WPCi r3(0_=OcL7HTkr(b[мdNtiIէ#i~ mҵ!?Cs%r[Iimrq`hpx6x*~`:;33$ѬnqŞDW*dZT~\ o?Պ ,,{h5ѽS3[6]f04Ͼ6wKh$ʴ"萢+lCPrG')H]23lұDȞvD,[@qwb+K7|j%l2$,– ,u#\[nS6MNғ"u}0CÊ*3fZIͲ7Jaq19`OYx]=q Y/dT+q(.쁢cƵk_gLc MB%ufwS@t-١[VcD# UNk % 0 (U:>^ %w145IX mZNq 0Cs 0le 0D 1 1t 1u 1p 1 1~8 =UI ! 72" 1" 72c#b## 1c$ 1$ 72q% 0N%%rq') 1+ 72[, 1, 72-F- ../ 72^0 720=01 13 724 1A4 724 14 725 0A55 1w6 726 107 727 17 72p8 18 72)9 0g)[9 99 p]:: r; R< =T<  < 1< #= f>==$K> 1o? ?@ B@ 2@ 0c@ 0wLA 0AMB 0DB <CLC DC 72DEDEH8J 722KdK B'L ADL D-L 0KMMM ?gM2MN 1P -{Q{Q 72QQ \nSSPTU |aV EVVVVVVVVV 1"W 72WW fX )X =!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y!Y^Y LY;Z JZ [ j[ \ h\] d]]]]%^ ^{_ Z`[` ta|a j%bb l9cc \Mdd X.ee ^fmf Nf Ќ  ;Vm  ;Vm0     2.0(#(#TheSituationisSuchthatThisCourtMustStepinNow#""J(#.E(#(##9;Vm݌ b Ќ  ;Vm  ;Vm0     3.0(#(#AppellantTowneCorrectlyArguesthattheBlakely/ApprendiRuleswill;Vm݌ (#(# Ќ  0  InvalidateSentencesBeyondthePrescribedStatutoryMaximumBasedon ! SentenceSignificantFactsthathavenotbeenSubmittedtoaJury,or"(#(#   AgreedUponTrierofFact,andFoundbeyondReasonableDoubt<"<"I(#.K15 #  ;Vm  ;Vm0     4.0(#(#WhileAppellant_Towne_ԀisCorrectthataTemporaryFixisAvailable,;Vm݌%0!(#(# Ќ    theCaliforniaSentencingSchemeCannotbeRescuedThrough &B"    ReformationorSeverance<"<"I(#.'19 (T#! ;Vm  ;Vm0     ;Vm݌ (*x%#(#(# Ќ  5.0  InOrdertoMeettheBlakely/ApprendiRequirements,thisCourtMust  RequireChangesin:RulesofPleading;DefinitionofSentenceTriggering  ElementswhereNecessary;TrialofRequiredSentencingFacts;Jury $ VerdictsandSentencingProcesses#<"<"I(#.0(#(##25 6  p(e88N! !"X3"  X3>!2e  6  .3  0    TheChangesUrgedbyCACJareSignificant,butClearlyManageable;X3>!k!݌ Z(#(# Ќ    thePendencyofBlakelyRelatedCasesBeforetheU.S.SupremeCourt  l   MakesitImperativethatCaliforniaReformitsLawsCorrectlyatthis . ~   Juncture....................................................<"<"I(#27 @  CONCLUSION<"<"I(#. 31 d        @KK TABLEOFAUTHORITIES      #44 #E   E $  44 n$FederalCasesE $$ & Ќ̌   F;  E   E n%  0  _Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,(2000)530U.S.466#8(#.:(#(##6,9,11,13,14,passimE n%%݈ N Ќ̌  E   E u&    _Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,(2004)U.S.;124S.Ct.2531..;(#.  J2,3,4,5,6,passimE u&&݈ " r Ќ̌  E   E '    Harrisv.UnitedStates,(2002)536U.S.545<"<"I(#.xx;15E ''݈ F  Ќ̌  E   E P(    Jonesv.UnitedStates,(1999)526U.S.227<"<"I(#.:15E P(k(݈ j  Ќ̌  E   E )    _McMillan_Ԁv.Pennsylvania,(1986)477U.S.79!!F(#.22;15,16E )9)݈   Ќ̌  E   E *    Pattersonv._U.S_,(1977)432U.S.197<"<"I(#.416E *+*݈  Ќ̌  E   E *    Ringv.Arizona,(2002)536U.S.584<"<"I(#.325E *+݈ & Ќ̌  E   E +  #44$#44 b% StateCases E ++ J Ќ̌  E   E ,    Inre_Blaney_,(1947)30Cal.2d643<"<"I(#.123#44!,#44E ,,݈  p Ќ̌    HotelEmployeesandRestaurantEmployeesInternationalUnionv.Davis, D E   E <.     ` (1999)21Cal.4th585<"<"I(#.~~)23E <.W.݈ V Ќ̌  E   E .    #44t-#_Kopp_Ԁv.FairPoliticalPracticesCommittee,(1995)11Cal.4th607......<"<"I(#2144#͇4J#4͇E ./݈ z Ќ̌  E   E 0    _McCafferty_Ԁv.BoardofSupervisors,(1969)3_Cal.App_.3d190<"<"I(#.J23E 00݈ ! Ќ̌  E   E 1    #44/#Peoplev.Navarro,(1972)7Cal.3d24844#͇4+0#4͇Ԁ............................C(#21,22,23 @ #4472#44E 11݈ # Ќ̌  E   E s3  #443#44  SantaBarbaraSchoolDistrictv.SuperiorCourt,(1975)13Cal.3d315<"<"I(#.@!@!T23#443#44E s33݈ %6! Ќ̌  E   E 4    Statev.Gould,(Kan.,2001)23P.3d803!!F(#.713,14#444#44E 44݈  (Z#! Ќ̌    .*~%# UnitedStatesConstitution     Generally<"<"I(#. 17 & m;  E   E 6    SixthAmendment8(#. 4,6,14,16,20,passimE 66݈ 8 Ќ̌  E   E a7  6#445#44 CaliforniaConstitution E a7|7  \ Ќ̌  E   E I8    Generally<"<"I(#. 17E I8d8݈ 2  Ќ̌  E   E 8    CaliforniaRulesofCourtE 8 9 V  Ќ̌   L;  0  Rule4.405#<"<"I(#.  (#(##18 ~    Rule4.405(d)<"<"I(#." " 17     Rule4.406(a.)<"<"I(#.N N 18#447#44Ԉ     Rule4.413<"<"I(#.  18    Rule4.414<"<"I(#.  18    Rule4.421!!F(#.  18,19 (   Rule4.421(a)<"<"I(#.  19 :   Rule4.421(b)<"<"I(#." " 19 L   Rule4.421(c)<"<"I(#.  19 ^   Rule4.425<"<"I(#.  18#44:#44Ԉ  p E   E (=    Rule29.1(f)""J(#. 1E (=C=݈ 2 Ќ̌  9#44<#44 STATUTES  V   K>#44>#44E   E >  CaliforniaPenalCode     E >> | Ќ̌  DeterminateSentencingLaw !   GenerallyBB9(#. 6,7,8,17,18,passim "   #44>#441054etseq.<"<"I(#. 30 $(  E   E p@    ?#44@#4411708(#.V V 6,8,13,19,20,passimE p@@݈ &L"  Ќ̌  E   E xA    1170(a)""J(#.Z Z 9E xAA݈  )p$" Ќ̌  E   E B    1170(a)(1)""J(#.l l 7EB:B݈ D+&$ Ќ  E   E B    1170(b)!!G(#.h h 9,17E BB݈  Ќ̌    1170(d)""J(#. 9#44@# ?44Ԉ $  (9    1172etseq.<"<"I(#." " 22#44C#44  J KansasStatutesAnnotated  p  ;  E   E E    KansasSentencingGuidelinesAct<"<"I(#./13#44D#44E E1E݈ F  Ќ̌  ;  #44E#44  214704(1993#44TF#44)<"<"I(#.> > 13 j  E   E G    #44F#44214705(1993#44sG#44)<"<"I(#.x x 13 %F#44G#44E G"G݈   Ќ̌  E   E H    21471#443H#446(1993)<"<"I(#.> > 13 @ E HH݈  Ќ̌  E   E I    214718(b)""H(#. 12E II݈ & Ќ̌  E   E 6J    214718(b)(1)(2002Supplement)#44H#44<"<"I(#./14#44J#44E 6JQJ݈ J Ќ̌  E   E zK    214718(b)(1)(2)<"<"I(#. 12#44 K#  E  44E zKK݈ n Ќ̌  E   E L  #44/L#44 #L OtherAuthorities #44L#E LL B Ќ̌  121Cong.Rec.37,56237,563(1975)<"<"I(#1944Ԉ h #44M#44q;  Berman,SentencingLawandPolicy(AspenPublishers,2004)<"<"I(#.D10   CriminalSentences:LawWithoutOrder(1972)..........................<"<"I(#19 @  @`  @ #44N#44Ԉ " #44O#CourtStatisticsReport(2004)<"<"I(#.(2944Ԉ $$  FederalSentencingGuidelinesC(#.'11,27,28 &H"  FederalSentencingReformAct<"<"I(#.NN'27 )l$" #44P#Frankel,CriminalSentences:LawWithoutOrder(1972)<"<"I(#.?27 @+&$ 44E   E Q  KansasCriminalLawHandbook,14.8.