintendedthat trialcourtconsiderallrelevantinformation, 0  includinghearsay,unrestrainedbytherulesofevidence;and(4)requiringjury   trialsonaggravatingfactors wouldleadtoseparate,costly,unwieldy,and 0  perhapsprotractedpenaltytrialsattheconclusionofguiltphasetrials.(  Ibid.)  Third,theNewJerseySupremeCourtquicklyrejectedtheremedyofprohibiting 0 allsentencesabovethepresumptiveterm,explaining:  8 4 Todosowouldgutthesentencingranges,cuttingtheminhalfand 0 presentingtoconvictedfelonsanunintendedandundeservedwindfall.  WedonotbelievethattheLegislaturewouldhavecontemplatedthatas 0 aviablesolution. 44 (  Ibid.) 0"  4  ` Accordingly,theNewJerseySupremeCourtissueditsremedy: $  eliminatingthepresumptiveterms.(  Natale,supra,878A.2datp.741.)The 0!& courtreasonedthatthisremedywould bestpreservethemajorelementsofour "( sentencingcodeandcausetheleastdisruptiontoourcriminaljusticesystem. 0$* ...(  Ibid.)Thecourtexplainedthat [i]nallotherrespects,thesentencing %!, processwillremainessentiallyunchanged.(  Ibid.)Inthisregard,courtswill 0'". continuetodetermineaggravatingandmitigatingfactorsandwhetherthese ($0 factorspreponderate,andtogiveastatementofreasonsforarrivingata 0*%2 particularsentence.(  Ibid.)Further,appellatecourtswillcontinuetoreview +'4 thesesentencingdecisionsforabuseofdiscretion.(  Id.atpp.741742.)The 0-(6 courtfoundthatthe touchstoneisthatthesentencemustbeareasonableone  inlightofalltherelevantfactorsconsideredbythecourt.(  Id.atp.741.) 0  4  ` TheOhioSupremeCourtsimilarlyfoundthatOhiossystemofminimum  presumptivesentenceswithinstatutoryrangesviolated  Blakelyontheground 0  thatjudgesare statutorilyrequiredtomakespecificfindingsbeforeimposing   asentencebeyondthatpresumedsolelybyajuryverdictoradmissionofa 0   defendant.(  Statev.Foster,supra,845N.E.2datpp.489494.)Thecourtalso   applied theBookerremedytoOhiosschemebysevering [a]ll[statutory] 0  referencestomandatoryjudicialfactfinding,sothat thereisnothingto   suggestapresumptiveterm.(  Id.atpp.496497.)ThisgivesOhiojudges 0   fulldiscretiontoimposeaprisonsentencewithinthestatutoryrange....(  Id.  atp.498.)Insodoing,thecourtalsorejectedthesolutionsof provid[ing]jury 0 involvementinsentencingandlimitingthemaximumsentencetothe  presumptivetermascontrarytowhatOhioslegislaturewouldhaveintended. 0 (  Foster,supra,845N.E.2datpp.495496.)   4  ` TheremediesfashionedbyNewJerseyandOhio,whichareclosely 0 modeledonthe  Bookerremedy,offersubstantialsupporttorespondents   suggestedresponsetothepresumptivetermprobleminCalifornia.Eliminating 0" thepresumptivemiddletermin m section1170,subdivision(b),mostfaithfully $ achievestheLegislaturesintentinenactingthe u DSL.The u DSLspurposewas 0!& tohaveterms proportionatetotheseriousnessoftheoffensewithprovisionfor "( uniformityinthesentencesofoffenderscommittingthesameoffenseunder 0$* similarcircumstances.( m 1170,subd.(a)(1).)LikethelegislaturesinNew %!, JerseyandOhio,CaliforniasLegislaturewouldnothavewantedtosubstitute 0'". jurorsforjudgestomakefactualfindingsatsentencing.Inthisregard,the ($0 Legislaturedelegatedtojudges,notjuries,thefunctionofconsidering 0*%2 aggravatingcircumstances.(See m 1170,subds.(b),(c).)Inaddition,these +'4 aggravatingcircumstancesreflectatraditionalpartofthesentencingprocess. 0-(6 (See  Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1257.)Also,theLegislatureintendedthatthe  trialcourthearallrelevantinformation,whetherornotadmissibleunderthe 0 rulesofevidence. m Section1170contemplatesthatinformationbasedonhearsay  reportsfromprobationofficersandothers,includingthevictimandthevictims 0  family,beintroducedatthesentencinghearing.(See m 1170,subd.(b);seealso     Peoplev.Hove(1999)76Cal.App.4th1266,1275[ sentencingjudgesaregiven 0   virtuallyunlimiteddiscretionastothekindofinformationtheycanconsiderand   thesourcefromwhenceitcomes].)Furthermore,jurytrialsonaggravating 0  circumstanceswouldbeexpensiveandtimeconsuming,wouldleadto   confusionandlitigation,andwouldpotentiallyrequirethesortofelaborate 0  separatepenaltyphasesrequiredincapitalcases.   4  ` Justasintheothertwostates,theCaliforniaLegislatureclearlywould 0 nothaveintendedtoeliminateuppertermsentences. m Section1170statesthat  thepurposeofimprisonmentispunishment,andthatthecourtshallsentencea 0 defendanttooneofthethreepossibleterms.( m 1170,subd.(a)(1),(a)(3).)  Removingthepossibilityoftheuppertermwouldresultin anunintendedand 0 undeservedwindfallfordefendantsandisnota viablesolution.    4  ` Theappropriateremedyisalsothesimplestone.Eliminatingthe 0" presumptivetermlanguagebestpreservestheessentialelementsofCalifornias $ sentencingsystem.Underthisreformedprocess,courtscanstillfindand 0!& consideraggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesintheirbroaddiscretion,and "( stillmustgiveastatementofreasons.AsinNewJersey,asentencemuststill 0$* be reasonable,whichishowthisCourthasalreadycharacterizedoursystem %!, in  Black.(See  Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1255[statingthat m section1170, 0'". subdivision(b),requiresthatthedecisiontoimposeanuppertermbe ($0 reasonable]; D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.869&fn.14[acknowledging 0*%2 Californiasrequirementthatasentencebereasonablebutrejectingthisstandard +'4 assufficingtovalidateCaliforniaslawbasinganuppertermuponajudges 0-(6 findingoffact].)Further,reviewingcourtswillcontinuetoreviewthese  decisionsforabuseofdiscretion. 0  4  ` ThisCourtshouldadopttheeffectiveandexpeditiousapproachtothe   R SixthAmendmentproblemidentifiedin  BookerandemployedbytheNew 0  JerseyandOhioSupremeCourts.Californiassentencingsystemcanbe   broughtintocompliancewith D Cunninghambyeliminatingthepresumptive 0   terms,thusdoingawaywiththerequirementthatajudgemustfindafactin   ordertoimposeanupperterm. 0   4 &   2 6  4  .3  8 ` DispositionOfTheCaliforniaRulesOfCourt  n0 ` x` x '0n 4  ` AsnotedinsectionB.,ante,theCourtin D Cunninghamfoundthatin .~ conjunctionwithcertainprovisionsof m sections1170and  1170.3,certainrules  ofcourtwereunconstitutionaltotheextentthattheypermittedtheimposition .~ oftheuppertermonlyuponthejudicialfindingofafact.IfthisCourtadopts  respondentsproposedreformationofthestatutes,thisCourtshouldalsodeclare .~ invalidtheprovisionsinanyrulesofcourtthatcouldindependentlycausea   D Cunninghamviolation.Similarly,thisCourtshouldinvalidatethepartsofany .~ rulesthatconflictwiththestatutesasreformed.(See  Peoplev.Hall(1995)8 ! Cal.4th950,959[declaringinvalidaprovisioninformer  rule428(b)becauseit . ~# conflictedwith m section1170,subdivision(b)].) r  12  /    ׀Toreiterate,thisreformation: !% (1)replacesthestatutorylanguagerequiringanaggravatingormitigating .#~' circumstancetoimposeanuppertermorlowerterm,withlanguageinstructing $) thesentencingcourttoexerciseitsbroaddiscretioninselectinganyofthree .&~!+ terms;(2)eliminatestheprovisionstatingthatacourtmustdeterminewhether '"- therearecircumstancesjustifyinganupperorlowertermwithlanguagesimply .)~$/ statingthatacourtmustdeterminethechoiceoftheappropriateterm;(3)makes *%1 themiddletermatermrequiringastatementofreasons;(4)eliminatesthe  requirementthatacourtgiveastatementof factsforimposingaterm;and(5) 0 authorizestheJudicialCounciltoadoptrulesforselectingthemiddletermas  wellasfortheupperorlowerterm.(SeeSectionC.1,ante.) 0   4  ` Anotherpossibledispositiontoconformtherulestothereformedsystem,   besidesinvalidatingparticularprovisions,wouldbetorenderalltherulesof 0   courtadvisory,astheSupremeCourtdidwiththe  Guidelinesin  Booker.(See     Booker,supra,543U.S.atpp.246247.)But,applyingthe  Bookerremedial 0  test,thisdispositionappearslessappropriatethandeclaringinvalidafew   provisionsintherulesbutkeepingthelargemajorityofthemintact.Inthis 0  regard,the  BookerCourtfoundthatit mustretainthoseportionsoftheActthat  are(1)constitutionallyvalid[citation](2)capableoffunctioningindependently 0 [citation]and(3)consistentwithCongressbasicobjectivesinenactingthe  statute[citation].(  Id.atpp.258259.)The  BookerCourtfurtherfoundthat 0  [m]ostofthestatuteisperfectlyvalid.(  Id.atp.258.)Under  18U.S.C.A.  3553(b)(1),however,itwasmandatoryfor sentencingcourtstoimposea 0 sentencewithintheapplicableGuidelinesrange,whichwaswhythe  Booker   Courtfoundthefederalsentencingsystemunconstitutional.(  Booker,supra,543 0" U.S.atpp.235,259.)Asaresult,theCourtmadethisprovisionadvisory $ insteadofmandatory.(  Id.atp.245.) 0!