WPCo ~d*&hM`xQo MG1na豚jmD3ҴMrfMXC f?@C더F(mQ(IpȚ\;PP<9C X̎ iKܗ&Tˠ3dnF ;8{Ep$~G%AҩޚICBm<_,HGxZ4m+' rD5X"hBG\JMqe($=WC+hg D/P`>"7~c$iFԎv wQ(e1a bSb_cչp2}N ZBԲ1ʮRhq:㷹.I?$U:eY]ϼf m-LjdB%vp{*A.]Ä@"6[Q8ڷ6c\竖r EQ޺n}fDbTSP,,ާ2UN< % 0#R2 DM~^ w43B mD [U :a    1 0 c4 0w 0 0 08 08 0 0 0D 0D 1u= 72 0  0  D+2 0 0= 0! AQ! 1@" 72"" 0U" B N# 0k# N$ V$ ^$ f$ n$ v$ ~$ $  $  $  $ 0$  q%f{%a}% 0% 0P& 0 ' 0' 0i( 0)f)a) 0) 0* 0]+ 0, 0, 0d- 0. 0. 05/ 0/ 00 0R1 02 D52 02 03 0#4 04 0M5 05 DO6 06 07 0>T8 08 09 0l: 0N; 00< 0= 0= 0> 02? 0? 0:@ 0Y@ 0_AA 0 A 0B 0,D D/2F 0aF D/gH 0H 06dI 0I 0:J 0^J 0<:K 1evKU6KU>LU*OLNyLyLyLyL 0N{L{LL 0AR 0TR 0hSS;S 0$T 0<%U%UU>aVaVU:VVVVVVVVVox[^_cikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk B*lll D58l B*ml D5l B*l D5l B7+m B7bmbm D5m Bm D5m B n D5=n Brn D5n Bn D1n D5o D5Go B*|o(  Z6Times New Roman RegularX(L$ ,   HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60A:\Template\PLEACOVE.WPTc:\Corel\FDAPWP~2\PLEADI~1.WPTc:\Corel\FDAP WP10 TEMPLATES\Pleading Cover and First Page.wpte0 z0onatha3|x#UH[,@E Z"Book Antiqua 141h6CEIMQUY]aAutoList1""""""""i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(# .  #"d#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# (#$  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)((2$ L!XX , '    `   0  Attorney(2$ L!XX , '   BarNumber'dxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2$ L!XX , '   ($    (2$ L!XX , '   '*()&C<< c8?OU[agmsyLettersLettersA.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.,A.*+ (_2623  .. d*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   23456789101112*8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  13Table_C*5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   Table_C*AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` 0000)!dxdx(22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  00G"Thin Top/Bottom! dxdx<AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK{<6X9`(Courier NewKS|\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K{<6X9`(Courier NewKS|\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/K{<6X9`(Courier NewKS|\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7q(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?}%2A`Arial?  S|\  `&Times New RomanS7&(X75+ ` hp x 5  )1dxd<:zTop of For7s(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?}%2A`Arial?  S|\  `&Times New RomanS7&(X75+ ` hp x 5  )2dxd0KS.SampleK{<6X9`(Courier NewKS|\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK{<6X9`(Courier NewKS|\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  IJKLMNOP 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(O$ TEWOLDESonoma MCRRaimaBallinger enhNorte9oMeseretKebedehellaShanenaMussieZegariSjoenPinerw]itnesses o]ne t]heCluffCromerwardship CTAw]itenssesTribbleMichenfelderwarrantlessKincade DSLBlakelyDJDAR c]ircumstancesPiceno opnCal.R.CtaggravatoraggravatorsTigheAlmendarezApprendiA]llegationsCazares AOBOrellanoNeder S.CtSengpadychithGuizarValladoliAbbaszadehBirkscaselawGoodridgeWitkinCal.Criminalthumbprintsdatabank MappAssnSchmerbersuspicionlessAss'nD.KanRyncarzEikenberryE.D.WashCamarathat thatpenologicalaudiofileremittiturCal.App(Vm$0   (,!$0  0` (#(#  (@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# ` page page chapter volume footnote endnote <J:signaturepld  &8(0&XXX  &8(0&<V:2 Spacing Pl  2( p x(02XXX  2( p x(02\  `&Times New Roman,@E Z"Book Antiqua   !$XX ,  `   5    _ SeePeoplev.Martinez(2003)31Cal.4th673,700  (Apprendidoesnotrequireapplicationofreasonabledoubtstandard   tojurydeterminationoftruthofaggravatingcircumstanceincapital  case);Peoplev.Goodridge(2001)2001WL1656604at78(Apprendi  doesnotapplytofactsusedtoimposeuppertermundertheDSL); ( Peoplev.Nelson(1978)85Cal.App.3d99,101101(norighttoproof  2 beyondareasonabledoubtonaggravatingfactorsusedtoimpose  < upperterm).