<"<"I(#.vv.12E QQ݈  Ќ̌  E   E eR  #44Q#StatewideCaseloadTrends,2002200344!!F(#.22.28,29E eRR݈ $ Ќ̌  E   E eS  VeraInstituteofJustice,StateSentencingandCorrections:PolicyandPractice H Review(August2004)!!F(#. 11,12 ON#44R#44  E eSS݈  Z Ќ̌  T#44pT#44  . ~ #44 U#44@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  6    `     h      p   PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF#44`U#44 h   )0  No.S125677  \(#(# #44V#44CALIFORNIA,    h   )   $ t   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#  )0h(#h(# CourtofAppealNo.B166312 6 (#(#   PlaintiffandRespondent,  )0  N (#(#    `     h   )  SuperiorCourtNo.PA040926  `    v. `     h   )0  0p(#(# 0p(#p(# x (#(#    `     h   )      SHAWNTOWNE,0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#)    (#(#    `     h )      ЀDefendantandAppellant.0  )(#(#   0 `     h   )(` (#` (# 򀀀) : #44;W#44  #44\# @ MOTIONOFCALIFORNIAATTORNEYSFORCRIMINAL ^ @JUSTICE44ԀFORPERMISSIONTOAPPEARASAMICUSCURIAE "r @ ONBEHALFOFAPPELLANT(RULE29.1(f)) 6 @  ANDBRIEFINSUPPORTOFAPPELLANTTOWNE J #44v]#44#44^# TO:THEHONORABLERONALDGEORGE,CHIEFJUSTICEOFTHE  SUPREMECOURTOFCALIFORNIA,ANDTOTHEHONORABLE   ASSOCIATEJUSTICESOFTHECOURT:  "$   CaliforniaAttorneysforCriminalJustice(hereafterCACJ)movesthisCourt $L  forpermissiontoappearasanamicuscuriaeonbehalfofAppellantShawnTowne  'p"  withinthemeaningof K CaliforniaRulesofCourt,Rule29.1(f). D)$"   h+&$   I.  MOTIONOFCACJTOAPPEARASAMICUSCURIAEINSUPPORT  OFAPPELLANT  a  (    A. ` IdentificationofCACJ     1       a  P   CACJisanonprofitCaliforniacorporation.AccordingtoArticleIVofits ( x bylaws,CACJwasformedtoachievecertainobjectivesincluding"todefendthe L  rightsofpersonsasguaranteedbytheUnitedStatesConstitution,theConstitution p  oftheStateofCaliforniaandotherapplicablelaw.(ArticleIV,ByLawsof   CACJ.)Theorganizationhasapproximately2,000duespayingmemberswhoare  primarilycriminaldefenselawyerspracticingbeforethestateandfederalcourts , locatedinCalifornia.Theselawyersareemployedbothinthepublicandprivate P sectors,andCACJsmembershipisdistributedaroundthestate. $t   CACJoftenappearsasanamicuscuriaebeforethisCourtonmattersof H importancetoitsmembershipandstatedgoals. l   B. ` InterestOfAmicusCuriaeCACJInThisLitigation      TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsrulingin H Ԁ J Blakelyv.Washington(2004) " U.S.򀀀;124S.Ct.2531(hereafterBlakely)hassignificantlychangedthe  substantiveandprocedurallawsrelatedtotheadjudicationofcriminalcases,and $ especiallythesentencingprocess. H   AppellantShawnTownearguesthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretion,and  l violatedbothhisstateandfederalconstitutionalrightsbysentencinghimtoan @  uppertermbasedonfactorsthatwerenotfoundbythejury,andthatinTownes d  estimationwerenecessarilyrejectedbythejurysverdictacquittinghim.   (TownesOpeningBrief,hereafterAOBat9.)Appellanthasprofferedseveral  constitutionallyrootedargumentstosupporthismajorpremise.Ofspecial   significancetoCACJareAppellantsarguments(1)thatPenalCode1170 D etseq.areunconstitutionalinthattheydonotcomplywithBlakelyandits h predecessors(AOBat21etseq.);andthat(2)theerrorinimposingtheupperterm < basedonfactorsnotfoundbythejurybeyondareasonabledoubtrequirereversal ` ofthiscase.(AOBat38.)CACJisalsoawarethatAppellantwilladdressthe   questionofwhetherPenalCode1170canberescuedthroughreformationor " throughseveranceofitsinvalidlanguageinordertoensuresomelevelofsystemic $  stabilityastheLegislatureaddressestheissuespresentedbyBlakely.t    2       &@"    CACJsinterestinthiscaseisunderscoredbytherecentlodgingofits  motionforpermissiontoappear,andbrief,supportingAppellantinPeoplev. $ Black,SupremeCourtNo.S126182,acasethatraisessimilarissues.Though H AppellantTownescasepresentsdifferentcharacteristics,andcasespecificissues,  l themainquestionpresentedbybothcasesappearstoCACJtobethesame:Is @  Californiascurrentstatutorysentencingscheme,withitsattendantRulesofCourt d  andrichfabricofcaselawinterpretation,constitutionalaswrittenandasapplied?   If,asAppellantTowneargues(andCACJagrees),theanswerisno,thatanswer  willhavewidespreadramifications.     CACJhasagreatinterestinthiscaseforseveralreasons.First,CACJ D memberspracticecriminaldefensethroughoutCalifornia.Bydefinition,they h mustproperlyrepresenttheirclients.Atthisjuncture,thelackofdefinitive < pronouncementfromthisCourtontheimpactofBlakelyinourStatepresents ` majorquestionsforpractitioners.Second,CACJiscommittedtodefendingthose   constitutionalrightsatissuewhenevercriminalcasesareprosecuted.As " AppellantTowneargues,Blakelyhaschangedthefoundationintheinterpretation $  ofthoseconstitutionalrightsatissueincriminalcasesinCalifornia.CACJhasan &@"  interestinensuringthattheSixthAmendmentisproperlyappliedinourstate. )d$"   Third,itislikelythatcourtsthroughoutCaliforniatodayareeitherimposing 8+&$ sentenceswithoutmeasurablydepartingfromCaliforniasexistingsentencing  statutes,andtherelatedrules,orareattemptingtoanticipatethisCourts $ upcomingrulings.Ifthisiscorrect,thereislittledoubtthattheunevennessofthe H responsesto_Blakely_asthelawisinfluxwillleadtounnecessarydisarrayand  l uncertainty. @    _CACJ_Ԁhasalreadyexpresseditsinterestinthesubjectmatterofthis d  litigationbylodginganamicusbriefintherelatedBlackcase._CACJ_Ԁrespectfully   requestspermissiontoappearinsupportofAppellant_Towne_.Thisbriefistimely  filedundertheCourtscurrentbriefingorder.     