&  4  ` Unlikethe  Guidelines,mostoftheCaliforniaRulesofCourtare "( constitutionallyvalid,capableoffunctioningindependently,andconsistentwith 0$* theLegislaturesbasicobjectivesinenacting m section1170.Theserulesalso %!,  havetheforceofstatutetotheextentthattheyarenotinconsistentwith 0'". legislativeenactmentsandconstitutionalprovisions.(  InreRichardS.(1991) ($0 54Cal.3d857,863;seealso  Cal.RulesofCourt,Intro.Statement(adoptedJan. 0*%2 1,1992)[ AlltheCaliforniaRulesofCourthavetheforceoflaw].)Also,the +'4 Legislatureintendedfortheserulestobeadoptedto promoteuniformityin 0-(6 sentencingunderSection1170....(  1170.3.)Thus,becausemostofthe  applicableprovisionsoftherulesofcourthavenoconstitutionalinfirmityunder 0 thereformedscheme,theyneednotallberenderedadvisoryjustbecauseafew  provisionsmustbedeemedinvalid. 0   4  ` Respondentthereforesuggeststhefollowingalterationstocertain   provisionsintherulesofcourtinordertocomplywith D Cunninghamandthe 0   statuteasreformed.RespondentthenexplainswhythisCourtdoesnotneedto   invalidateotherprovisionsthattheSupremeCourtcitedin D Cunningham. 0   4  ` &   2 6  a  .3  8 ProvisionsRequiringInvalidation to>0  L L '02 4  ` ThisCourtshouldinvalidatethesecondsentenceof t rule4.420(a), .~ essentiallyrestatingthestatutoryprovisionrequiringmandatoryjudicial  factfindingtoimposetheupperorlowerterm.Thissentenceof t rule4.420(a) .~ states: Themiddletermmustbeselectedunlessimpositionoftheupperor  lowertermisjustifiedbycircumstancesinaggravationormitigation.(See .~  D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862.)Becausethisprovisionof t rule  4.420(a)iscontraryto D Cunninghamandcontrarytotheeliminationofthe .~ relatedprovisioninreformed m section1170,subdivision(b),itshouldbe ! stricken. . ~#  4  ` ThisCourtshouldalsodeclareinvalidtheprovisionsin t rule4.420(b)that !% anuppertermisjustifiedonlyuponfindingaggravatingcircumstancesoutweigh .#~' mitigatingcircumstances,andthatalowertermisjustifiedonlyuponfinding $) mitigatingcircumstancesoutweighaggravatingcircumstances.P r  13  /    ׀(See .&~!+  D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.863,fn.9.)Becauseaggravating  circumstancesareelsewheredefinedas facts(see  rules4.405,(4), t 4.420(b), 0   4.421),Q r  14  /    ׀thisstandardfordeterminingtheupperorlowertermcontradictsthe  reformedstatute,whichnolongerrequiresthefindingofanyaggravatingor 0  mitigatingcircumstancetoimposeanupperorlowerterm.Theactualstandard   underthereformedstatuteisthatthetrialcourtshallexerciseits broad 0   discretion,andthisstandardisdifferentthanastandardthattheupperorlower   termbeimposedonlyuponfindingthataggravatingormitigatingcircumstances 0  outweightheother.Inaddition,thisstandardconflictswiththereformed   schemebecauseittreatstheselectionofupperandlowertermsdifferentlythan 0  thatofmiddleterms.(SeeSectionC.1,ante.)Thus,thisprovisionshouldbe  invalidatedascontrarytothestatuteasreformed. 0  4  ` Thedefinitionsofaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesin  rule  4.405,parts(4)and(5)shouldalsobeinvalidatedinpart.(See D Cunningham, 0 supra,127S.Ct.atp.862.)Theseprovisionsprovideinrelevantpart,   Aggravationorcircumstancesinaggravationmeansfactsthatjustifythe 0 impositionoftheupperprisontermreferredtoinPenalCodesection1170(b)   and Mitigationorcircumstancesinmitigationmeansfactsthatjustifythe 0" impositionofthelowerofthreeauthorizedprisonterms....Thereisno $ impedimentunder D Cunninghamandthereformedschemethatpreventsthetrial 0!& courtfromconsideringaggravatingcircumstancesinselectingaterm,noris "( thereaproblemwiththesecircumstancesbeingconsidered facts,solongas 0$* thereisnorequirementthatanysuchfactfindingbemadetoimposetheupper  orlowerterm.Thus,thisCourtshouldinvalidatetheclausesintheseprovisions 0 requiringaggravatingorcircumstancesto justifytheupperorlowerterm.   4  ` Astotheprovisionin  rule4.406(b)requiringastatementofreasonsfor 0   [s]electingatermotherthanthemiddlestatutorytermforeitheranoffenseor   anenhancement,thisprovisionshouldbeinvalidatedinparttoparallel m section 0   1170,subdivision(b),asreformed.Thatreformedsubdivisionwouldrequire   acourttoprovideastatementofreasonsforimposingthemiddletermaswell 0  asforimposingthelowerorupperterm.(SeeSectionC.1,ante;seealso    D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862&fn.6.)Accordingly,thisCourt 0  shoulddeletethephrase otherthanthemiddlestatutoryterminthisrule.A  likemodificationshouldbemadeto t rule4.420(e),whichonlyrequiresa 0 statementof reasonsforselectingtheupperorlowerterm....Forthis  provision,thisCourtshouldalsoinvalidatethephrase upperorlower,thus 0 directingcourtstogiveastatementofreasonsforany term,i.e.,lower,  middle,orupper. 0  4  ` Incontrasttothegeneralprovisionforstatementsofreasonsinvarious   sentencingcontextsin  rule4.406(a),discussedpost,themorespecificprovision 0" of t rule4.420(e)forselectingabasetermshouldbestrickenbecauseitconflicts $ with D Cunninghamandconflictswiththereformedstatute.Under t rule4.420(e), 0!& thisstatementofreasons mustincludeaconcisestatementoftheultimatefacts "( thatthecourtdeemedtoconstitutecircumstancesinaggravationormitigation 0$* justifyingthetermselected.(See D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862.)As %!, explainedabove,inordertocomplywith D Cunningham,thereformedscheme 0'". wouldnolongerrequireafacttojustifyanupperterm.Thus,thisportionof ($0  t rule4.420(e)shouldbeinvalidated. 0*%2  4  ` &   2 6  b  .3  8 ProvisionsNotRequiringInvalidation i0,'4 L L '0, 4  ` ThisCourtshouldnotinvalidatetheprovisionof t rule4.420(b)requiring ..~)6 aggravatingcircumstancestobeestablishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.  Itistruethatthisprovisionisunconstitutionalinconjunctionwiththe 0 requirementofanaggravatingcircumstancetoimposeanupperterm.(See   D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862,868.)Butunderthereformedsystem, 0  anuppertermnolongerneedstobebasedonanaggravatingcircumstance;   instead,itmaybebasedonreasonsthatdonotincludefacts,suchaspolicy 0   judgmentsbasedonanassessmentofthesentencingobjectivesenunciatedin     rule4.410.(SeesectionC.1,ante.)Thus,sincethestatutesasreformeddonot 0  requirethefindingofanaggravatingcircumstancetoimposeanupperterm,   thereisnoimpedimentunder D Cunninghamoraconflictwiththereformed 0  statutestorequirethatafactualfinding,ifmade,beestablishedbya  preponderanceoftheevidence. 0  4  ` ThisCourtalsoshouldnotinvalidatetheprovisionin t rule4.420(d)  specifying, Afactthatisanelementofthecrimemaynotbeusedtoimposethe 0 upperterm.In D Cunningham,theCourtfoundthatbecauseanaggravating  circumstancewasafactthathadtobejudiciallyfoundinordertoimposean 0 upperterm,andbecausethisfactcouldnotbeanelementoftheoffenseunder   statelaw,ajudgehadtofindafactnotfoundbythejuryinordertoimposean 0" upperterm.(See D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.862,868;seealso $   Blakely,supra,542U.S.atpp.303,305,fn.8.)Butunderthereformedstatute, 0!& thereisnoconcernunder D Cunninghamaboutthisrule,becausethereisno "( longerarequirementofanaggravatingcircumstance/facttoimposetheupper 0$* term.Rather,aggravatingcircumstancescansimplybefoundandconsidered %!, bytrialcourtsintheexerciseoftheirbroaddiscretion.Therefore,therule 0'". limitingaggravatingcircumstancesforconsiderationtothosethatarenot ($0 elementsofacrimeposesnoconstitutionalproblemorconflictwiththestatute 0*%2 asreformed. +'4  4  ` ThereisnoneedforthisCourttostriketheprovisionin  rule4.406(a) 0-(6 statingthatingivingastatementofreasons, thejudgemuststateinsimple  languagetheprimaryfactororfactorsthatsupporttheexerciseofdiscretion. 0 Instead,underthisrule,thisCourtshouldinterpreta factorasbeinga   reasonratherthana fact.ItappearsthatneitherthisCourtnoralower 0  appellatecourthasdefinedtheterm factororfactorsinthisruleasbeingakin   toreasons,tofacts,ortoacombinationofthetwo.However,thetermisinthe 0   ruleunderthesubjectheading Reasons.Furthermore,theruleisageneralone   meanttoprovideforstatementsofreasonsinawidevarietyofcontexts,many 0  ormostofwhichdonotcontainanyfactfindingrequirement.Therulealso   providesthatthis statementneednotbeinthelanguageoftheserules,also 0  indicatingthatthestatementofreasonsneednotrecitecircumstancesin  aggravationormitigation,i.e.,facts.Thus,thisCourtshouldconstruetheterm 0 inthisruleasreferringsolelytoreasons,notfacts.Withsuchaconstruction,  thereisnoconflictwith D Cunninghamorthereformedstatutoryschemeinthat 0 thereisnorequirementthatacourtstateafacttoimposetheupperterm.With  aconstructionthat factororfactorsmeansornecessarilyincludes factor 0 facts,ontheotherhand,thisprovisionof  rule4.406(a)wouldhavetobe   invalidatedascontradictingtheeliminationofthestatutoryrequirementthata 0" courtstateontherecordthefactssupportinganupperterm. $  4  ` Finally,the nonexhaustivelistofaggravatingcircumstancesin  rule 0!