(AppellantcitestheunpublisheddecisioninGoodridge,  F notascontrollingauthority,buttodemonstratethatpriortoBlakely  P thelegallandscapemadeApprendichallengestoCaliforniasDSL  Z  futile.) e !$XX ,  `   1    _ TheBlakelyopinioncanalsobeaccessedbyclicking4 O  5  here6:ON!  7 |  (intheelectronicversionofthisbrief)orbypastingthefollowing   linkintoaninternetbrowser:  http://a257._g.akamaitech.net_/7/257/2422/24june20041200/_www.s  upremecourtus.gov_/opinions/03pdf/02-1632._pdf_.http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24june20041200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1632.pdf  !$XX ,  `   2    _ Appellantdoesnotcontend,forpurposesofthis  argument,thatheisentitledtoajurytrial,andproofbeyonda   reasonabledoubt,onmitigatingfactors.Underrule1170(b)the  absenceofmitigatingfactorsrequiresimpositionofthemiddleterm.  Inthatsense,themiddletermappearstooperatelikeamandatory ( minimumsentencewhichisimposedintheabsenceofmitigating  2 factors.InHarrisv.UnitedStates(2002)536U.S.545,563,theCourt  < heldthatthereisnoconstitutionalrighttoajurytrialonfactsused  F toimposeaminimummandatorysentence.  !$XX ,  `   3    _ Inanyevent,inordertopreservethequestionforU.S.  SupremeCourtreviewandbecauseamajorityofthejusticesnow   appeartoagreethatAlmendarezTorreswasincorrectlydecided,  appellantmaintainsthathehadaconstitutionalrighttoajurytrial   onallthreeoftheaggravatingfactorsappliedinthiscase.Justice  ThomashadbeeninthemajorityinAlmendarez-Torres,butswitched   hispositiontoprovidethecrucialfifthvoteinApprendi.Inhis  separateconcurrenceinApprendi,JusticeThomasindicatedthathe  regrettedhisAlmendarez-Torresvoteandmadeplainthathesawa ( righttojurytrialtoanyfactincreasingthemaximumsentence,  2 includingapriorconviction.(Apprendi,530U.S.at520-521  < (Thomas,J.,concur.).)Consequently,thereshouldbefivevotesto  F overruleAlmendarez-Torres!thefouroriginaldissentersplus  P Thomas(thesamefivewhocomprisedthemajorityinbothApprendi  Z  andBlakely).  !$XX ,  `   4    _ Appellantassumesforpurposesofthisargumentthat  hisnocontestpleaconstitutedanadmissionoftheelementsofthe   factsunderlyingtheassaultandtheinflictionofinjury.http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/titlefour/title4-49.htm#TopOfPage&0 d d)!dxdx&p d Pd)!dxdx&p Pd d)!dxdx3+0 d d d3+0 d d d)!dxdx  d)!dxdxP Pd)!dxdx d)!dxdx d)! dxdx)!dxdx)!dxdx&P d d L!XX ,    _ ,    Brief: AOB d   BlakelyIssues: DenialofJuryTrial&ProofBeyondaReasonable (x  DoubtonAggravatingFactorsUsedtoImposedUpperTerm(Mixof 2  Recidivist&Non-RecidivistAggravatingFactors) < BlakelyIssueNotRaisedinTrialCourt P  ProceedingBelow: GuiltyPlea d --------------------- n Posted:7/2/04 x Peoplev.Tewolde,A106273  Author:JonathanD.Soglin      8dd8     ` @INTHECOURTOFAPPEALOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA   @ FIRSTAPPELLATEDISTRICT,DIVISION%  ONE%Ԉ  *?@ ddd Xdd Xdd X  ,dt@,dd@+  :000' < < C: STATEOFCALIFORNIA , t  ̀PlaintiffandRespondent,    ̀v.   % 3 SAMUELF.TEWOLDE %3J,   ̀DefendantandAppellant.   z 6,!C000 C6 z  % 5 A106273 %53 ~  (% 7 Sonoma%7uԀCounty   SuperiorCourt   No.% : MCR426478%:)   & .(C  ( .  5]!q5  Appellant's% > SubstituteOpening%>ԀBrief  R @ L !!11!@  AppealFromTheJudgmentOfThe  SuperiorCourtOfTheStateOfCalifornia  For% 8 Sonoma%8 ԀCounty  Honorable% < RaimaBallinger%<` ,Judge  򀀀     -p x X-0           MATTHEW_ZWERLING_ !/# 0     ExecutiveDirector"9$   0     % # JONATHAND._SOGLIN_ $M &     (BarNo.% % 141342) %O!' 0     StaffAttorney 'Y"(     FirstDistrictAppellateProject (c#)   730HarrisonStreet,Suite201 )m$*   SanFrancisco,CA94107 '*w%+   Telephone:(415)4953119 1+&, ?( ` hp x X?̀ `     h     AttorneysforAppellant  E-(. Ї@INTHECOURTOFAPPEALOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  @ FIRSTAPPELLATEDISTRICT,DIVISION% 2 ONE%2qԈ  *rGH dddt@dd@?@  r,dt@,4dd@+  :000' 2 2 C: STATEOFCALIFORNIA , j  ̀PlaintiffandRespondent, ~  ̀v.   % 4 SAMUELF.TEWOLDE %4,   ̀DefendantandAppellant.    z 6,!C000 C6 z  % 6 A106273 %6 t  (% 9 Sonoma%9BԀCounty   SuperiorCourt   No.% ; MCR426478%;)    .( C  ( .  5]g5  Appellant's%  SubstituteOpening%ԀBrief  H  ,@ -{!!11![@    %    , & ,  Statementof_Appealability_      ,Thisappealfollowsaguiltyplea.Appealofthesentenceis  ',authorizedbyPenalCodesections1237.5andrule30(b)ofthe  CaliforniaRulesofCourt.(Furtherstatutoryreferencesaretothe   PenalCode,unlessotherwiseindicated.)Appellantappealedfrom  " thesentence,makingnorequestforacertificateofprobablecause. ")$  (CT27.) $= & & ,   ,    StatementoftheCase      ,j{OnSeptember2,2003,theSonomaCountyDistrictAttorneyfiled  ',JaonecountcomplaintchargingappellantSamuelF.Tewoldewith  assaultingRyanNelsonwithforcelikelytocausegreatbodilyinjury.  , (ClerksTranscript(CT)1;Pen.Code245(a)(1).)Thecomplaintalso  @ allegedthatappellantpersonallyinflictedgreatbodilyinjuryon T  Nelsonandcommittedtheoffenseforthebenefitofacriminalstreet h  gang.(CT1;Pen.Code186.22(b)(1)(gangenh.);12022.7(a)(_gbi_).) ,| OnJanuary29,2004,appellantwaivedhisrightstoapreliminary @ hearingandjurytrial,andpleadednocontesttotheaggravated T assaultcharge.Healsoadmittedtheallegationthathepersonally h inflictedgreatbodilyinjury.Inexchangeforthispleaandadmission, | theprosecutordismissedthegangenhancementallegation.No  promisewasmadeastoappellantssentence,butthecourtinformed  appellantthatthemaximumpossiblesentencewassevenyearsin ! stateprison.(CT13.) # OnApril16,2004,thesuperiorcourtdeniedprobationand %0!  sentencedappellanttothemaximumtermofsevenyearsinstate 'D#" prison,consistingoftheuppertermoffouryearsfortheassaultand *X%$ _aconsecutivethreeyearsfortheinflictionofgreatbodilyinjury.(CT  24.)  Pursuanttosection296,thecourtalsoorderedappellantto ( submittoforcedextractionofbloodandsalivasamplesforDNA  < testingandidentificationanalysisbylawenforcement.(CT24.)  P OnApril20,2004,appellantfiledatimelynoticeofappeal.(CT d  27.) (x    ,& ,  StatementoftheFacts  :   <   , Therewasnopreliminaryhearingortrialinthiscase.And,while @ ',<. thepartiesagreedtherewasafactualbasisforappellantsplea,those T factswerenotdescribedatthechangeofpleahearing.Thefacts h describedbelowarederivedfromvariousdocuments,includingthe | probationreport,thesentencingletters,andthestatementin  mitigation.   & ,  PersonalBackground  "  ! AppellantwasbornonMarch28,1983 ;hewas20yearsoldatthe #  ',!"timeoftheoffenseand21atthetimeofsentencing.(CT25;CTSD6.) % !  Appellantbegansmokingmarijuanaatage13anddrinkingalcohol '4#" at15.Hehastriedmethamphetamineonceandcocaine1020times. )H%$ (CTSD6,1112.)  ,\'& InMay,1998,ataboutage15,appellantwasdeclaredawardof  thecourtbaseduponhisadmissionoffalselyimprisoningaboyby  pullingajacketovertheboysheadwhileappellantsfriendsrifled ( theboyspockets.(Pen.Code236.)BetweenOctober1998and  < January2000,thejuvenilecourtsustainedthreesupplemental  P petitions,onebaseduponappellantrunningawayfromhomeand d  twobasedupondirtydrugtests.(CTSD810.) (x  InSeptember,2001, thejuvenilecourtdeclaredhimawardagain, < thistimeforreceivingstolenpropertytakenduringanauto P burglary.OnJanuary23,2002,appellantescapedfromtheSonoma d CountyProbationCamp.Aftersustaininganewpetitionbasedupon x theescape,thejuvenilecourtrecommittedappellanttothecampin  February,2002.Atthecamp,appellantobtainedhishighschool  diploma,receivedvocationalandculinarytraining,andparticipated  infamily,individual,anddrugcounseling.Appellantgraduated ! fromthecampandthejuvenilecourtdismissedthejuvenile #, proceedingsinFebruary,2003.(CT910.) %@!  Theprobationofficerreportedthatappellanthadtheletters EP (T#" ЄEritreanPridetattooedonhishand,andthat_ newspaper *h%$ articlesregardingNorteogangcrimesandassaults"includingthe  presentoffense"werefoundinthedefendantshomeafter[he]was  arrested.