D     @ss)II.  Ѐ@++_CACJ_SBRIEFONTHEMERITSSUPPORTINGAPPELLANT_TOWNE_  y  (  (h88p     THISCOURTSHOULDHOLDTHATPENALCODE1170,AND  P STATUTESASWELLASSENTENCINGRULESLINKEDTOIT  d BYTHEDESIGNOFTHEDETERMINATESENTENCINGLAW ( x AREALLCURRENTLYUNCONSTITUTIONALANDTHAT <  THELAWMUSTBESUITABLYANDAPPROPRIATELY P  AMENDEDTOENSURETHECONTINUED @h  d  CONSTITUTIONALVITALITYOFCALIFORNIAS x  AIMTOENSURETHEELIMINATION   OFDISPARITYANDTHEEXISTENCEOF   DETERMINATESENTENCING    J{  _{l{  "(}08# #  1.0  Introduction<(#(#   Appellant_Towne_Ԁiscorrect:Hewassentencedunderastatutoryschemethat d isunconstitutional;hissentenceisillegalforseveralreasons;moreover,thebody 8 oflawonwhichthecourtbaseditsdecisionsisunconstitutionalandmustbe \ reformed.  ~_Blakely_and P _Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,(2000)530U.S.466have  changedtherequirementsofacriminalcasejurytrialunderthe u SixthAmendment   totheUnitedStatesConstitution.w    3      ׀_CACJ_ԀurgesthisCourttoannouncethe " implicationsof_Blakely_inCaliforniaandtospecifythechangesinourlaws $<  requiredbytherulingsothattheLegislature,andrulemakingbodies,are '`"  appropriatelyandimmediatelyguided.    _CACJ_ԀurgestheCourttosetforthitsviewofaconstitutionallyvalidpost $ _Blakely_statutory,andrulerelated,architecturetosupportadeterminate H sentencingschemeintendedtoensure ...termsproportionatetotheseriousness  l oftheoffensewithprovisionforuniformityinthesentenceofoffenders @  committingthesameoffenseundersimilarcircumstances. W (PenalCode d  1170(a)(1).)_CACJ_Ԁhassupportedandcontinuestosupportthelegislativefinding   anddeclarationsetforthinPenalCode1170(a)(1)whichstates:    8 ` ...theeliminationofdisparityandtheprovisionof   uniformityofsentencescanbestbeachievedby 2 determinatesentencesfixedbystatuteinproportionto D theseriousnessoftheoffenseasdeterminedbythe V Legislature...h` x` x Ά   ` b  _CACJ_ԀrecognizesthatapossibleoutcomeofurgingthisCourttofindthe < currentDeterminateSentencingLawunconstitutionalaswritten,and ` implemented,maybeareturntothedaysofindeterminatesentencing.Butthat   outcomeisneithernecessary,norinkeepingwithCaliforniasadoptionof " determinatesentencingasaruleofcriminalprocedure,andasameansof $  determiningjustpunishmentsforcrimes. &@"    Appellant_Towne_Ԁsuggeststhatthewaytoensureanorderlytransitionfrom )d$" ourcurrentsystemtoanentirely_Blakely_compliantonewouldbeforthisCourtto 8+&$ rulenowthatcourtsinthis_State_Ԁshouldnolongerimposeanuppertermwithinthe  meaningofPenalCode1170becausethebasisforuppertermsisconstitutionally $ suspectgiventhelackofarequirementforatriggeringjuryverdictfactfinding, H andtheabsenceoftherequirementofproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.  l   Appellant_Towne_ԀsuggeststhattheCourtmayessentiallyseverthe @  provisionsthatallowimpositionofanuppertermwithoutjuryverdict,andproof d  beyondreasonabledoubt,fromPenalCode1170.Thissuggestionmay   temporarilyhelpbridgethegap.But_CACJ_Ԁdoesnotsupportapartialrepair.  UppertermsimposedthroughjudicialdiscretionundertheRulesofCourtarenot   Californiasonlysentencingproblem.Thereareotherissuesthatareallbeing D litigatedtoday.IfthisCourtallowsthereformofthe_DSL_Ԁtoproceedthrough h piecemeallitigation,theresultwillbeaseriesofadhocreformsthatwill < necessarilyresultfromtheJudiciarysattempttofixthefabricofalegislative ` schemethat,atthisjuncture,needswholesalerevision.OurStateneedsaruling   fromthisCourtthatwillsetthedirectionfortheorderlyresolutionofthe " constitutionalandotherlegalissuespresentedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt $  rulingin_Blakely_.Itisclearthattheletterof ] PenalCode1170isnotcompliant &@"  with_Blakely_,andthatdelayininvalidatingthestatutewillpromptmorequestions )d$" thanitwillanswer.Moreover,thecurrentRulesofCourtadoptedunder _ Penal 8+&$ Code1170(d) soastoeliminatedisparityofsentenceandtopromote  uniformityofsentencingareinconsistentwiththeconstitutionalrequirementofa $ jurydecisionbasedonproofbeyondareasonabledoubtonfactualfindingsthat H arenow,bystatute,definedasdiscretionarydecisionstobemadebyasentencing  l court.    4      ׀ @    Intheaftermathof_Blakely_and_Apprendi_,#͇4y2#4͇ԀTheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt d  nowhasthequestionbeforeitofwhethersentencingrulesorguidelines   promulgatedbynonlegislative,ornonjudicial,bodiesareconstitutional.R    5      ׀_CACJ_  respectfullysubmitsthatintheaftermathof_Blakely_,andgivenwhatareclearly   newrequirementsfor:criminalcaseaccusatorypleading;trialprocedures;jury D verdicts;andsentencingprocedures,thisCourtshouldencouragetheLegislature h todefinemostofoursentencingschemeinstatutoryform. <  (գ80"! !  "X3"    X32գ  2  .3  0 `   TheSituationisSuchthatThisCourtMustStepinNow 0 X3[݌`` (#` (# Ќ    Intheaftermathof_Blakely_,Californiacourtshaveactivelyaddressed   _Blakely_issues,withoutthebenefitofguidancefromthisCourt.Onescholarwho " purportstobefollowingtheprogressof_Blakely_litigationnationwideindicates  thatCaliforniacourtsmorethananyothersthroughouttheUnitedStates(withthe $ possibleexceptionofthefederalcourts),haveapplied_Blakely_tocurrent H sentencingissues.