& 4.421shouldnotbeinvalidatedbecausetheydonotviolate D Cunninghamunder "( thestatutesasreformed.(Seealso  rule4.408(a).)Althoughthisrulegives 0$* examplesof factsconstitutingaggravatingcircumstances,itdoesnotbyitself %!, requirethejudge tostartwiththemiddleterm,andtomovefromthattermonly 0'". whenthecourtitselffindsandplacesontherecordfactswhetherrelatedto ($0 theoffenseortheoffenderbeyondtheelementsofthechargedoffense. 0*%2 ( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.862.)Since,underthereformedstatute,it +'4 isnolongertruethat anuppertermsentencemaybeimposedonlywhenthe 0-(6 trialjudgefindsanaggravatingcircumstance( D id.atp.868),theseillustrative  rulesonaggravatingcircumstancesdonotviolate D Cunningham. 0  4 &   2 6  5  .3  8 ` AsIn  Booker,ThisReformationShouldApplyToAny 0  SentencingAndResentencingHearingOccurringAfterIts . ~ Decision i', |` x` x '0  4  ` Thisreformationshouldapplytoallappealsondirectreviewwherethe * z  reviewingcourtconcludesthereisunforfeited,prejudicial D Cunninghamerror.     Bookerapplieditsreformationremedytoallcasescurrentlyonappealaswell *z  asfuturesentencings.(  Booker,supra,543U.S.at268,citing  Griffithv.   Kentucky(1987)479U.S.314,328[107S.Ct.708,93L.Ed.2d649].)Further, *z the  BookerCourtadmonishedthatthefederalappellatecourt,beforeordering  anewsentencinghearing,shouldapply ordinaryprudentialdoctrinessuchas *z forfeitureandharmlesserror.(  Booker,supra,125S.Ct.atp.769.)ThisCourt  shouldfollowtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtssensibleleadonthispoint. *z  4  ` Thus,thisCourtshoulddeclarethatbeforeorderingaremandfor  resentencingunderthereformedsystem,thereviewingcourtshoulddetermine *z whetheranygroundexiststoaffirmthesentencebyapplyingsuchdoctrinesas  forfeiture,therecidivismexception,andharmlesserror.Thisresentencing *z! hearingshouldbe basedontheoriginalsentencingrecord,asnothinginthe  # systemasreformedwarrantstheintroductionofnewevidenceoradditional *"z% factualfindings.(See  Natale,supra,878A.2datp.745;butsee  Foster,supra, #' 845N.E.2datp.499[underthejudiciallymodifiedsystem, thedefendantsare *%z ) entitledtoanewsentencinghearing,althoughthepartiesmaystipulatetothe &!+ sentencingcourtsactingontherecordbeforeit,italicsadded].)M r  15  /     *(z#-  4  ` Tosummarizerespondentsproposedremedyoftheconstitutional  infirmityidentifiedin D Cunningham,thisCourtshouldreformtherelevant 0 statutoryprovisionstoeliminatetherequirementofafacttoimposeanupperor  lowerterm.ThisCourtshouldalsoinvalidateonlythoseprovisionsinthe 0  CaliforniaRulesofCourtthatconflictwiththisreformationor D Cunningham.   ThisCourtshouldfurtherdirectthatacourtreviewingapre D Cunninghamupper 0   termshoulddeterminewhethertheparticularsentenceneedstobereversed,   underdoctrinessuchasforfeiture,therecidivismexception,andharmlesserror. 0  Ifthereviewingcourtdecidesthatthereisunforfeited,prejudicial D Cunningham   error,itshouldremandforresentencingunderthereformedsystem.This 0  reformationremedyisresponsivetotheSupremeCourtsmandateandfaithful  totheLegislaturesintent. 0   &  2 6  D  .3  8 4 AppellantIsNotEntitledToReliefUnder D Cunningham s'044  4 &   2 6  1  .3  8 ` Background s.~` x` x '! 4  ` Appellantwaschargedinaneightcountinformationwithcarjacking(   ,| 215,subd.(a)),kidnapping(  207,subd.(a)),seconddegreerobbery(  211),  grandtheftauto(  487,subd.(d)),makingacriminalthreat(  422),kidnapping ,|! forcarjacking(  209.5),kidnappingtocommitrobbery(  209,subd.(b)(1)),  # andunlawfuldrivingortakingofavehicle(  Veh.Code,10851,subd.(a)).As ,"|% tothecountsinvolvinggrandtheftautoandunlawfuldrivingortakingofa #' vehicle,itwasallegedthatappellanthadsufferedonepriortheftconviction ,%| ) involvingavehicle(   666.5).Astoallcounts,appellantwasallegedtohave &!+ servedfourpriorprisonterms(   667.5,subd.(b)),andsufferedonepriorfelony   strikeconviction(  667,subds.(b)(i),  1170.12,subds.(a)(d))andoneprior 0 seriousfelonyconviction(  667,subd.(a)(1)).(CT7176.)Appellantpleaded  notguiltyanddeniedtheallegations.(CT7879.) 0   4  ` Attrial,thevictimtestifiedthathemetappellantwhiledrivinghomeand   theyagreedtogotoamotelroomtogether.Afterseveralunsuccessfulattempts 0   tofindamotelroom,thevictimstoppedhiscarandattemptedtowake   appellant,whowassleeping.Appellantbecameangryandinitiatedaphysical 0  altercationwiththevictim.Appellantmanagedtograbthecarkeysandtiethe   victimshandstogether.Appellantthendrovethecarforaboutanhourwiththe 0  victimasapassenger.Whenappellantstoppedthecarataconveniencestore,  thevictimuntiedhimself,exitedthecar,andrantoanapartmentbuildingto 0 obtainhelp.(RT611637.)   4  ` Duringtrial,appellantwaivedhisrightsandadmittedthetruthofallof 0 thechargedpriorconvictionandprisontermallegations.(RT12521260;CT  109110,112.)Thejuryfoundappellantguiltyofunlawfuldrivingortakingof 0 avehicle,andacquittedhimoftheremainingcharges.(CT185187.)    4  ` Atsentencing,thetrialcourtdeniedappellantsmotionstoreducethe 0" offensetoamisdemeanorandtodismisstheprior strikeconviction.The $ courtimposedatotalsentenceofeightyears:theuppertermoffouryears, 0!& doubledunderthesecondstrikeprovisionsoftheThreeStrikeslaw.Thecourt "( struckthepriorprisontermenhancements.N r  16  /    ׀(CT202204.) 0$*  4  ` Thecourtexplaineditsreasoningfortheimpositionoftheuppertermas %!, follows: 0'". 8 4  ` Withregardtosentencing,Ididhearthetestimony.Idobelievethat ($0 thejurysorteditout.[]ItwasntaneasycaseIdontthinkforthejury.  Ithinkyoushouldbepleasedtheywereabletoweighitalloutand 0 returnverdictsandnottoreturnhung.44 8 4  ` Idoknowthat[thevictim]wasaliar.Ithinkitwasclear.[][The 0  prosecutor]knowshiswitnesswasaliar.Thevictimwasaliar;andthe   jurywasadvisedthatevenaliarisentitledtohisbodilyintegrityandbe 0   freefromthekindoftreatmentthatthePeopleallegedtohavebeen   inflictedonhimduringthecourseofthecontactbetweenthedefendant 0  and[thevictim].[]Iknowthatthedefendantisaliaralso.Thatcame   outinhistestimonywhenhewasbeforethecourt.0 44 8 4  ` Idoknowwithrespecttothechargeonwhich[appellant]stands  convictedthattheevidencethatwehavebeforetheCourtthatIbelieve 0 isentirelybelievableisthatwhen[thevictim]gotoutofthatcarhewas  terrified.Hewasafraidforhislife.Hethoughtifhedidntgetoutof 0 thereandhidehewasdead.[]SoIambelievingthatheleftthecarin  thatstateofmindandthatyouhadpossessionofthecaragainsthiswill 0 andforyourownpurposes.[]Ibelievethatyouwereconvicted   appropriatelyofthe10851(a),asdoyou.[]Youhaveadmittedit,that 0" youbelievethatitwasassetforthaswell.$44 8 4  ` Idontbelieveitsjustasimple10851(a)asIvejustdescribedto 0!& you,[appellant].Ibelievethatitsanaggravatedsituationbasedonwhat "( Ihavejustdescribed.[]TherewasawomanwhotestifiedIthink 0$* twopeoplefromtheapartmentwhere[thevictim]finallylanded %!, testified;andtheirtestimonywasverycredible.[]Fromthatwoman 0'". Iunderstandthathewassignificantlyterrifiedandafraidforhisown ($0 physicalwellbeing.0*%244 8 4  ` Idontbelieveitsappropriatetogiveyoulowterm,[appellant],or +'4 midterm.Youvegotatenyearhistorybeforeyougotthiscase.Low 0-(6 termandmidtermarenotappropriate.44 8 4  ` Ibelieve,[appellant],thatyouareaninnocentofsorts;thatyoudont 0 seemdespiteallofthiscontactwithlawenforcementandthecourt  systemtolearnwhatpunishmentisandwhatitmeans.[]Hereyouare. 0  Yourebackagain. 44 8 4  ` SotheCourtisconsideringthetrialasittookplacebeforetheCourt, 0   theconvictiononthe10581(a),thefactthatyouhavealengthyhistory   inchoosingthehightermoffouryears;andthehightermisbecausethe 0  10851(a)isallegedpursuanttoIbelieveitsPenalCode[section]666.5. 44 (RT24152417.)Appellantdidnotobjecttothesentence. 0   4  ` Onappeal,appellantraisedtwoclaimsofsentencingerror:(1)thetrial  courtabuseditsdiscretioninfailingtostriketheprior strikeconviction;and 0 (2)thecourtabuseditsdiscretioninimposingtheupperterm.Astothesecond  claim,appellantspecificallyassertedthat,inlightofthejurysacquittalon 0 sevenoftheeightcounts,thejurynecessarilyfoundthatappellantdidnotuse  any unlawfulforceonthevictim;thus,accordingtoappellant,thetrialcourt 0 improperlyreliedonthefactofthevictimsfeartoimposetheupperterm.    4  ` TheCourtofAppealconcludedthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseits 0" discretionineitherdecliningtostrikethepriorconvictionorinimposingthe $ upperterm.Astotheimpositionoftheupperterm,theCourtofAppeal 0!