(CTSD8.)Asexplainedinthestatementinmitigation, ( appellanthasadmittedtobeingfriendswithmembersofthe  < Norteogang,buthehasnever jumpedin.And allbuttwoofthe  P articlesrelatetothemurderofMeseretKebede,afellowEritrean d  whowasafriendoftheTewoldefamily.ThearticlesconcerningMr. (x  Kebedewerearrangedinashrineforhim.Thearticlefoundinthe < houseconcerningthedefendantsarrestobviouslycouldnothave P beenplacedtherebythedefendant,ashewasalreadyincustody d whenitwaspublished.(CTSD3.) x  & ,  TheOffense  ..   EarlyinthemorningofAugust30,2003,RyanNelsonattendeda  ',.partyatahomeinSantaRosa.Atabout3:30a.m.,largegroupof  uninvitedHispanicandAfricanAmericanyoungmenarrived,but ! thehostwantedthemtoleave.Aftertheywereaskedtoleave,the # uninvitedyoungmenwentoutside, butloiteredintheareaand %0!  werebeingloud.WhenNelsonwentoutsidetotellthemento 'D#" leave,appellanthithiminthehead.Theprobationreport,without *X%$ _identifyingthewitness,statesthatonewitnesssawappellantusea  bottlewhenhehitNelsoninthehead;appellantstatesthatheused  onlyhishand.Nelsonfelltothegroundandagroupof sixtoten ( youngmenkickedandjumpedonhim.Nelsonsufferedaskull  < fracturewithinternalbleeding,multiplefacialfractures,andnerve  P damagecausing lazyeyeandattendantdoublevision.Nelsonalso d  nowsuffersfrommigraineheadaches.(CTSD1,67,19.) (x  Witnessesatthepartynamedappellantasoneoftheculprits. < Policeofficerscametoappellantshomeandtookhimtothepolice P department.Whenconfrontedwiththewitnessstatements, d appellantadmittedseeingtheincident,butinitiallydeniedbeing x involved.Heangrilysaid, Icarelessaboutsomefuckinglittle  dude,whitedude,thatgotknockedoutorwhatever...itsnoneof  mybusiness...thewrongplaceattherighttime.Afterhelearned  thatNelsonsconditionhadimproved,appellantadmittedpunching ! Nelson,buthedeniedusingabottleandhedeniedparticipatingin #, thekickingandstomping.(CTSD7.) %@!  Whileinjail,appellantsphoneconversationsweretaperecorded. (T#" Inacalltwodaysafterhisarrest,appellant statedhepunchedthe *h%$ victimonetime,hellahard,thatthevictimwasoutcold,andthat  [appellant]washellahappy.Wheneveryonebeganstompingon  thevictimshead,Iwaslikeohwell.(CTSD8.)Inarecorded ( conversationinlateOctober,appellantstated, fools[victim]  < fuckingstupiddude.Fuckingboothimintheheadfornofucking  P damnman!Hopefullygetthreeyearsfelonyprobation...getone d  morechance.(CTSD8.)Intheprecedingquote,theprobation (x  officerinsertedthebracketedword [victim].Removethatword < andthemeaningofthestatementbecomeslessclear;itcouldbe P interpretedasappellantcallingtheotherboys foolsforkickingthe d victimintheheadfornoreason:fool[]sfuckingstupiddude. x Fuckingboothimintheheadfornofuckingdamnman!  Thestatementinmitigationdescribedsevenwitnesseswhogave  conflictinginformationaboutappellantsrole.  1.0 ` AnthonyNavarrodescribedtheattackersasHispanicswith ! shavedheadsandAfricanAmericanswithcornrowsand #, wearingsilverandwhiteclothing.Appellantdoesnotwear %@!   cornrowsandwaswearingablackshirtandshorts.(T#"` `  2.0 ` SamMcBridestatedthattheattackersallworeredandblueor   acombinationofthetwoandthatheknewtwoofthe  attackers,including Sam,whohadashavedheadandwas ( 5'11"andhadamediumbuild.Appellantdoesnothavea  < shavedheadandhasalargebuild. P` `  3.0 ` ShanenaRossisawsevenyoungmenkickingNelson,andall d  werewearingredshortsandredhatsandlookedMexican.(x ` `  4.0 ` MussieZegarisaw67attackers.Allwerewearingred.<` `  5.0 ` StevenSjoensawablackmalewearingblackshortsanda P blackshirtthrowthefirstpunchandthenjumpedupand d downonNelsonshead.Sjoenstatedthatalloftheattackers x hadattendedPinerHighSchool.Butappellantneverattended  Piner.` `  6.0 ` W1sawappellantinvolvedintheattack.W1hadbeen  drinkingatthepartyandhadalreadybeendrinkingat6a.m. ! inthemorningwhenthepoliceofficersinterviewedhim.#,` `  7.0 ` Witness13statedthatthepersonwhojumpedonthevictims %@!   