(    6      ׀Thisstateofaffairsiscreatingproblems.First,someofthe  l currentrulingsarecontradictory.Second,andmoreimportantly,itiscompletely @  unclearthattheserulings(whicharemultiplyingweekly)will(a)beapprovedof d  bythisCourt,and(b)arethemselves_Blakely_compliant.Areviewoftheserulings   demonstratesongoingjudicialspeculationastowhatviewswillpassmusterin  thisCourt.    7           Commentatorsontheimplicationsof_Blakely_havedescribedthisStates  sentencingsystemas fundamentallyaffectedby_Blakely_.3    8      ׀Viewingsentencing $ issuesfromanationalperspective,thesecommentatorshavecomparedand H contrastedtheimpactof_Blakely_ontwotypesofdeterminatesentencing.Thefirst  l ischaracterizedbypresumptivesentencingpursuanttospecific,formal, @  sentencingguidelines.FormalguidelinesmeansaschemeliketheFederal d  SentencingGuidelines.Thesecondtypeofdeterminatesentencingsystemuses   presumptivesentencesbutwithoutmandatorysentencingguidelines. y OurState  hasbeendescribedvariablyasfallinginthesecondcategory,orfittingbetween   twocategories. D   Indiscussingsystemsthatwillpassmusterunder_Blakely_and_Apprendi_,the h UnitedStatesSupremeCourt,andscholars,havefocusedontheStateofKansasas < havingadjustedinsuchawayas ...toretainpresumptiveguidelinesby `  incorporatingjuryfactfindingasthebasisofanenhancedsentence.[footnote   omitted]4    9      ׀TheStateofKansascurrentlyusesasystemthatdefinesaseriesof   presumptivesentencesforcrimes,butalsoallowsthepresumedpunishmenttobe $ enhanced.Thus,Kansasprocedurerequiresspecificformsofaccusatory H pleadingsandproofwhereenhancedpunishmentisbeingsought.Kansas  l providesasfollowswhere anupward_durational_Ԁdeparturesentenceisatissue: @     ` Uponmotionofthecountyordistrictattorneytoseek d     ` anupward_durational_Ԁdeparturesentence,thecourtshall v     ` considerimpositionofsuchupward_durational_Ԁsentence      ` inthemannerprovidedinsubsection(b)(2).Thecountyor      ` districtattorneyshallfilesuchmotiontoseekupward     ` _durational_Ԁsentencenotlessthan30dayspriortothedate     ` oftrialorifthetrialdateistotakeplaceinlessthan      ` 30daysthenwithin5daysfromthedateofarraignment. 2    ` (2)Thecourtshalldetermineifthepresentationofany V    ` evidenceregardingtheallegedfactorsmayincreasethe h    ` penaltyforacrimebeyondthestatutorymaximum,other *z    ` thanapriorconviction,shallbepresentedtoajuryand <    ` provedbeyondareasonabledoubtduringthetrialofthe N    ` matterorfollowingthedeterminationofthedefendants `    ` innocenceorguilt. r   KansasStatutesAnnotated,214718(b)(1)(2).    10       !    `   Admittedly,theKansassentencingschemeasoriginallyrevampedinthe #  early1990'sdidnotcompletelymirrorCalifornias  DeterminateSentencingLaw  asembodiedin  PenalCode1170etseq.Buttherewerebothconceptualand $ legalsimilarities.In1993,theKansasLegislatureenactedthe  KansasSentencing H GuidelinesActwhichprovidedforsentencingaccordingtotwosentencinggrids.  l Onewasfordrugfelonies,andtheotherfornondrugfelonies.Thesentencing @  rangetobeappliedinagivencasewasbasedontwofactors:First,thestatutory d  definitionofasecuritylevelofthecrimeadmitted,orfoundtruethroughjuryor   courtverdict;second,theoffenderspriorhistory.Asentencingcourtwould  reviewarelativelynarrowrangeofsentencesattheintersectionoftheseverity   levelandpriorcriminalhistorytodeterminetheindicatedauthorizedsentencefor D thegivenoffense.Theschemealsopermittedaggravatingormitigatingfactorsto h beproventodepartfromtheindicatedsentence.    11      ׀ <   ThetwomattersthatcausedreformofsentencingprocessesintheStateof ` Kansasweretherulingin  _Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.466andthe   KansasSupremeCourtsrulingin  Statev.Gould,(_Kan_.,2001)23P.3d803.In " Gould,whichprecededthedecisionin_Blakely_,theKansasSupremeCourt $  expressedconcernoverKansascourtsadherencetothe_Apprendi_scommandas &@"  follows(quotingfrom_Apprendi_):Therelevantinquiryisnotoneofform,butof  effect...doestherequiredfindingexposethedefendanttoagreaterpunishment $ thanthatauthorizedbythejurysguiltyverdict.Gouldat810.Comparingthe H findingmadebythetrialcourtinitssentencinganalysistothepunishment  l authorizedbyjuryverdict,andrelyingon_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S. @  at494,theKansasSupremeCourtfoundthetrialcourtssentenceinGouldtobe d  illegal.Id.at813814.     TheKansasLegislaturereactedtothedecisioninStatev.Gould,supra,by  codifyingthe_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,supra,requirements.(See  ԀKansasStatutes   Annotated(2002Supplement),214718(b)(1),quotedabove.)Theserequirements D provideaprocedurethatcombinesnoticepleadingofsentencingfactorswiththe h mandateofacourtorjuryadjudicationofthosefactors,basedonproofbeyonda < reasonabledoubtstandard.Atthisjuncture,becauseofitsendorsementofthe `   SixthAmendmentrootforsentencingdecisions,itisassumedthattheKansas   sentencingschemepassesmusterunder_Blakely_.TheUnitedStatesSupreme " CourtsmentionoftheKansasschemein_Blakely_certainlyprovidesabasisforthe $  assumption.Moresignificantly,forthepurposesoftheargumentnowofferedto &@"  thisCourt,thereisnoindicationthatthedecisionbytheStateofKansastobring )d$" itsdeterminatesentencinglawintocompliancewiththe_Apprendi_/_Blakely_lineof 8+&$ caseshasbeensignificantlyproblematictotheadministrationofjusticeinKansas.   +(88! !"X3"   X32  3  .3  0    Appellant_Towne_ԀCorrectlyArguesthatthe_Blakely_/_Apprendi_ԀRules $ willInvalidateSentencesBeyondthePrescribedStatutoryMaximum 8 BasedonSentenceSignificantFactsthathavenotbeenSubmittedtoa L Jury,orAgreedUponTrierofFact,andFoundBeyondReasonable  ` Doubt e%X3G݌$ t(#(# Ќ  5   ThemajorityopinionbyJudgeScaliain_Blakely_Ԁv.Washingtonisquite L  clear.First: Otherthanthefactofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthe p  penaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedto   ajury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt._Apprendi_,supra,530U.S.466at  744.Further,acourtmaynotexceedthestatutorilymaximumsentence,ortheso , called maximumsentencewithoutthefindingsofthejury._Blakely_,supra,124 P S.Ct.2531,2537. $t   Priorto_Blakely_,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthadalsostatedthat: [_i]t_ H isnot,ofcourse,thatanyonetodaywouldclaimthateveryfactwithabearingon l sentencingmustbefoundbyajury,wehaveresolvedthatgeneralissueandhave   nointentionofquestioningitsresolution.  Jonesv.UnitedStates,(1999)526 " U.S.227,248.Inlitigating_Blakely_,theStateofWashingtonreliedondecisions $(  likeJones,  ԀHarrisv.UnitedStates,(2002)536U.S.545[wherethecourtheldthat &L"  judgesmayfindfactsthatcompelamandatoryminimumsentencewhichwould  )p$" necessarilyincreasethesentenceofsome_accuseds_],and  _McMillan_Ԁv. D+&$ Pennsylvania,(1986)477U.S.79,assupportingtheviewthatlegislatureshave  widelatitudeindefiningtheelementsofthecrimethatmustbeprovedtoajury. $ See_McMillan_,744U.S.at84relyinginparton  ԀPattersonv.U.S.,(1977)432U.S. H 197,210.Butin_Blakely_thecourtansweredthoseargumentsbydistancingitself  l fromtheallegedimplicationsofitspriorrulings.(Id.at2531,253738.) @    The_Blakely_courtfoundthattheSixthAmendmentcannotsupport ...a d  sentencegreaterthanwhatstatelawauthorizedonthebasisoftheverdictalone.   _Blakely_,124S.Ct.at238.Indeedtheanalysisofferedin_Blakely_demonstratesthat  relianceonSupremeCourtprecedentestablishedpriorto_Blakely_asthefoundation   fordefendingasentencingschemeisriskybusinessindeed.And,inpassing,the D courtdignifiedthecurrentargumentmadetothisCourtby_CACJ_Ԁtotheeffectthe h KansasLegislaturesresponseto_Apprendi_wasthecorrectone.See_Blakely_, < supra,at2541. `   The_Blakely_courtspecificallydiscussedthesortofresultsthatwillno   longerbeconstitutionallyvalidabsentasupportingjuryestablishingthefactsthat " havesentencingsignificance.Itprovidedexamplesofdefectivesentencing $  practicesincluding:1)enhancingasentencebasedonajudicialfindingofa &@"  specifiedfactnotfoundtruebyajury;2)theapplicationofseveralspecifiedfacts )d$" byasentencingcourtthatwerenotfoundbythejury;and3)theuseofany 8+&$ aggravatingfactthatwasnotfoundbythejury.Indiscussingthefutureof  sentencingprocedures,the_Blakely_majorityreferredtoan_Apprendi_brightline $ thatrequiresfactssignificanttojudicialimpositionofsentencetobedetermined H byajury._Blakely_at2538,2540.  l   BecauseoftheclarityofthestatutesandrulesthatembodyCalifornias @  DeterminateSentencingLaw,itcanbesaidthatthe_DSL_Ԁincludesanumberof d  featuresthatcannotsurvivetherulingin_Blakely_.Thestatutecentraltothe   definitionsofthe_DSL_Ԁexplainsthatwhereverthelawprovidesadeterminate  sentencedefinedbythreesentencingoutcomes, ...thecourtshallorder   impositionofthemiddleterm,unlesstherearecircumstancesinaggravationor D mitigationofthecrime.PenalCode1170(b).Pursuanttoitsrulemaking h ability,theJudicialCouncilhaspublishedrulesthatdescribehowcourtsareto < findtheaggravatingfactsthatjustifytheimpositionoftheupperterm.See ` CaliforniaRulesofCourt(hereafterRule)  ԀRule4.405(d).Significantly,however,   thereisnorequirementofatriggeringjuryfinding,orofproofbeyonda " reasonabledoubt. $    Inaddition,sentencingcourtsinCaliforniahavediscretiontodecide &@"   whetheranadditionaltermofimprisonmentforacharged enhancementcanbe )d$" applied.    12      ׀Thesecourtsalsodecidewhetherprobationislimited,orcanbe   granted.(See  ԀRule4.413,4.414.)Theydecidewhatcriteriaaffectconcurrent $ consecutivesentences.(  Rule4.425.)Thereisnorequirementofajuryverdictto H establishthesesentencingacts.UnlessaCaliforniasentencingjudgeislimitedby  l operationoflawintheexerciseofdiscretion,asimplerecitationontherecordof @  factorsthatsupporttheexerciseofsentencingdiscretionwillsufficetojustifya d  sentence.(See  Rule4.406(a).)Insum,underoursystem,manyofthecrimeand   defendantcharacteristicsthatwilltriggeragiventypeofsentencearelefttothe  courtsdiscretionarydecisionmaking&    13      ׀inviolationof_Blakely_and_Apprendi_.     FurtherevidenceofourStatesinvestmentinasentencingschemethat D placeswiderangingdiscretionwiththecourtatthetimeofsentencingisthefact h thatmuchofthedetailofthe_DSL_ԀisfoundintheRules--notinstatutesdefining < crimesandpunishments.TheCaliforniaLegislaturedidnot,byandlarge,define ` thecircumstancesthatcantriggerajudicialfindingthattheaggravatedtermisthe   correct,oratleastlegallypermissible,termtobeappliedinagivencase.Rule " 4.421whichdefinesthecircumstancesinaggravationisaruleadoptedpursuantto  thelegislativedelegationofpower.Indeed,noneofthe11factorsinaggravation $ whicharesocalledcrimefactsunderRule4.421(a),andnoneofthedefendant H factsfoundinRule4.421(b),orthediscretionaryotherfactsdeterminedtobe  l aggravatinginaparticularcase  (Rule4.421(c))is:foundinstatutes;requiredtobe @  foundbythejury;orrequiredtobeestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubt. d    Insum,whileourStatessentencingschemeisconstitutionalingeneral   termsgiventhatastatecanenactandmaintainadeterminatesentencinglaw,the  detailsofoursentencingproceduresmustbereplaced.    