& concludedthatthetrialcourtsfindingsdidnotconflictwiththejurysnecessary "( findingsontheacquittedcounts.TheCourtofAppealfurtherdeterminedthat, 0$* eveniftherehadbeenerror,itwasharmlesssincethecourtcouldhavecited %!, appellantspriorprisonterms,hisunsatisfactorypriorperformanceonprobation 0'". orparole,andhisparolestatusatthetimeofthecurrentoffenseasfurther ($0 reasonsinsupportoftheupperterm.(Opn.,atp.6.) 0*%2   0,'4  4 &    2 6  2  .3  8 ` AppellantForfeitedHis R SixthAmendmentClaimByFailing  ToObject in=` x` x '' 4  ` Unlikeappellant,thedefendantsin  Apprendiand  Blakelyobjectedwhen  thecourtimposedtheirsentences.(RT951952;  Blakely,supra,542U.S.atp. , | 300;  Apprendi,supra,530U.S.atpp.470471.)O r  17  /    ׀Respondentsubmitsthat   appellantsfailuretoobjecttohissentence,letaloneraiseanobjectionon , |  federalconstitutionalgrounds,forfeitedhispresentclaimoferror.    8 4 NoproceduralprincipleismorefamiliartothisCourtthanthata ,|  constitutionalright,orarightofanyothersort,maybeforfeitedin   criminalaswellascivilcasesbythefailuretomaketimelyassertionof ,|  therightbeforeatribunalhavingjurisdictiontodetermineit.44 (  Peoplev.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580,590,quoting  UnitedStatesv.Olano ,| (1993)507U.S.725,731[113S.Ct.1770,123L.Ed.2d508],internalquotation  marksomitted.)Further,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasupheldastate ,| courtsfindingofforfeitureastoadueprocessclaimassertingthefailureto  haveajurydeterminethetruthofanelementofacrime.(  Osbornev.Ohio ,| (1990)495U.S.103,122123[110S.Ct.1691,109L.Ed.2d98].)Additionally,  theCourtin  Bookerindicatedthatforfeitureisadoctrinethatafederalappellate ,|! courtshouldapplyinresolvingaclaimthatafederalguidelinessentence # violatesthe R SixthAmendment.(  Booker,supra,543U.S.atp.268.) ,!|%  4  ` Courtsofappealhaveappliedthisdoctrinetoa  Blakelychallengetoan "' uppertermsentence,andtoan  Apprendichallengetoasexoffenderregistration ,$|) requirement.(  Peoplev.Hill(2005)131Cal.App.4th1089,1103[  Blakelyclaim % + forfeitedbyfailuretoobjectatsentencing];  Peoplev.Marchand(2002)98 ,'|"- Cal.App.4th1056,10601061[  Apprendiclaimforfeitedbyfailuretoobjectat (#/ sentencing];butsee   Peoplev.Cleveland(2001)87Cal.App.4th263,268,fn.2  [rejectingargumentthat  Apprendichallengeto " section654sentencewasbarred 0 byfailuretoobjectbecause  Apprendiwasdecidedafterthesentencinghearing  and # section654claimsaregenerallyreviewableabsentafailuretoobject].) 0  Thus,appellantforfeitedhisclaimbyfailingtoobjecttohissentenceonthe   federalconstitutionalgroundthathenowpresentsonappeal. 0    4  ` Furthermore,thefactthat  Blakelywasnotdecideduntilafterappellants   sentencinghearing,doesnotprecludeafindingofforfeiturebasedonan 0  argumentthatobjectingwouldhavebeenfutile.  Blakely,like D Cunningham,   appliedtherulein  Apprendithat,underthe R SixthAmendment,afactusedto 0  increaseadefendantssentencebeyondthestatutorymaximummustbecharged  andproventoajury.(  Blakely,supra,542U.S.atp.301;see D Cunningham, 0 supra,127S.Ct.atpp.864865.)Further,thedefendantin  Blakelyobjectedto  anaggravatedsentenceatthetimeofsentencingunder  Apprendi.Sincethe 0 defendantin  Blakelyultimatelyprevailedonhis R SixthAmendmentclaim,  appellantshouldhavealsoraisedanobjectionunder  Apprenditopreservehis 0 instantclaim.(Butsee $ Peoplev.Hill,supra,131Cal.App.4thatp.1103   [holding  Blakelyclaimforfeitedwherethecourtwas attunedtotherecent 0" decisioninBlakely,asevidencedbyherreferencetoBlakelyatthesentencing $ hearingandobviousgraspofthepotentialissuesinvolved].) 0!&  4  ` Instructively,in & UnitedStatesv.Cotton(2002)535U.S.625[122S.Ct. "( 1781,152L.Ed.2d860],theSupremeCourtfoundthatthefederaldefendants 0$* hadforfeitedtheir  Apprendiclaimsbynotobjectingattrialdespitethefactthat %!,   Apprendiwasdecidedwhilethedefendantscasewasonappeal.^ r  18  /    ׀( ' Id.atpp. 0'". 628629,631.)Here,  Apprendiwasdecidedbeforeappellantssentencing,and  yethedidnotobjecttohissentenceonthebasisof  Apprendiorthe 0 constitutionalrighttoajurytrial.   4  ` WhilethisCourtin ( Saundersindicatedindictathattheconstitutional 0  righttoajurytrialcannotbeforfeitedbythefailuretoobject( ( Saunders,supra,   5Cal.4thatp.589,fn.5,citing * Peoplev.Holmes(1960)54Cal.2d442,443 0   444),thisCourthasnotsoheldinthecontextof  Apprendierror.Thelatter   contextisaparadigmaticcaseoftrialerror,ratherthanstructuralerror,for 0  whichtheforfeitureruleshouldapply.(See , Washingtonv.Recuenco(2006)   548U.S.___[126S.Ct.2546,2553,165L.Ed.2d2546][  Blakelyerrorcanbe 0  harmless]; . Peoplev.Sengpadychith(2001)26Cal.4th316,327[  Apprendierror  canbeharmless].)Becauseappellantfailedtoobjectonthegroundthatthetrial 0 courtwasprohibitedfromfindinganaggravatingcircumstanceusedtoimpose  hisuppertermsentence,his R SixthAmendmentclaimisforfeited. 0  4 &   2 6  3  .3  8 ` InAnyEvent, D CunninghamAnd 0 AlmendarezTorres 0 PermittedTheTrialCourtToImposeAppellantsUpper .~ TermBasedOnTheFindingOfOneRecidivistAggravating ,| Circumstance thg *z ` x` x '0[  4  ` Eventhough D Cunninghamgenerallyprecludesatrialcourtfromfinding ( x" factstoimposeanuppertermsentence,andeventhough D Cunninghamholdsthat !$ themiddletermisthestatutorymaximum,therealsowasno D Cunningham (#x& violationinthiscasebecausetheuppertermwasauthorizedbythetrialcourts $( findingthatappellanthadalengthycriminalhistory. (&x!*  4  ` Under 8 AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224[118 '", S.Ct.1219,140L.Ed.2d350],adefendantdoesnothavearighttoajurytrial ()x$. forasentencebasedonthefactofapriorconviction.The 8 AlmendarezTorres *%0 Courtexplainedthatthe sentencingfactoratissuehere!recidivism!isa (,x'2 traditional,ifnotthemosttraditional,basisforasentencingcourtsincreasing -(4 anoffenderssentence.( 8 Id.atp.243.)Citing 8 AlmendarezTorres,the    ApprendiCourtexcluded thefactofapriorconvictionfromthegeneralrule 0 requiringanyfactthatincreasedthepenaltybeyondtheprescribedstatutory  maximumtobesubmittedtoajuryandprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt. 0  (  Apprendi,supra,530U.S.atpp.489490.)TheSupremeCourtretainedthe    8 AlmendarezTorresexceptionin  Blakely,  Booker,andnow D Cunningham. 0   ( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.860,864,868;  Booker,supra,543U.S.   atp.244;  Blakely,supra,542U.S.atp.301.) 0   4  ` Further,this 8 AlmendarezTorresexceptiongoesbeyondthemerefactof   apriorconvictiontoincludematterssuchasthesentenceimposedandthestatus 0  andtimingofthedefendantsincarcerationinrelationtosubsequentoffenses.  (See  Peoplev.Thomas(2001)91Cal.App.4th212,221222[ [c]ourtshavenot 0 describedApprendiasrequiringjurytrialsonmattersotherthantheprecise  factofapriorconviction.Rather,courtshaveheldthatnojurytrialright 0 existsonmattersinvolvingthemorebroadlyframedissueofrecidivism],  citedwithapprovalin  Peoplev.McGee(2006)38Cal.4th682,700703;see 0 also  Peoplev.Epps(2001)25Cal.4th19,26;  Peoplev.Prather(1990)50   Cal.3d428,439440.) 0"  4  ` Federalcourtslikewisehavedeterminedthatthe 8 AlmendarezTorres $ exceptionencompassesrecidivismfindings,suchasthosebasedonfacts 0!& relatingtoadefendantsprobationarystatus.Forexample,theSecondCircuit "( CourtofAppealshasheldthattheexceptionallowsatrialcourttofind not 0$* onlythemerefactofpreviousconvictionsbutotherrelatedissuesaswell. %!, Judgesfrequentlymustmakefactualdeterminationsforsentencing,soitis 0'". hardlyanomaloustorequirethattheyalsodeterminethewho,what,when,and ($0 whereofapriorconviction.(  UnitedStatesv.Santiago(2ndCir.2001)268 0*%2 F.3d151,156;see 2 UnitedStatesv.Fagans(2ndCir.2005)406F.3d138,142 +'4 [ thetypeandlengthofasentenceimposedseemlogicallytofallwithinthis 0-(6 exception].)TheEighthCircuitCourtofAppealshasheldthattheprior  convictionexceptionappliesto sentencingrelatedcircumstancesof 0 recidivism,andhasagreedwiththeSecondCircuitsopinionin 3 Santiago that  itisentirelyappropriateforjudgestohavethetaskoffindingnotonlythemere 0  factofpreviousconvictionsbutotherrelatedissuesaswell.( : UnitedStatesv.   KempisBonola(8thCir.2002)287F.3d699,703.)TheTenthCircuitCourtof 0   Appealshasheldthat thepriorconvictionexceptionextendstosubsidiary   findingssuchaswhetheradefendantwasundercourtsupervisionwhenheor 0  shecommittedasubsequentcrime.( < UnitedStatesv.Corchado(10thCir.   2005)427F.3d815,820.) 