headandsaid gotosleepwasablackmale,5'10".Appellant (T#" is6'1".Heidentifiedappellantasbeingattheparty,buthedid  notidentifyappellantasanattacker.` `   ,(CTSD12.)Theprobationofficerdidnotdetailthesestatementsin ( theprobationreportandtheprobationofficerdidnotdenythatthey  < weremade.Instead,theprobationdepartmentstatedmoregenerally  P that [w]itnessesindicatedthatdefendantparticipatedintheassault, d  andthathewaswearingaredragonhiswristandonehangingoff (x  hispants.Hewasalsowearingredandwhiteshoes.Theprobation < officeralsoreportedthat [o]newitnesspositivelyidentifiedthe P defendantashavingpunchedthevictimafterNelsonwashitover d theheadwiththebottle.ThevictimfelltothegroundandTewolde x proceededtostomponthevictimsheadwhilechanting,goto  sleep.(CTSD7.)   ,DAppellantdoesnotownredandwhiteshoes;heonlyownswhite  shoesandtheinvestigatorssearchedappellantshouseandcarand ! foundnoredandwhiteshoes.Theyalsofoundnobloodon #, appellantsclothingandshoes.(CTSD2.) %@!  Theprobationdepartmentreportedthatwhenappellantwas (T#" takentothepolicedepartmenthewaswearingwhiteshoesand_ a *h%$ redandwhiteshirtwithanumberindicatingNorteogang  affiliation.(CTSD7.)But,asexplainedinthestatementin  mitigation, [t]heshirtSamTewoldewaswearingatthetimeofthe ( arrestandinterviewwasnotaredandwhiteshirt.Itwasawhite  < shirtwithredandbluetrim.(CTSD3.)  P AppellantadmittedhittingNelsoninthehead,butdenied d  kickingorstompingonNelsonwhilehewasdownontheground. (x  (CTSD7.) <   , **** P Argument X Ѐ  \  ,LL   ,& , II. ` ImpositionoftheUpperTermWasUnlawfulandViolated d AppellantsFederalConstitutionalRightstoProofBeyonda f  ReasonableDoubtandaJuryTrial(U.S.Const.,Amends.V,VI, h! XIV)BecauseTheAggravatingFactorsWereNeitherAdmittedBy j" AppellantNorFoundByaJury. l#  IM7M ]M ,lMOnJune24,2004,theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesdecided p%   ', `zMBlakelyv.Washington(no.021632,June24,2004)____U.S.____,2004 '"" WL1402697,2004DJDAR7581._ #  1      _ԀTheCourtsdecisioninBlakely   rendersunconstitutionalportionsofCaliforniasdeterminate  sentencingscheme,includingtheprovisionofPenalCodesection ( 1170(b)whichauthorizesjudges,notjuriestomakefactualfindings  < inconnectionwithaggravatingfactorsusedtoimposetheupper  P time.Thesentencingcourtinthiscaseimposedtheupperterm d  baseduponfactualfindingswhichwereneitheradmittedby (x  appellantnorfoundbyajury.Thesentencingcourtalsoerredin < failingtoapplytheproofbeyondareasonabledoubtstandardtoits P factualfindings. d   ,& 2 A.0 ` AppellantHadAFederalConstitutionalRighttoaJury x Trial,andProofBeyondaReasonableDoubt,WithRespect z toFactsUnderlyingtheAggravatingFactorsUsedtoImpose | theUpperTerm. ~` `   , TS SIntheseminalcaseofApprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,  '2 : TtheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesheldthatthereisafederal   constitutionalrighttoajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonable " doubt"foranyfact(otherthanpriorconviction)thatincreasesthe $  maximumpenaltyforacrime.'"(Apprendi,530U.S.at476(quoting  Jonesv.UnitedStates(1999)526U.S.227,243fn.6.)InlightofBlakely,  _itisnowapparentthatthereisafederalconstitutionalrighttoajury ( trial,andproofbeyondareasonabledoubt,onnonrecidivist  < aggravatingfactorsusedtoimposetheuppertermundertheDSL.  P & 4 1.0 ` TheRighttoaJuryTrialAppliesToFactsUsedtoImposea d  SentenceAbovetheStatutoryMaximum.h ` `  Y XInApprendi,theCourtheldthatthedefendanthada  p  constitutional'4Xrighttoajurytrialonthefactualfindingsunderlying 4 theNewJerseyhatecrimeenhancementappliedtohissentence. H Thatenhancementraisedthemaximumpossiblesentencefrom10 \ yearsto20yearsuponafindingthattheoffensewascommittedwith p theintenttointimidatebecauseofthevictimsrace,color,gender,  handicap,andvariousotherstatuses.(Id.at468469.)Twoyears  later,inRingv.Arizona(2002)536U.S.584,592593andn.1,the   Court appliedApprenditoanArizonalawthatauthorizedthedeath " penaltyifthejudgefoundoneoftenaggravatingfactors.