5(88+! !"X3"    X3f2  4  .3  0    WhileAppellant_Towne_ԀisCorrectthataTemporaryFixisAvailable, D theCaliforniaSentencingSchemeCannotbeRescuedThrough X ReformationorSeverance X3f݌l(#(# Ќ    Thepartieshaveapproachedthequestionofthecontinuingvalidityofthe D _DSL_Ԁindifferentways.Respondentseemsfocusedonapproachingthesituationas h thoughthe_DSL_Ԁisessentiallyhealthy,andthatallthatisneedednowissomelevel   ofclarificationfromthisCourt.Appellant,ontheotherhand,isarguingthat " portionsofCaliforniasstatutoryscheme(PenalCode_1170_Ԁetseq.)are $$  unconstitutional.However,Appellantsuggeststhatsinceoneoftheobviousills, &H"  namelytheimpositionofanuppertermwithoutthebenefitofjuryverdictorproof )l$" beyondareasonabledoubt,canbecuredbyinvalidatingaportionofPenalCode @+&$ 1170,reformation,orseverance,maybepossible.f    14      ׀Appellantsargumentinthis  respectispractical,inthatitprovidesameansthroughwhichourcriminalcourts $ cancontinueimposingsentences incertaintypesofcaseswhileawaiting H legislativeaction. ( x   However,_CACJ_ԀrespectfullysubmitsthatPenalCode1170etseq.can L  neitherbereformed,norsevered,withfaithfuladherencetoourStates p  constitutionalprinciplesontheonehand,andcompliancewith_Blakely_/_Apprendi_   ontheother.    Onthequestionofreformation , whilesuchreformmaybecurativeinthe , narrowinstanceofcaseslikeAppellants,theproblemisthatanuppertermisnot  \ theonlysentencinglawreformationthathastobedealtwithunder_Blakely_.Our 0 statutes,andrulesofcourt,providefortheimpositionofenhancements;thedenial T ofprobation;theimpositionofconsecutiveasopposedtoconcurrentpunishments; x andtherecognitionoftheroleofcircumstancesinaggravationinthesevarying   sentencingchoices.Allofthesemattersmustbedealtwithifoursentencing " schemeistofunctionaccordingto_Blakely_sinterpretationoftheSixth $4  Amendment.#͇4&#4͇ 'X"    Whileitistruethatreformationofstatutestoavoidviolationofstate ,)|$" constitutionalprovisionshasbeenengagedin_in_Ԁanumberofareas,thescopeof  thereformationprojectatissueherewouldbeunprecedented.See,generally,the $ discussionofreformationin_Kopp_Ԁv.FairPoliticalPracticesCommittee(1995)11 H Cal.4th607,646663.In_Kopp_,theCourtengagedinawiderangingdiscussionof  l theconceptofreformation,notingthatreformationisnotpossiblewhereacourt @  wouldbesupplyingtermsthatruncontrarytoeithertheLegislatures,or d  electorates,policychoices.Id.at661.Whileonecouldarguethatthepolicy   choiceherewasdescribedastheeliminationofdisparityinsentencing,itis  equallytruethatthestatedpurposeofthe_DSL_Ԁwastobeimplementedthrougha   policyofprimarilyguidedjudicialsentencingdiscretionwhichcannolongerbe D maintainedinviewof_Blakely_.#͇4,#4͇ h   Thepertinentstatutes,andrelatedrules,areconstitutionallyinvalid. < Clearly,Californiacanreiteratethedecisiontousedeterminatesentencingforall ` butafewcrimesforwhicheitherthedeathpenalty,orindeterminatesentencing,   arethelegallyapprovedsanctions.Reformationisnottheanswer.#͇4#4͇ "   Norisseveranceofinvalidlanguagepractical.AsAppellantpointsout,at $  leastpartoftheanalysis ofseverabilityisguidedbythisCourtsdecisions, &@"  includingtheveryusefuldiscussioninPeoplev.Navarro(1972)7Cal.3d248,  )p$" 260265,andsubsequentcases.AsthisCourtstatedinNavarro: whenpartofa D+&$ statuteisdeclaredunconstitutionaltheremainderwillstandifitiscompletein  itselfandwouldhavebeenadoptedbythelegislativebodieshadthelatter $ foreseenthepartialinvalidation.[citationomitted]Id.at260.TheCourtwenton H toexplain: Deletionofthechallengedprovisionwouldleaveacoherentamended  l statutecompleteinitself[inthecaseatissue],butthecriticalinquiryiswhether @  theLegislaturewouldhaveadoptedtheentireamendmenthaditforeseenthe d  partialinvaliditythereof?[citationsomitted]Ibid.     TheCourtsanalysisinNavarrowouldlogicallydoomattemptingtoedit  awaytheunconstitutionalportionsofPenalCode1170etseq. , andthe   associatedRulesofCourt.Thereisasmuchtopencilintothe_DSL_Ԁtomakeit P _Blakely_compliantasthereistopencilout.Moreover,inenactingthe_DSL_, $t CaliforniawasnotseekingtocreateorimplementanewinterpretationoftheSixth H Amendmentsjurytrialright.Acompletelydifferentissuewasreachedwhen l Californiaenactedthe_DSL_,andnoteventhemostimaginativeinterpretationof   PenalCode1170couldpicturetheLegislaturesshepherdingofthe_DSL_Ԁsince " thelate1970'sbeingbuiltaroundthe_Blakely_/_Apprendi_rules.Theseruleshave $(  notbeenthedesignofCaliforniassentencinglawstodateinveryimportant &L"  particulars.   )p$"   PenalCode1170etseq.cannotberescuedthroughasurgicalprocedure. D+&$ WhilethisCourthasrepeatedlystatedthatthereisageneralpresumptionof  constitutionalityofallstatutes,theanalysisofwhetherastatuteisseverable $ hingesnotonlyonwhether(1)thelanguageofthestatuteismechanically H severable,butalso(2)whether ...thelanguageissobroadastocoversubjects  l withinandwithoutthelegislativepower,andthedefectcannotbecuredby @  excisinganywordorgroupsofwords...Inre_Blaney_,(1947)30Cal.2d643, d  655;seealsoSantaBarbaraSchoolDistrictv.SuperiorCourt,(1975)13Cal.3d   315,330331discussingtherulesofseverabilityinanalyzingtheconstitutional  validityofaballotinitiative. '    15           Itisaxiomaticthatastatutethatisconstitutionallyvalidisnotrendered D ineffectivebylanguagewhichisinvalidbutcanbeseveredfromthevalidportion h ofthestatute.See,generally,thediscussioninHotelEmployeesandRestaurant < EmployeesInternationalUnionv.Davis,(1999)21Cal.4th585,613.Butthe ` invalidpartofastatutecanbeseveredonlyifitisgrammatically,functionally,   andvolitionallyseparable.Idat613. "   BasedonthediscussioninNavarro,supra,redpencilingtheupperterm $  calculusembodiedinPenalCode1170wouldonlyprovideatemporaryfixthat  isverycasespecific.Itwouldnot,forexample,addresstheissuesraisedinwhat $ isarguablythecompanioncasetothisone,Peoplev.KevinBlack,SupremeCourt H No.S126182.AppellantBlackhasraisedthequestionofwhether_Blakely_  l invalidatesthemannerinwhichCaliforniaallowstheimpositionofaconsecutive @  sentencebasedonjudicialfactfindingaftertrial,whichisjustoneofthemyriad d  ofquestionsconcerningtheconstitutionalvalidityofthe_DSL_Ԁalreadyinplayin   California.    _Blakely_requiresrevisionstoour:rulesofaccusatorypleading;statutory   definitions;jurytrialprocesses;sentencingprocedures.Apartial,temporary,fixis D notwhatisneedednow.  Clearly,Californiacancontinuetobothfind,and h declare,thatthepurposeofimprisonmentispunishment,andtoprovideascheme < toachieveuniformityinsentencing.Itcandosothroughuseofstatedsentencing ` rangesforeachdefinedoffense.Butinordertocomplywith_Blakely_,ourState   mustretoolmuchofthefabricoftheDeterminateSentencingLaw.Thatlawas " currentlywrittencannotberescued,andthisCourtshouldsostatenow. $    7(885! !    &@"  5.0  InOrdertoMeetthe_Blakely_/_Apprendi_ԀRequirements,thisCourtMust @#   RequireChangesin:RulesofPleading;DefinitionofSentence  TriggeringElementswhereNecessary;TrialofRequiredSentencing ( Facts;JuryVerdictsandSentencingProcesses<(#(#     Astatecanclearlyretaindeterminatesentencing.TheSupremeCourt  b specificallysostatedin_Blakely_,notingthattheStateofWashingtonsadoptionof 6  determinatesentencing,andattentionto ...proportionalitytothegravityofthe Z  offenseandparityamongdefendantswereappropriateand salutaryobjectives. ~  Id.at2540.However,inordertobringCaliforniaintolinewiththecombination   of_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,supra,and_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,supra,thisCourt  shouldinstructtheLegislature,andthepertinentrulemakingbodies,tobe : attentivetothefollowingrequiredchanges. ^   First,itisapparentthatthe_Blakely_majorityviewstheSixthAmendmentas 2 requiringthateveryfactlegallyessentialtopunishmentmustbechargedinthe V Indictment.Id.at2536,n.5.Totheextentanddegreethat  Ringv.Arizona,(2002) z 536U.S.584,592602islinkedtotherulingin_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,supra,124 ! S.Ct.at2537,thedefendantmusthavenoticeofthefactand/orlegallysignificant # factorsthatareessentialasabasisforagivenpunishment,particularlyan %6! enhancedoraggravatedpunishment.  (Z#!   Second,after_Blakely_,ourStatemustestablishthelegalrequirementthat .*~%# everyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimemustbesubmittedtoajury,and  provedbeyondareasonabledoubt,or,thatwheretheaccusedpleadsguilty,no $ contest,orotherwiseadmitsfactscriticaltotheenhancementoraggravationofa H sentence,theaccusedmusteitherstipulatetotherelevantfacts,orknowingly,  l voluntarily,andintelligentlyconsenttojudicialfactfinding.See_Blakely_at2541. @    Third,thelegalarchitecturethatdefinesfactsthatincreaseapenaltyfora d  crimemustbechangedsothatthesefactsaresubjecttotrial--eitherthrougha   commandthatthedefinitionsofindividualcrimesbechangedaccordingtothe  _Blakely_formula,or,throughtheexpansionofthePenalCodetoincludesucha   requirement,perhapsinarestatementofPenalCode1170. D   Fourth,itappearsto_CACJ_Ԁthatthedefinitionofaverdictmayneedtobe h changedsoastoprovidejudgeswiththeconfidencethat,onoccasion,and < contrarytothecurrentfabricofCalifornialaw,specialverdictsdealingwith ` sentencingfactsmayberequired,andwillbeauthorized.     Finally,thestatutoryandassociatedruleintensiveframeworkof " Californiassentencinglawswillneedtobechangedinordertoincorporatethe $  several_Blakely_compliantelementsjustdescribed._CACJ_Ԁrespectfullysubmits &@"  thattheKansasstatutoryschemediscussedaboveisinstructive,anduseful,asa )d$" guide. 8+&$  (%887! !"X3"   X3(2%  6  .3  0    TheChangesUrgedby_CACJ_ԀareSignificant,butClearlyManageable;  thePendencyof_Blakely_ԄRelatedCasesBeforetheU.S.SupremeCourt  MakesItImperativethatCaliforniaReformitsLawsCorrectlyatthis ( JunctureX3((݌<(#(# Ќ   (0  JudgeMarvinFrankelhasbeencreditedwithprovidingtheimpetusforthe d(#(# CongressoftheUnitedStatestomovetowardsreformingthefederalsentencing 8  systemwhich,accordingtoJudgeFrankel,allowed almostwhollyuncheckedand \  sweepingdiscretionofsentencingjudgestocreateasituationthatwas terrifying   andintolerableforasocietythatprofessesdevotiontotheruleoflaw.a    16      ׀Today,   theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtisconsideringwhethertheproductofthereform  effort,theFederalSentencingReformActof1984(whichgaverisetotheFederal < SentencingGuidelines),isstillconstitutionalintheaftermathoftherulingin ` _Blakely_.b    17       4   _CACJ_ԀrespectfullysubmitsthatiftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt X invalidatestheFederalSentencingGuidelines,Californiascurrentsentencing  schemewillbemadefurthersuspectbytheextenttowhichtheLegislature $ deferredimportantaspectsofsentencingrulemakingtotheJudicialCouncil. H   _CACJ_ԀmakestheabovepointtonotethatthisCourtshouldprovidethe  l Legislaturewithacomprehensiveanalysisofthestepsnecessarytoachievevalid @  lawreformofCaliforniassentencingprocess. d    TheimportanceofthisCourtsaddressingtheglobalissuespresentedby   thisandsimilarcasesisfurtheremphasizedbythesheernumberofcasesthatare  dealtwithinCaliforniacourts.Thatsaid,theavailablestatisticsclearlyindicate   thatthepaceoftriallevelcaseadjudicationsinCaliforniawillallow_Blakely_ D compliantpleadings,settlement_negotiations,_Ԁandadjudicationthroughtrial,to h takeplaceafterpreliminaryexaminations--yetanotherreasontousetheKansas < statutediscussedaboveasaguide.Thestatisticsindicatethatneededreformscan ` occurwithoutprecipitatingchaosinourcourtsystem.     