0   4  ` Severalotherstatecourtsoflastresortalsohavefoundthattheprior  convictionexceptionincludessuchfactsrelatingtorecidivism.TheMaryland 0 CourtofAppealshasobservedthatthepriorconvictionexception isnot  limitedsolelytopriorconvictions.Thegeneralruleisthatthereisnorightto 0 ajurytrialonmattersrelatedtothebroaderissueofrecidivism.( > Statev.  Stewart(Md.2002)791A.2d143,151152.)TheSupremeCourtsof 0 Washington,Connecticut,Indiana,andMinnesotahaveheldthattheexception   includestheissueofwhetherthedefendantwasonprobationatthetimeofthe 0" currentoffense.(See @ Statev.Jones(Wash.2006)149P.3d636,640641; B State $ v.Fagan(Conn.2006)905A.2d1101,1121; D Rylev.State(Ind.2005)842 0!& N.E.2d320,323325; F Statev.Allen(Minn.2005)706N.W.2d40,4748.)As "( theWashingtonSupremeCourtexplained, thepriorconvictionexception 0$* encompassesadeterminationofthedefendantsprobationstatusbecause %!, probationisadirectderivativeofthedefendantspriorcriminalconvictionor 0'". convictionsandthedeterminationinvolvesnothingmorethanareviewofthe ($0 defendantsstatusasarepeatoffender.( G Jones,supra,149P.3datp.640.) 0*%2  4  ` ThereasoningofcourtsfromCaliforniaandotherjurisdictionsshows +'4 thatthejurytrialrightdoesnotextendtoanaggravatingcircumstancebasedon 0-(6 thedefendantscriminalrecord.Adefendantspriorprisonterms,parole,and  probationarenecessarycomponentsofhispriorconvictions.Inturn, 0 determinationsofthedefendantspriorprisonterms,thedefendantsstatusand  performanceonparoleandprobation,andthequantityandseriousnessofthe 0  defendantspriorconvictions,derivefromthedefendantspriorcriminal   convictions.Assuch,aggravatingcircumstancessuchasthese,involvingthe 0   defendantsrecidiviststatus,fallwithinthe 8 AlmendarezTorresexception.    4  `   Rule4.421(b)listsfourspecificaggravatingcircumstancesbasedona 0  defendantsrecidivism:   8 4 (2)Thedefendantspriorconvictionsasanadultorsustainedpetitions 0  injuveniledelinquencyproceedingsarenumerousorofincreasing  seriousness;044 8 4 (3)Thedefendanthasservedapriorprisonterm;44 8 4 (4)Thedefendantwasonprobationorparolewhenthecrimewas 0 committed;and44 8 4 (5)Thedefendantspriorperformanceonprobationorparolewas 0 unsatisfactory. 44 Sincethesefouraggravatingcircumstancesarisefromadefendantsprior 0" convictions,theyfallwithintheexceptionreiteratedin D Cunningham. $  4  ` Inaddition,asingleaggravatingcircumstanceissufficientunderstate 0!& lawtorenderadefendanteligiblefortheupperterm.( I Peoplev.Osband(1996) "( 13Cal.4th622,728729; K Peoplev.Earley(2004)122Cal.App.4th542,550;see 0$* also D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atpp.860[themiddletermwasrequired %!,  unlessthejudgefoundoneormoreadditionalfactsinaggravation],868[ an 0'". uppertermsentencemaybeimposedonlywhenthetrialjudgefindsan ($0 aggravatingcircumstance];  Peoplev.Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1255 0*%2 [ m section1170,subdivision(b),mandates thatthemiddletermbeimposed +'4 unlessanaggravatingfactorisfound].)Thus,thepresenceofasingle 0-(6 circumstanceinaggravationrendersadefendanteligiblefortheuppertermand  providesthetrialcourtwiththestatutoryauthoritytoimposetheupperterm, 0 irrespectiveoftheparticulartermthecourtultimatelyimposesafterconducting  therequisitebalancing. 0   4  `  D Cunninghamissimilarlysatisfiedwheneverthecourtfindsan   aggravatingcircumstancethatsatisfies R SixthAmendmentauthorities,suchas, 0   forexample,whenestablishedbythedefendantsadmissionorcriminalhistory,   orbyajuryfinding.(See M Peoplev.Calhoun(2007)40Cal.4th398[53 0  Cal.Rptr.3d539,546][no D Cunninghamerrorfrommultiplevictimaggravating   circumstanceusedtoimposeuppertermwherethejurynecessarilyfoundthat 0  thereweremultiplevictims].)Suchanaggravatingcircumstancesatisfiesthe   R SixthAmendment,and,standingalone,issufficienttoauthorizetheimposition 0 ofanuppertermsentence.(See D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.865,  quoting  Blakely,supra,542U.S.atp.305[theconstitutionaltestfocusesonthe 0 judges authoritytoimposeanenhancedsentence,regardlessofwhetherthe   enhancedsentencedependsonfindingaspecifiedfact(asinApprendi),oneof 0 severalspecifiedfacts(asinRing),oranyaggravatingfact(ashere),first   emphasisadded].) 0"  4  ` Moreover,oncethefederalconstitutionalrequirementissatisfied,the $ statestatutoryschemebecomestheonlycontrollingauthoritylimitingthe 0!& courtsabilitytoimposeanappropriatesentence,includinganupperterm "( sentence.(  Apprendi,supra,530U.S.atp.481[ [w]eshouldbeclearthat 0$* nothinginthishistorysuggestsitisimpermissibleforjudgestoexercise %!, discretion!!takingintoconsiderationvariousfactorsrelatingbothtooffense 0'". andoffender!!inimposingajudgmentwithintherangeprescribedby ($0 statute].)Accordingly,ifoneaggravatingcircumstanceissupportedbyeither 0*%2 ajuryfindingorthedefendantsadmission,orifoneaggravatingcircumstance +'4 isbasedonthedefendantsrecidivism,thetrialcourtmaypermissiblyfindany 0-(6 otheraggravatingcircumstancesinimposingtheuppertermwithoutviolating   D Cunningham. 0  4  ` JusticeKennardarticulatedandappliedthisprinciplein  Black.After  disagreeingwiththe  BlackmajoritysopinionthatCaliforniasupperterm 0  procedurewascategoricallyconstitutional,JusticeKennardnonethelesswrote   toaffirmthedefendantssentenceonthegroundthatatleastoneaggravating 0   circumstancecomplyingwiththe R SixthAmendmentsupportedtheupperterm.   8 4  ` UnderCalifornialaw,theexistenceofasingleaggravating 0  circumstanceissufficienttosupportimpositionofanupperterm.(   1170,subd.(b).)Inthiscase,thejurysfindingspertainingto 0  defendantsprobationeligibility,andthetrialcourtsfindingspertaining  todefendantscriminalrecord,wereeachsufficienttosatisfythis 0 statutoryrequirement,therebymakingtheuppertermthestatutory  maximumfortheoffense.(SeeBlakely,supra,542U.S.atpp.303-304, 0 124S.Ct.atp.2537[defining statutorymaximumasthemaximum  sentenceatrialcourtmayimposewithoutadditionalfindingsof 0 offense-basedfacts].)Oncetheuppertermbecamethestatutory   maximuminthismanner,defendantsrighttojurytrialunderthefederal 0" ConstitutionsSixthAmendmentwassatisfied,andthetrialcourtonits $ ownproperlycould--anddid--makeadditionalfindingsofoffensebased 0!& aggravatingcircumstancesinsupportofitsdiscretionarysentencechoice "( toimposetheupperterm.Thus,underthehighcourtsdecisionsin 0$* Apprendi,supra,530U.S.466,120S.Ct.2348,147L.Ed.2d435, %!, Blakely,supra,542U.S.296,124S.Ct.2531,andBooker,supra,543 0'". U.S.220,125S.Ct.738,thetrialcourtheredidnotviolatedefendants ($0 SixthAmendmentrighttojurytrialwhenitsentencedhimtotheupper 0*%2 term.+'444 (  Peoplev.Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1270(conc.&dis.opn.ofKennard,J.); 0-(6 seealso O Statev.Martinez(Ariz.2005)115P.3d618,625[ onceajuryfindsor  adefendantadmitsasingleaggravatingfactor,theSixthAmendmentpermits 0 thesentencingjudgetofindandconsideradditionalfactorsrelevanttothe  impositionofasentenceuptothemaximumprescribedinthatstatute]; Q Lopez 0  v.People(Colo.2005)113P.3d713,731[because [o]neBlakelycompliantor   Blakelyexemptfactorissufficienttosupportanaggravatedsentenceunder 0   Coloradostatelawandthe R SixthAmendment,imposinganaggravatedsentence   is bothconstitutionallyandstatutorilysoundevenifthesentencingjudgealso 0  consideredfactorsthatwerenotBlakelycomplaintorBlakelyexempt].)    4  ` Here,thetrialcourtsaggravatedcircumstancefindingthatappellanthad 0  a lengthy[criminal]historyfellwiththerecidivismexceptionbecauseit  derivedfromhispriorconvictions._ r  19  /    ׀Therefore,thetrialcourtsfindingofthis 0 aggravatingcircumstancedidnotviolate D Cunningham.Moreover,thefactual  basisforthetrialcourtsrecidivismfindingwasfullyestablishedbyappellants 0 admissionsthathehadsufferedfourpriorconvictions(robberyin1995,  unlawfultakingofavehiclein1996,grandtheftin1995,andobstructingor 0 resistinganofficerin2000)andthathehadservedprisontermsforthose   convictions.(RT12571259.) 0"   $  4  ` Sincethisrecidivismfinding,byitself,authorizedanupperterm  sentence,theuppertermbecamethestatutorymaximumandthetrialcourtwas 0 freetoconsideranyotheraggravatingcircumstancesfoundbyapreponderance  inevaluatingwhethertoimposetheupperterm.Underthesecircumstances,the 0  trialcourtsadditionalaggravatingcircumstancefindingthatthevictimwasin   fearforhislife,andtheuseofthatfindingtosupportanuppertermsentence, 0   didnotviolate D Cunningham.Accordingly,appellantssentencewas   constitutionallyvalid. 0   4 &   2 6  4  .3  8 ` BecauseAppellantsAdmissionsOnThePriorPrisonTerm 0  EnhancementsIncreasedTheStatutoryMaximumToEight .