(Blakely, $$  slipop.at6,2004WL1402697at4;2004DJDARat7582.)Thatsame &8"!  term,theCourtheldthatthereisnoconstitutionalrighttoajurytrial (L$# onafactusedtoestablishaminimummandatorysentence.(Harrisv.  UnitedStates(2002)536U.S.545,563.)   InApprendiandinRing,theCourt concludedthatthe ( defendantsconstitutionalrightshavebeenviolatedbecausethe  < judgehadimposedasentencegreaterthanthemaximumhecould  P haveimposedunderstatelawwithoutthechallengedfactual d  finding.(Blakely,slipop.at67,2004WL1402697at4;2004DJDAR (x  at7582[citingApprendi,530U.S.at491497;Ring,536U.S.at603 < 609].) P & ( Inapplyingtheseprecedentstothestatesentencingguidelinesat d '(d-aissueinBlakely,theCourtclarifiedthat thestatutorymaximumfor x Apprendipurposesisthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimpose  solelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythe  defendant.(Id.,slipop.at7,2004WL1402697at4,2004DJDARat  7582[emphasisinorig.andcitingRing,Harris,andApprendi].)Stated !  anotherway, therelevantstatutorymaximumisnotthemaximum #  sentenceajudgemayimposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,butthe %4!  maximumhemayimposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.(Id. 'H#" [emphasisinorig.])  *\%$  & 4 2.0 ` UnderCaliforniasDSL,TheStatutoryMaximumistheMiddle  Term.` `  d dUnderCaliforniasdeterminatesentencinglaw,themaximum   '4esentenceajudgemayimposewithoutanyadditionalfindingsisthe   middleterm: Whenajudgmentofimprisonmentistobeimposed  4 andthestatutespecifiesthreepossibleterms, thecourtshallorder  H  impositionofthemiddleterm,unlesstherearecircumstancesin  \  aggravationormitigation ofthecrime.(Pen.Code1170(b) `  [emphasisadded];seealsoCal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(a)&(b); $t cf.,e.g.,Peoplev.Piceno(1987)195Cal.App.3d1353,1360.)Because 8 themaximumtermwithoutthefindingsisthemiddleterm,the L uppertermmaynotbeimposedwhere,asinthiscase,the ` aggravatingfactorswereneitheradmittedbythedefendantnor t  foundbyajury. #  2        Itmaycomeasasurprisethatthereisaconstitutionalrighttoa   jurytrialforaggravatingfactorfactfinding.ButBlakelyitselfwasa  surprise,andtheCourtmadeclearthatApprendiidentifieda (  bright-lineruleandtheCourtrejectedthenotionthatthejurytrial  < rightshoulddependonsomeassessmentofthedegreeofjudicial  P factfindinginthesentencingprocess,suchaswhetherthestatutory d  schemewent toofarorallowed thetailtowagthedog.(Id.12.) (x   AsApprendiheld,everydefendanthastherighttoinsistthatthe < prosecutorprovetothejuryallfactslegallyessentialtothe P punishment.(Id.17,emphasisinoriginal.)Whilethemajority d rejectedthenotionthatitsholdingwouldimperiltheveryconceptof x  determinatesentencing,theopinionimpliesthat,topassmuster,a  determinatesentencingschememustrelyuponjuryfact-finding:    X X ,Determinatejudicial-factfindingschemesentailless  judicialpowerthanindeterminateschemes,butmore   judicialpowerthandeterminatejury-factfinding ! schemes.WhetherApprendiincreasesjudicialpower "" overalldependsonwhatStateswithdeterminate #, judicial-factfindingschemeswoulddo,giventhechoice $6  betweenthetwoalternatives. %@!   Xo Xo nn ,"o ,(Id.at13,emphasisinoriginal.) (T#"  ,qCalifornia's dualuseruleunderscoresthenecessityoffinding   additionalfacts.Acourtcannotbaseanuppertermonafactwhich  iseitheranelementoftheunderlyingoffenseoristhebasisforan ( enhancement.(1170(b);rules4.420(c)&(d).)Theaggravating  < circumstancesauthorizinganupperterm,thus,arenecessarilyfacts  P beyondthosedeterminedbyappellantsguiltyplea.Putanother d  way,wheretheonlyaggravatingcircumstancesarethosewhich (x  overlapeithertheoffenseoranyenhancement,themiddletermis < the maximumsentenceadefendantmayreceive.Itisonlya P findingofsomeadditionalnon-overlappingaggravating d circumstancewhichcan exposeadefendanttoanupperterm. x  Thejudgeacquiresthatauthority[toimposeanupperterm]only  uponfindingsomeadditionalfact.