AccordingtotheStatewideCaseloadTrendsreportedinfiscalyear2002 " 2003,ofatotalof188,311casesdisposedofinourcourts,120,011resultedin $  felonyconvictions.c    18      ׀Thevastmajorityofcasesaredisposedofpriortotrial--61 &@"  percent.OftheoveralldispositionsofcasesinCalifornia(here,presumably,  includingbothfeloniesandcaseschargedasfeloniesthatwereeitherreducedor $ bargaineddowntomisdemeanors),123,198weredisposedofafterthe H preliminaryhearing.n    19        l   Thus,itappearsthatapproximatelytwothirdsofthefelony,ormixed @  felony/misdemeanor,caseschargedinCaliforniaareresolvedafterthepreliminary d  hearing.o    20      ׀Usingarelativelyroughassessmentoftheinformationprovidedby   casetrendsinthelastfiscalyear,itisclearthatthemajorityoffelonylevelcases  aredisposedofatapointatwhichthecourts,andparties,haveacquiredan   enhancedknowledgeofcasefactsthroughthepreliminaryexamination. D Resolutionafterthepreliminaryhearingalsomeansthatthepartieshavebeenable h toreviewavailablecasediscovery,andwherenecessary,boththeprosecutionand < defensehavealsobeenabletoconductnecessaryfurtherinvestigation.Theflow ` ofcasesindicatesthatthemajorityoffelonyfilingscanbebroughtinto_Blakely_   shapeafterthepreliminaryhearing. "   ReviewoftheCaliforniasystemasitnowstandsindicatesthatareformis  notonlylegallynecessarybecauseof_Blakely_,butisalsoachievablewithoutthe $ needforreformthatmightoverwhelmcurrentpracticesinourcourts,familiarto H boththeprosecutionanddefenseBars.Thestatisticssupportthenotionthat  l exceptwhereearlynegotiationsrequirethefilingofa_Blakely_compliantcharging @  documentpriortothepreliminaryexamination,inthevastmajorityofcases,itis d  theperiodoftimebetweenthepreliminaryexamination,andthecutoffforpretrial   discoverycompliancemandatedunderPenalCode1054etseq.thatprovidesthe  mostfertilegroundforthefilingof_Blakely_compliantchargingdocumentsin   thosecasesheadedtotrialontheonehand,orlikelytoresolvethrougha D negotiateddisposition,ontheother.Whilethenecessaryrevisionofstatutesmay h beextensive,thepracticalchangescaneasilybeaccommodatedgiventhewaythat < casestendtobehandledinourState. `   However,whilethestatisticsrelieduponheredescribeawindowof   opportunity,reportofthesheernumberofcaseshandledinCaliforniacourts " clearlyprovidesemphasisfortheneedforthisCourttoactdecisivelynow. $      `  &@"  @%  CONCLUSION D     WithapologytothisCourt,andtotheparties,forhavingpartiallyreiterated ( severalargumentsthatithasalreadymadeinthematterofPeoplev.KevinBlack, L _CACJ_ԀurgesthisCourttofindthattrialcourtorderhereis_violative_Ԁof_Blakely_.In  p addition,andmoreimportantly,theCourtshouldusethisopportunitytodeclare D  PenalCode1170,andtherulesrelatedtoit,unconstitutionalinsofarastheydo h  notcomplywith_Blakely_,or_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,supra.TheCourtshould   alsoencouragetheLegislaturetodealwiththeimpactof_Blakely_byenacting  statutesthatincorporatethekeyelementsoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourts $ interpretationoftheSixthAmendment.   H Dated:October__,20040  0h(#(#0h(#h(#Respectfullysubmitted,l(#(#    `     h   JOHNT.PHILIPSBORN,ESQ. .~    `     h   CHARLESD._WEISSELBERG_,ESQ. @    `     h   򀀀 v    `     h   JOHNT.PHILIPSBORN      `     h   StateBarNo.83944 !    `     h   AttorneyandCoChair, "    `     h   AmicusCommittee #    `     h   CALIFORNIAATTORNEYS $     `     h   FORCRIMINALJUSTICE  %2!  @W W PROOFOFSERVICEBYMAIL     I,TheresaJacobson,declare: &   ThatIamovertheageof18,employedintheCountyofSanFrancisco, J California,andnotapartytothewithinaction;mybusinessaddressis507Polk  \ Street,Suite250,SanFrancisco,California.  n N  OnOctober,2004,Iservedthewithin  B  0     MOTIONOFCALIFORNIAATTORNEYSFORCRIMINAL n  JUSTICE44ԀFORPERMISSIONTOAPPEARASAMICUSCURIAEON   BEHALFOFAPPELLANT(RULE29.1(f)ANDBRIEFINSUPPORT   OFAPPELLANT_TOWNE_#44P#44Ԁ#44Q#  (#(# onthepartiesinthisactionbyplacingatrueandcorrectcopythereofinasealed   envelopewithpostagethereonfullyprepaidintheUnitedStatesmailatSan 2 Francisco,California,addressedasfollows: D (X(#(#(_Suzan_Ԁ_Hier_ *z StaffAttorney < CaliforniaAppellateProject N 520S.GrandAve.,4thFl. ` LosAngeles,CA90071 r Bill_Lockyer_,AttorneyGeneral   300SouthSpringStreet ! FifthFloor,NorthTower "  LosAngeles,CA90013 #  %@! Shawn_Towne_ h K01827 *z  _CMC_ԀEast <! CQuad/#5328 N" PostOfficeBox8103 `# SanLuisObispo,CA934098103 r$ R5(#(#XUS544  Ideclareunderpenaltyofperjurythattheforegoingistrueandcorrect. (d#$ Executed #44V#44onOctober,2004atSanFrancisco,California. &)v$% V!X#44W#      `     h   _________________________ J+&'    `     h     TheresaJacobson#͇4#