~ Years,TheJudicialFactfindingDidNotIncreaseAppellants ,| SentenceBeyondTheStatutoryMaximum inpS*z` x` x '0dS 4  `  D Cunninghamconcludedthatthestatutorymaximumwasthemiddleterm, (x  themaximumsentenceajudgemayimposesolelyonthebasisofthefacts  reflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant.( D Cunningham,supra, (x 127S.Ct.atp.868,quoting  Blakely,supra,542U.S.atp.303.)Here,the  middletermoftheprescribedstatutoryrangeforthesubstantiveoffense, (x combinedwithappellantsadmissionsonthechargedpriorconvictionand   prisontermallegations,resultedinanauthorizedsentenceforhisoffenseof ( x" eightyears,i.e.,thesamesentencethetrialcourtactuallyimposed. !$  4  ` Thissentenceiscalculatedasfollows.Appellantsfelonyconvictionof (#x& unlawfultakingordrivingofavehiclecarriedthestandardrangeofsixteen $( months,twoyears,orthreeyears.( R Veh.Code,10851,subd.(a); T 18.) (&x!* Becauseappellantadmittedthathehadsufferedapriorfelonyconvictionof '", unlawfultakingordrivingofavehicle,thestandardrangewasincreasedtotwo, ()x$. three,orfouryearsunder U section666.5.( U 666.5,subd.(a); R Veh.Code, *%0 10851,subd.(e).)Thisstandardrangewasthendoubledtoarangeoffour,six, (,x'2 oreightyearsbyappellantsadmissionthathehadsufferedaprior strike -(4 conviction.Appellantwasfurtherexposedtoanadditionaltwoyearsof  imprisonmentbecauseofhisadmissionsthathehadservedtwovalidprior 0 prisonterms.( V 667.5,subd.(b)).` r  20  /    ׀Thus,themiddletermofsixyears,coupled  withthetwooneyearpriorprisontermenhancements,yieldedanexposureto 0  aprisontermofeightyears.Inotherwords,thetrialcourtcouldhaveimposed   amaximumsentenceofatleasteightyears withoutanyadditionalfindings. 0   ( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.865,quoting  Blakely,supra,542U.S.atp.   303.)a r  21  /     0   4  ` Inlightofthispotentialeightyearsentence,thetrialcourtssentencing   decisioncouldrelyonfactualfindingsthatwerenotreflectedinthejuryverdict 0  oradmittedbyappellanttosentencehimtoeightyears.Accordingly,  appellantseightyearsentenceisvalid.( D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp. 0 863[ [t]hisCourthasrepeatedlyheldthat,undertheSixthAmendment,any  factthatexposesadefendanttoagreaterpotentialsentencemustbefoundby 0 ajury,italicsadded];  Blakely,supra,542U.S.atp.304[asentencebasedin  partonjudiciallyfoundfactsdoesnotviolateadefendantsrighttojurywhere 0 thesentenceisnot inexcessofthatotherwiseallowedfor[theunderlying]   offense].)   4  ` Furthermore,thetrialcourtsultimatestrikingofthetwopriorprison 0 termenhancementshadnoeffectonthecomputationofthestatutorymaximum,  asdefinedby D Cunningham.Strikingapriordoesnotinvalidatetheunderlying 0  truefindingoradmissionoftheprior.( X Peoplev.Garcia(1999)20Cal.4th490,   496[ thestrikingordismissalofachargeofpriorconviction...isnotthe 0   equivalentofadeterminationthatdefendantdidnotinfactsuffertheconviction   [citations];suchjudicialactionistaken...forthepurposeofsentencingonly, 0  internalquotationmarksomitted].)Therefore,atrialcourtsdiscretionary   sentencingdecisiontodismissapriorissimplyadownwarddeparturefrom,and 0  doesnotchange,thestatutorymaximumthatwasalreadyestablishedbythe  factsfoundbythejuryoradmittedbythedefendant. 0  4  ` Thetrialcourtsdiscretionarysentencingdecisiontoultimatelystrikethe  twopriorprisontermenhancementsdidnotaffectappellantsexposuretoan 0 eightyearprisonsentence.Atthetimeoftheguiltyverdictandappellants  admissions,thecourtcouldhaveimposedasentenceofatleasteightyears 0 withoutanyadditionalfactfinding.Accordingly, D Cunninghamwasnotviolated   becausethetrialcourtimposedasentencethatdidnotexceedthestatutory 0" maximumfortheoffense. $  4 &   2 6  5  .3  8 ` Any D CunninghamErrorWasHarmlessInThisCase inAk"'` x` x '"5k 4  `   Apprendior  Blakelyerrorissubjecttoreviewunder  Chapmanv. $) California.( Y Washingtonv.Recuenco,supra,126S.Ct.atp.2553; Z Peoplev. .&~!+ Sengpadychith,supra,26Cal.4thatp.327.)Likewise,since D Cunninghamisan '"- applicationof  Apprendiand  Blakely,itissubjectto  Chapmanharmlesserror .)~$/ review.Under  Chapman,todeterminewhether D Cunninghamerrorwas *%1 prejudicial,thereviewingcourtmustdeterminewhetherthejurywouldhave .,~'3 foundanaggravatingcircumstancetruebeyondareasonabledoubt.(See -(5   Chapman,supra,386U.S.atp.24.)Anyerrorastoanaggravating  circumstanceisharmlessunderthisstandardiftheevidenceattrialand 0 sentencingconsistedofoverwhelmingoruncontradictedevidenceastothat  circumstance.(See \ Nederv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1,17[119S.Ct. 0  1827,144L.Ed.2d135][findingerroneousinstructionomittingelementofthe   offenseharmless whereareviewingcourtconcludesbeyondareasonabledoubt 0   thattheomittedelementwasuncontestedandsupportedbyoverwhelming   evidence],citedwithapprovalin Y Washingtonv.Recuenco,supra,126S.Ct.at 0  p.2552[describing b Nederinquiryas askingwhetherthejurywouldhave   returnedthesameverdictabsenttheerror];seealso c Peoplev.Cleveland,supra, 0  87Cal.App.4thatp.271[findingany  Apprendierrorforajudges # section654  findingtobeharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtbecause [w]ehavenodoubt 0 ajurywouldhavereachedthesameconclusion[asthetrialcourt]underthe  reasonabledoubtstandard]; e Chamberlainv.Pliler(C.D.Cal.2004)307 0 F.Supp.2d1128,11421143[holdingthatany  Apprendierrorfromthefailure  tosubmitapersonalusefindingtothejurywasharmlessbecause [p]etitioner 0 hasadducednoevidencetocontradicttheevidenceconsideredbythetrialcourt,   whichincludedthevictimstestimonythatpetitionerhadpulledoutaknifeand 0" struckthevictimintheheadwithashinyobjectcuttinghimandleavinga $ scar].) 0!&  4  ` Ifthereviewingcourtdeterminesthatthejurywouldhavefoundatleast "( oneoftheaggravatingcircumstancestruebeyondareasonabledoubt,the 0$* prejudiceinquiryendsandthereviewingcourtmustdeemthe D Cunningham %!, errornotprejudicial.Thisisbecause D Cunninghamerroronlyoccursifthejury 0'". didnotfindthenecessaryfactthatauthorizestheimpositionof,ormakesthe ($0 defendanteligiblefor,theincreasedsentence.Sinceasingleaggravating 0*%2 circumstanceissufficienttoauthorizetheimpositionoftheuppertermsentence +'4 understatelaw( f Peoplev.Osband,supra,13Cal.4thatpp.728729),a 0-(6 determinationthatthejurywouldhavefoundatleastoneaggravating  circumstancetruebeyondareasonabledoubtnecessarilyrendersthe 0  D Cunninghamerrorharmlessbecausethatsingleaggravatingcircumstancewould  haveauthorizedtheuppertermsentence.Thereviewingcourtwouldtherefore 0  affirmthedefendantssentenceundersuchcircumstances.    4  ` Oncethereviewingcourtdeterminesthatany D Cunninghamerrorwas 0   harmlessbecausethejurywouldhavefoundatleastoneaggravating   circumstancetrue,thereviewingcourtdoesnotneedtofurtherdetermine 0  whetherthetrialcourtwouldhavesentencedthedefendanttothesameupper   termsentenceinlightofthe D Cunninghamerror.Suchaninquiryisnotrequired 0  becausethejurytrialrightin D Cunninghamfocusesontheissueofwhetherthe  jurymadethenecessaryfindingtoexposethedefendanttoahighersentence, 0 ratherthantheissueofwhetherthetrialcourtmadetheproperdiscretionary  sentencingchoice.(See D Cunningham,supra,127S.Ct.atp.860[ sentence 0 elevatingfactfindingwhich expose[s]adefendanttoanuppertermviolates  therighttojurytrial].)Thus,the  Chapmaninquiryrequiredtovindicatethat 0 rightislimitedtothequestionofwhetherthejurywouldhavefoundatleastone   aggravatingcircumstancetrue,exposingthedefendanttotheupperterm. 0"  4  ` Thisconclusionthattheultimatesentencingdecisiondoesnotimplicate $ the R SixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrialisdemonstratedbytheconcurring 0!& opinionin h Ringv.Arizona(2002)536U.S.584[122S.Ct.2428,153L.Ed.2d "( 556],byJusticeScalia,theauthorofthe  Blakelyopinion.Inthisconcurring 0$* opinion,JusticeScaliaexplainedthat i Ring,andimplicitly  Apprendi,had %!,  nothingtodowithjurysentencing.( i Ring,supra,536U.S.atp.612(conc. 0'". opn.ofScalia,J.).)Instead,the i Ringdecisionmeantthat ($0 8 4 thejurymustfindtheexistenceofthefactthatanaggravatingfactor 0*%2 existed.ThoseStatesthatleavetheultimatelifeordeathdecisiontothe +'4 judgemaycontinuetodoso!byrequiringapriorjuryfindingof 0-(6 aggravatingfactorinthesentencingphaseor,moresimplybyplacingthe  aggravatingfactordetermination(whereitlogicallybelongsanyway)in 0 theguiltphase.44 ( i Id.atpp.612613,originalitalics.)Thus,thisconcurringopinionclearlyshows 0  thatthefederalconstitutionalconcernsin  Apprendionlyreachtheissueof   factfindingtoauthorizetheincreasedsentenceanddonotextendtoatrial 0   courtsultimatesentencingdecision.Accordingly,oncethereviewingcourt   determinesthatthejurywouldhavefoundatleastoneaggravatingcircumstance 0  true,thereviewingcourtdoesnotneedtofurtherexamineunderthe  Chapman   standardwhetherthedefendantwouldhavereceivedthesamesentenceinlight 0  ofthe D Cunninghamerror.   