[Fn.](Blakely,at9.)  Consequently,undertheSixthAmendmentreasoningofBlakelyand  Apprendi,adefendantisentitledtojurydeterminationofanysuch ! aggravatingcircumstanceusedtoimposeanupperterm. #, Additionally,thosefindingsmustbesubjecttoareasonabledoubt %@!  standardofproof(id.at5,15),ratherthanapreponderance (T#" standard,asCalifornialawcurrentlyprovides(rule4.420(b)). *h%$ & 4  3.0 ` TheFactFindingUsedtoImposetheUpperTermisAnalogousto  theFactFindingUsedtoApplytheExceptionalSentenceinBlakely.` `  zx xThesimilaritybetweenthiscaseandBlakelygoesbeyondthefact   '4hxthatbothinvolvedguiltypleasandbothinvolvedsentencesthat   wereaggravatedonthebasisofasentencinghearingfindingof  4 cruelty.Thesuperficiallydisparatesentencingschemes"Californias  H  DSLandWashingtonsguidelines"bothunconstitutionallyallow  \  judgestoimposesentencesaboveastatutorymaximumonthebasis  p  offactsneitherfoundbyajurynoradmittedbyvirtueofthe 4 defendantsguiltyplea. H InBlakely,thedefendanthadpledguiltytosecond-degree \ kidnapingandalsoadmittedafirearmenhancement.Asa classB p felony,second-degreekidnapingwassubjecttoanabsolute  maximumof10years.Butthe standardrangeforsecond-degree  kidnapingwithafirearmwas49to53months.Washington   statutorylawprovidedthatacourtcouldimposeasentencegreater " thanthe standardrange(butstillwithinthe10-yearcap)onlyifit $$  found substantialandcompellingreasonsjustifyinganexceptional &8"! sentence."Thestatuteprovidedanonexhaustivelistof (L$#  aggravatingfactorswhichcouldjustifysucha departurefrom +`&% the standardrange.(Blakely,slipopn.,at2-3.)Thetrialcourt  imposedan exceptionalsentenceof90months!37monthsabove  thestandardrange"baseduponthejudge'sfindingthatBlakely ( actedwith deliberatecruelty,oneoftheenumeratedaggravating  < factors.  P TheSupremeCourtheldthatthetrialcourtsfindingofthat d  aggravatingfactorviolatingApprendi'sruleentitlingadefendantto (x  jurydeterminationofanyfactexposingadefendanttogreater < punishmentthanthe maximumotherwiseallowableforthe P underlyingoffense.TheCourtrejectedthestatesassertionthatthe d relevant maximumwasthe10-yearcapfora classBfelony. x Instead,themajoritytreatedthetopendofthe standardrange(53  months)astherelevant statutorymaximum,becausethatwasthe  greatestsentenceBlakelycouldreceivebasedsolelyonthefacts  admittedbyhisplea.(Blakely,slipop.78;2004WLat45.) ! Aswiththe standardrangeinBlakely,themid-termunder #, CaliforniasDSListhepresumptivesentence.And,aswiththe %@!   exceptionalsentenceinBlakely,aCaliforniacourtlacksstatutory (T#" authoritytoimposeanuppertermunlessitfinds aggravating *h%$ circumstancesbeyondtheelementsinherentintheoffenseitself.  (Cal.R.Ct.4.420(d).)LiketheWashingtonstatutes,theCalifornia  rulesprovidealistofenumeratedaggravatingcircumstances(rule ( 4.421),butthelistisnotexclusiveandacourtmayrelyuponan  < non-enumeratedcircumstance reasonablyrelatedtothe  P sentencingdecision.(Rule4.408(a);seee.g.,Peoplev.Garcia(1989) d  209Cal.App.3d790,794-795;compareBlakely,slipop.at3.)Aswith (x  theWashingtonscheme,thecourtmustmakeexplicitfactual < findings.(1170(c);rule4.420(e);compareBlakely,slipop.at3.) P  TheparallelsbetweenthiscaseandBlakelyaffirmthatthe d Apprendi/BlakelydoctrineappliestoCaliforniasdeterminate x sentencingscheme.  & 0 4.0 ` RecidivismisDifferent.` `  ThereisonepossibleexceptiontotheApprendi/Blakelyruleas  '0Cappliedtoaggravatingfactors:theSupremeCourthasyettoapply !  Apprenditorecidivistbasedsentencingfactors,evenwhenthefactof #  suchpriorconvictionsisusedtoincreasethestatutorymaximum %4!  sentenceforanoffense.(Almendarez-Torresv.U.S.(1998)523U.S. 'H#" 224.)Thisexceptionmightbeapplicabletorecidivistrelated  *\%$ aggravatingfactors,suchas:numerousorincreasinglyseriousprior  convictions(rule4.421(b)(2)),servedapriorprisonterm(rule  4.421(b)(3)),onprobationorparoleattimeofcurrentoffense(subd. ( (b)(4)),unsatisfactorypriorperformanceonparoleorprobation  < (subd.