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  roleo