4  ` Forexample,supposetheprosecutionsubmitsevidenceattrialthata 0 defendantcommittedasexualoffensebypretendinghewasadoctorfora  severelymentallyretardedperson.Thedefenseseekstoimpeachthevictimand 0 ultimatelyarguestothejurythatherseverementalretardationmakesher  testimonyunreliable.Thejuryconvictsthedefendant.Atsentencing,thetrial 0 courtimposestheupperterm,afterfindingtwoaggravatingcircumstancesand   onemitigatingcircumstance.Oneofthesetwoaggravatingcircumstancesis 0" thatthevictimwasparticularlyvulnerable.(See  rule4.421(a)(3).)Inresolving $ a D Cunninghamclaimonappeal,thereviewingcourtdeterminesthatbeyonda 0!& reasonabledoubt,thejurywouldhavefoundtruetheaggravatingcircumstance "( thatthevictimwasparticularlyvulnerablebasedonherundisputedsevere 0$* mentalretardation.Astotheotheraggravatingcircumstance,however,the %!, reviewingcourtdoesnotfinditharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Inthis 0'". situation,appellaterebalancingorreweighingoftheoneremainingaggravating ($0 circumstancewiththeonemitigatingcircumstanceisinappropriate.Instead,the 0*%2 proper D Cunninghamharmlesserrorinquiryasks,ifthejuryhadfoundoneof +'4 thesetwoaggravatingcircumstancebeyondareasonabledoubt,wouldthetrial 0-(6 courthavethenhadtheauthoritytoconsidertheotheraggravating  circumstance?Theanswerisyes,sincethe  Chapmansurvivingaggravating 0 circumstancebyitselfwouldhaveauthorizedtheupperterm.Asaresult,the  trialcourtsadditionalaggravatingcircumstancefindingwouldalsohavebeen 0  permissibleunder D Cunningham.Giventhis,thetrialcourtsweighingofthe   samecircumstancesnecessarilywouldhavebeenthesameaswell. 0    4  ` Thus, D Cunninghamerrordoesnotinvolveanystatelawquestionof   whetherthetrialcourterredinitsdiscretionaryweighingoftheaggravatingand 0  mitigatingcircumstancesandresultingselectionofthebaseterm.Buttothe   extentthatthisCourtconcludesthatareviewingcourtmustexaminewhether 0  thetrialcourtwouldhaveneverthelesssentencedthedefendanttotheupper  termsentencebecausetherewassomestatelawerrorintheselectionofthe 0 sentence,thisinquiryshouldbeconductedunderthestatelawstandardof   k Peoplev.Watson(1956)46Cal.2d818,836. 0  4  ` Anapplicationofthestandardofreviewintheinstantcasedemonstrates  thatany D Cunninghamerrorwasharmless.EvenifthisCourtweretoconclude 0 thatthetrialcourtsfindingastoappellantslengthycriminalhistorydidnotfall   undertherecidivismexceptionto D Cunninghamorwasunsupportedby 0" appellantsadmissions,itisclearthejurywouldhavereachedthesame $ conclusionasthetrialcourtbecauseappellanttestifiedattrialthathehad 0!& sufferedfourfelonyconvictionsoverafiveyearperiod.(RT12211222.) "( Sincethejurywouldhavefoundthisaggravatingcircumstancetruebeyonda 0$* reasonabledoubt,theuppertermsentencewouldhavebeenauthorizedbythis %!, circumstance.Accordingly,any D Cunninghamerrorwasharmlessand 0'". appellantssentenceshouldbeaffirmed. ($0  4  ` Further,appellantssentenceshouldbeaffirmedbecausethejurywould 0*%2 havereachedthesameconclusionasthetrialcourtthatthevictimfearedforhis +'4 life.Eventhoughmostofthefactualissuesattrialinvolvedacredibilitycontest 0-(6 betweenappellantandthevictim,thespecificfactualissueofthevictimsfear  atthetimehelefthiscarwasfirmlyestablishedbyanindependentwitnesswho 0 describedthevictimas frantic,veryscaredandverynervous,and pretty  terrified.(RT722724.)Inaddition,thetrialcourtbaseditsfindingonthe 0  conductunderlyingtheoffenseofconviction,i.e.,thatthevictimsfearresulted   fromappellantscommissionoftheoffenseoftakingordrivingavehiclerather 0   thanfromanyconductunderlyingtheacquittedcounts.(SeeAnswerBrief,Arg.   I.D,atpp.1314.)Thus,iftheissueofthevictimsfearhadbeenpresentedto 0  thejury,thejurywouldhavemadethesamefindingasthetrialcourt.   Accordingly,any D Cunninghamerrorwasharmlessbecausetheupperterm 0  sentencewouldhavebeenauthorizedbythisaggravatingcircumstance.   4  ` Finally,evenassumingthatthisCourtmustexaminewhetherthetrial 0 courtwouldhaveimposedtheuppertermsentenceonlybasedonthe  aggravatingcircumstancesthatwouldhavebeenfoundtruebythejury,itisnot 0 reasonablyprobablethatthetrialcourtwouldhaveimposedalessersentence  since,asexplainedabove,thejurywouldhavefoundbothoftheaggravating 0 circumstancestrue.Moreover,eveniftheaggravatingcircumstancebasedon   appellantsrecidivismwastheonlyviableaggravatingcircumstance,itisstill 0" notreasonablyprobablethatthetrialcourtwouldhaveimposedalesser $ sentence.Aspreviouslyexplained,andasnotedbytheCourtofAppeal, 0!& appellantsrecidivismcouldhavesupportedthreeseparateaggravating "( circumstancesundertherulesofcourt.Theimportanceofappellants 0$* recidivisminthedeterminationofhissentenceisfurtherdemonstratedbythe %!, trialcourtscommentsthatappellanthada lengthyhistoryand tenyear 0'". history,andthat,despiteallofthispreviousexperience,appellantwasagain ($0 beforethecriminaljusticesystemawaitingsentencing.(RT24162417.)In 0*%2 addition,thetrialcourtfoundnomitigatingcircumstances.(RT24152417.) +'4 Accordingly,anyerrorwasnotprejudicial.(See,e.g., m Peoplev.Avalos(1984) 0-(6 37Cal.3d216,233; o Peoplev.Kelley(1997)52Cal.App.4th568,581&fn.18.)   &     CONCLUSION y  '^   4  ` Accordingly,forthereasonsstated,respondentrespectfullyasksthatthe  judgmentbeaffirmed. .~ %  &   4  ` Dated:  March4,2007!     f*x"ddd!dd!#%  x, ,x +  #. ~. ~ #  . ~  Respectfullysubmitted, . ~  fEDMUNDG.BROWNJR.  J  AttorneyGeneraloftheStateofCalifornia  J  DANER.GILLETTE z  ChiefAssistantAttorneyGeneral z  PAMELAC.HAMANAKA J  SeniorAssistantAttorneyGeneral J DONALDE.DENICOLA z DeputySolicitorGeneral z KRISTOFERJORSTAD J DeputyAttorneyGeneral J LAWRENCEM.DANIELS z SupervisingDeputyAttorneyGeneral z CHUNGL.MAR J! DeputyAttorneyGeneral J" AttorneysforRespondentz!$ ' % (  ; ƥCLM:fc B$% LA2005502283 %V & 60200582.wpd ƥ ; %!'   &!( !  ,!@8dd8q  @oo" TABLEOFCONTENTS   B  Page   % r y%    A.8 Summaryf f E  2  B.8 TheCunninghamDecisionf f E  4   C.8 Reformationf f E  8    1.8 d ThisCourtShouldReformTheUnconstitutional    StatutoryProvisionsToConformWithThe   LegislaturesIntentInEnactingTheDSLf f E d td t9    2.8 d TheBookerRemedialOpinionProvidesFurther   SupportForThisCourtToReinterpretAndReform   TheDSLInTheMannerSuggestedByRespondent  D d td t21@ F d td t   3.8 d TheRemediesThatTheNewJerseyAndOhio  SupremeCourtsAppliedToTheirStatesSystems  AfterBookerAlsoSupportReformationOf  CaliforniasSystemD d td t28   4.8 d DispositionOfTheCaliforniaRulesOfCourtD d td t33    d a.8 ProvisionsRequiringInvalidationD  35    d b.8 ProvisionsNotRequiringInvalidationD  38   5.8 d AsInBooker,ThisReformationShouldApplyTo ! AnySentencingAndResentencingHearing " OccurringAfterItsDecisionD d td t40 # D.8 AppellantIsNotEntitledToReliefUnderCunninghamD  41 % !  1.8 d BackgroundD d td t41 '"#  2.8 d AppellantForfeitedHisSixthAmendmentClaimBy )$% FailingToObjectD d td t45 *%&  -()  3.8 d InAnyEvent,CunninghamAndAlmendarezTorres t PermittedTheTrialCourtToImposeAppellants t  UpperTermBasedOnTheFindingOfOne t  RecidivistAggravatingCircumstanceD d td t47 t   4.8 d BecauseAppellantsAdmissionsOnThePrior t  PrisonTermEnhancementsIncreasedTheStatutory t MaximumToEightYears,TheJudicialFactfinding t DidNotIncreaseAppellantsSentenceBeyondThe t StatutoryMaximumD d td t54 t   5.8 d AnyCunninghamErrorWasHarmlessInThisCase t  D d td t56@ F |D|D t  H   H   CONCLUSIOND 63H ݌ t Ќ  % s  t q  @  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES   B  Page    Cases   G   /   / 2  AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates   (1998)523U.S.224   [118S.Ct.1219,140L.Ed.2d350]< 47,48,50/ 2M݈   Ќ̌  /   / L  Apprendiv.NewJersey   (2000)530U.S.466   [120S.Ct.2348,147L.Ed.2d435]$ 6,7,22,23,36,45-48,51,56-59/ Lg݈   Ќ̌  /   / r  Blakelyv.Washington   (2004)542U.S.296  [124S.Ct.2531,159L.Ed.2d403] 3,6,7,22,23,28,31,38,45-48,51,  = 54-56,58/ r݈  Ќ̌  /   /   Chamberlainv.Pliler  (C.D.Cal.2004)307F.Supp.2d1128D 57/ ݈  Ќ̌  /   /   Chapmanv.California  (1967)386U.S.18  [87S.Ct.824,17L.Ed.2d705]::; 3,6,56-60/ ݈  Ќ̌  /   /   Cunninghamv.California  (2007)___U.S.___  [127S.Ct.856] 1-8,11,13-15,19-21,25,28,32,33,35-41,45-48,50-61/ ݈   Ќ̌  /   /   Griffithv.Kentucky " (1987)479U.S.314 # [107S.Ct.708,93L.Ed.2d649]D 40/ ݈ $  Ќ̌  /   /   InreHowardN. &!" (2005)35Cal.4th117@ 12,13/ ݈ '"# Ќ̌  /   /   InreRichardS. )$% (1991)54Cal.3d857D 34/ ݈ *%& Ќ̌  /   / {  Koppv.FairPoliticalPracticesCommission ,'( (1995)11Cal.4th607> 9-13,21/{݈ -() Ќ  /   / j  Lopezv.People t (Colo.2005)113P.3d713D 53/ j݈ t  Ќ̌  /   / 7  Nederv.UnitedStates t  (1999)527U.S.1 t  [119S.Ct.1827,144L.Ed.2d135]D 57/ 7R݈ t  Ќ̌  /   / ;  Osbornev.Ohio t (1990)495U.S.103 t [110S.Ct.1691,109L.Ed.2d98]D 45/ ;V݈ t  Ќ̌  /   / 9  Peoplev.Avalos t  (1984)37Cal.3d216D 62/ 9T݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Bacigalupo t (1991)1Cal.4th103D 15/ ݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Benevites t (2005)35Cal.4th69D 47/ ݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Black t (2005)35Cal.4th1238((( 5-7,15,16,20,21,32,51-53/ ݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Calhoun t (2007)40Cal.4th398 t  [53Cal.Rptr.3d539]D 51/ ݈ t! Ќ̌  /   / w  Peoplev.Cattaneo t# (1990)217Cal.App.3d1577D 19/ w݈ t$ Ќ̌  /   / H  Peoplev.ChewLangOng t& (1904)141Cal.550D 19/ Hc݈ t' Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Cleveland t)!! (2001)87Cal.App.4th263@ 46,57/ 8݈ t*"" Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Earley t,$$ (2004)122Cal.App.4th542D 50/ ݈ t-%% Ќ  /   /   Peoplev.Epps t (2001)25Cal.4th19D 48/ ݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Ewoldt t  (1994)7Cal.4th380D 55/ ݈ t  Ќ̌  /   / Q  Peoplev.Forrester t (1994)30Cal.App.4th1697D 12/ Ql݈ t Ќ̌  /   / #  Peoplev.Garcia t  (1999)20Cal.4th490D 56/ #>݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Griffin t  (2004)33Cal.4th536D 15/ ݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Gurule t (2002)28Cal.4th557D 19/ ݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Hall t (1995)8Cal.4th950D 33/ ݈ t Ќ̌  /   / I  Peoplev.Hernandez t (1988)46Cal.3d194D 15/ Id݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Hill t  (2005)131Cal.App.4th1089D 46/ 0݈ t! Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Holmes t# (1960)54Cal.2d442D 47/ ݈ t$ Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Hove t& (1999)76Cal.App.4th1266D 32/ ݈ t' Ќ̌  /   / y  Peoplev.Kelley t)!! (1997)52Cal.App.4th568D 62/ y݈ t*"" Ќ̌  /   / G  Peoplev.Knowlden t,$$ (1985)171Cal.App.3d1052D 19/Gb݈ t-%% Ќ  /   /   Peoplev.Manriquez t (2005)37Cal.4th547D 36/ 3݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Marchand t  (2002)98Cal.App.4th1056D 46/ ݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.McGee t (2006)38Cal.4th682D 48/ ݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Osband t  (1996)13Cal.4th622@ 50,57/ ݈ t  Ќ̌  /   / M  Peoplev.Prather t  (1990)50Cal.3d428D 48/ Mh݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Roder t (1983)33Cal.3d491D 12/ 2݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Saunders t (1993)5Cal.4th580@ 45,47/ ݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Sengpadychith t (2001)26Cal.4th316@ 47,56/ ݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Tassell t  (1984)36Cal.3d77D 55/ ݈ t! Ќ̌  /   / L  Peoplev.Thomas t# (1992)2Cal.4th489D 15/ Lg݈ t$ Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Thomas t& (2001)91Cal.App.4th212D 48/ 0݈ t' Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Velasquez t)!! (1980)26Cal.3d425D 15/ ݈ t*"" Ќ̌  /   /   Peoplev.Watson t,$$ (1956)46Cal.2d818D 60/݈ t-%% Ќ  /   / x  Peoplev.Wiley t (1995)9Cal.4th580f f E 6/ x݈ t  Ќ̌  /   / ?  Peoplev.Wright t  (1982)30Cal.3d705D 15/ ?Z݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   Ringv.Arizona t (2002)536U.S.584 t [122S.Ct.2428,153L.Ed.2d556]@ 58,59/ #݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   Rylev.State t  (Ind.2005)842N.E.2d320D 49/ &݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   Statev.Allen t  (Minn.2005)706N.W.2d40D 49/ ݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   Statev.Fagan t (Conn.2006)905A.2d1101D 49/ ݈ t Ќ̌  /   / q  Statev.Foster t (Ohio2006)845N.E.2d470< 28,31,40/ q݈ t Ќ̌  /   / G  Statev.Jones t (Wash.2006)149P.3d636@ 49,50/ Gb݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   Statev.Martinez t! (Ariz.2005)115P.3d618D 53/ 2݈ t" Ќ̌  /   /   Statev.Natale t$ (N.J.2005)878A.2d724= 28-31,40/ ݈ t% Ќ̌  /   /   Statev.Stewart t' (Md.2002)791A.2d143D 49/ ݈ t(  Ќ̌  /   /   UnitedStatesv.Booker t*"" (2005)543U.S.220 t+## [125S.Ct.738,160L.Ed.2d621] 2,6-8,11,21-28,31,33,34,40,45,48/ ݈ t,$$ Ќ t-%% Ќ  /   /   UnitedStatesv.Corchado t (10thCir.2005)427F.3d815D 49/ ݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   UnitedStatesv.Cotton t  (2002)535U.S.625 t  [122S.Ct.1781,152L.Ed.2d860]@ 46,47/ ݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   UnitedStatesv.Davis t (3rdCir.2005)407F.3d162D 41/ ݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   UnitedStatesv.Fagans t  (2ndCir.2005)406F.3d138D 49/ ݈ t  Ќ̌  /   / [  UnitedStatesv.KempisBonola t  (8thCir.2002)287F.3d699D 49/ [v݈ t Ќ̌  /   / :  UnitedStatesv.Olano t (1993)507U.S.725 t [113S.Ct.1770,123L.Ed.2d508]D 45/ :U݈ t Ќ̌  /   / @  UnitedStatesv.Oliver t (6thCir.2005)397F.3d369D 41/ @[݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   UnitedStatesv.Santiago t (2ndCir.2001)268F.3d151D 49/ 3݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   Washingtonv.Recuenco t" (2006)548U.S.___ t# [126S.Ct.2546,165L.Ed.2d2546]< 47,56,57/  ݈ t$ Ќ̌  & ConstitutionalProvisions  t' 0   /   / c  U.S.Const.1stAmend.D 11/ c~݈ r) ! Ќ̌  /   /   U.S.Const.,6thAmend. 2-4,8,22,23,25,27,33,45-47,51-53,58/ ݈ r+"# Ќ̌  W/   /   U.S.Const.,14thAmend.f f E 4/݈ r-$% Ќ  Statutes  t 1   /   /   18U.S.C.A.3553D 34/ ݈ r  Ќ̌  /   / V  CodeCiv.Proc.,187D 19/ Vq݈ r  Ќ̌  /   /   Pen.Code,18D 54/ ݈ r Ќ̌  /   /   Pen.Code,190.3D 36/ ݈ r Ќ̌  /   / .  Pen.Code,207D 41/ .I݈ r  Ќ̌  /   /   Pen.Code,209D 41/ ݈ r  Ќ̌  /   / d  Pen.Code,209.5D 41/ d݈ r  Ќ̌  /   /   Pen.Code,211D 41/ ݈ r Ќ̌  /   /   Pen.Code,215D 41/ ݈ r Ќ̌  /   / 7  Pen.Code,422D 41/ 7R݈ r Ќ̌  /   /   Pen.Code,487D 41/ ݈ r Ќ̌  /   / m  Pen.Code,496D 12/ m݈ r  Ќ̌  /   /   Pen.Code,654@ 46,57/ #݈ r" Ќ̌  /   /   Pen.Code,666.5@ 42,54/ ݈ r$ Ќ̌  /   / H  Pen.Code,667D 42/ Hc݈ r& Ќ̌  /   /   Pen.Code,667.5@ 42,55/ ݈ r(  Ќ̌  /   /   Pen.Code,1170(( 2,5,8,9,13-18,20,26-28,31-35,37,51/ ݈ r*!" Ќ̌  /   / I  Pen.Code,1170.1@ 14,55/ Id݈ r,#$ Ќ r-$% Ќ  /   /   Pen.Code,1170.3nn5 5,14,26,33,35/ ݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   Pen.Code,1170.12D 42/ ݈ t  Ќ̌  /   / K   Pen.Code,1320D 12/ K f ݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   Stats.1976,ch.1139,273< 16,17,27/  ݈ t Ќ̌  /   /   Stats.1977,ch.165D 17/  ݈ t Ќ̌  /   / 2   Stats.1977,ch.165,15@ 17,27/ 2 M ݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   Stats.1977,ch.165,100D 17/  ݈ t  Ќ̌  /   /   Veh.Code,10851@ 42,54/  ݈ t Ќ̌   CourtRules  t 2   /   / v   Cal.RulesofCourt,Intro.Statement r (adoptedJan.1,1992) r [ AlltheCaliforniaRulesofCourthavetheforceoflaw]D 34/ v  ݈ r Ќ̌  /   /   Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.405((A 5,36/ ݈ r Ќ̌  /   / R  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.406= 5,37,39/ Rm݈ r! Ќ̌  /   /   Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.408= 6,39,53/ ݈ r# Ќ̌  /   /   Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.410= 6,13,38/ ݈ r% Ќ̌  /   / \  Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420::; 5,6,35-38/ \w݈ r' Ќ̌  /   /   Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.421nn5 5,36,39,50,59/ '݈ r) ! Ќ̌  /   /   Cal.RulesofCourt,rule428D 33/ ݈ r+"# Ќ̌  /   / g  Fed.RulesCrim.Proc.,rule52D 47/g݈ r-$% Ќ  j  OtherAuthorities  t 3   /   / g  AssemblyBill476D 17/ g݈ r  Ќ̌  /   /   DeterminateSentencingActof1976pp" 2,4,7-9,15-17,19-22,26,28,31, r  D 36/ ݈ r  Ќ̌  /   /   Ginsburg,SomeThoughtsonJudicialAuthority r toRepairUnconstitutionalLegislation r (1979)23Clev.St.L.Rev.301D 11/ ݈ r  Ќ̌  /   /   Proposition73f f E 9/ 9݈ r  Ќ̌  /   /   SenateBill40D 14/ ݈ r  Ќ̌  /   / I  SenateBill42@ 16,17/ Id݈ r Ќ̌  /   /   UnitedStatesSentencingGuidelines= 21-25,34/ ݈ r Ќ̌  [  r  R !  !8|pXXdd8 @[ [ CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE   B  ԍ(seenextpage)0 FormMustBeSignedByAttorneyorUnrepresentedLitigantAndAttachedtothe p( BackofEachCopyoftheBrief`  # # ЎC     P IcertifythattheattachedRESPONDENTSSUPPLEMENTAL  BRIEFusesa13pointTimesNewRomanfontandcontains19410words. . ~ &     P Dated:  March4,2007!   . ~  f*xdd x "  x, ,x +  #    #     Respectfullysubmitted,    fEDMUNDG.BROWNJR. z  AttorneyGeneraloftheStateofCalifornia z  CHUNGL.MAR J DeputyAttorneyGeneral J AttorneysforRespondentz '.