(b)(5)).Thesentencingcourtinthiscasefoundpresenta  P singlerecidivistbasedaggravator:thatappellanthadnumerous d  sustainedpetitionsasajuvenile.Theothertwoaggravatorsfound (x  trueinthiscasewerecurrentoffense,notrecidivist,based:crueltyin < stompingofvictimsheadandvictimvulnerability.(RT22.) P AppellantrecognizesthatthisCourtisboundtofollow d AlmendarezTorres.Nevertheless,theprioradjudicationsinthiscase x werejuvenilecases.Allegationsofpriorjuvenileadjudicationto  enhanceasentencedoesnotcomewithintheAlmendarez-Torres  exceptionbecause(incontrasttoanadultconviction)thedefendant  neverhadtherighttojurytrialinthejuvenilecase.(Comparemaj.& ! dissentingopinionsinPeoplev.Lee(2003)111Cal.App.4th1310;also #, compareUnitedStatesv.Tighe(9thCir.2001)266F.3d1187.) #  3      ׀ %@!  WhateverviewthisCourttakesoftheapplicationof  Apprendi/Blakelytorecidivistaggravatingfactorsandwhateveristhe  fateofAlmendarezTorres,thereremaintwoaggravatingfactorsin ( thiscasewhichareaboutcurrentoffenseconduct.Intheprejudice  < sectionbelow,appellantwillshowthateveniftheconstitutional  P rightislimitedtononrecidivistfactors,i.e.thesentencingcourtdid d  noterrinmakingthefindingsregardingappellantsjuvenilerecord, (x  thedenialofajurytrialrightwithrespecttothetwononrecidivist < factors,wasnotharmlesserror. P Forallthesereasons,appellanthadafederalconstitutionalright d toajurytrialonthefactsunderlyingthenonrecidivistbased x  aggravatingfactorsusedtoimposetheupperterm.  & j     ,(83! !  , B.0 ` AppellantNeitherWaivedHisRighttoaJuryTrial,Nor  AdmittedtheFactsUnderlyingtheAggravatingFactors. ` `   , ۗɗHavingestablishedthatappellanthadaconstitutionalrightajury  trial,thenextquestioniswhetherappellantwaivedthatrightinany   fashion.  . Appellantpleadedguiltyandnojurywasseatedinthiscase.So  B  'j theonlywayinwhichhisconstitutionalrightscouldhavebeen V  satisfiedinthiscaseareifappellant(1)waivedhisrighttoajurytrial j  onthefactsunderlyingtheaggravatingfactors,and(2)thejudge .~ eitherconductedacourttrialapplyingthereasonabledoubt B standard,orappellantadmittedtheaggravatingfacts.Noneofthese V thingshappenedinthiscase. j & 4 ! ! (#38,"3"   3Ŝ2#  1  .3  0 `   AppellantDidNotWaiveHisRighttoaJuryTrialontheFacts ~ UnderlyingtheAggravatingFacts.3Ŝ݌` `  Ќ    Onthechangeofpleawaiverappellantinitialedthestatement I  '4~understandthatIamentitledtoaspeedyandpublictrialbycourtor ! byjuryastoall charges,allegationsandpriorconvictions .(CT10 # [emphasisadded].)Therewasnosuchwaiverrespectingfactsor %!  factorstobeusedinselectingthesentence.Andduringthechange '*#" ofpleahearing,thecourtdidnotinformappellantofhisrighttoa )>%$ jurytrialonaggravatingfactors,andappellantdidnotwaivethat ,R'& right.(RT5.)TheCourt,moreover,cannotfindawaiverofaright  where,ashere,itmustbepresumedthedefendant(andhis  attorney)hadnoideahewasentitledtothatright. ( Thislackofawaivermeansthereisnoneedtolookanyfurther:  < therewasanunconstitutionaldenialoftherighttoajurytrial.But  P evenifthisCourtdeterminedthatappellantactuallywaivedhis d  righttoajurytrial,hisconstitutionalrightswereviolatedbecause (x  appellantdidnotadmitthefactsunderlyingtheaggravatingfactors < andany courttrialwasconductedwithoutapplicationofthe P reasonabledoubtstandard. d & 0 "3"  3'2#  2  .3  0 `   AppellantHeDidNotAdmittheAggravatingFacts.3'W݌x` `  Ќ  Atthechangeofpleahearingandonthechangeofpleaform,  '0xappellantadmittedthathehadassaultedRyanNelsonwithforce  likelytocausegreatbodilyinjury,withinthemeaningofsection  245(a)(1),andthathepersonallyinflictedgreatbodilyinjuryon !  Nelson,withinthemeaningofsection12022.7(a). #  4      ׀(CT9;RT7.) #  Appellantsnocontestpleawasanadmissiontotheelementsofthe %4!  assaultandthegreatbodilyinjuryenhancementandnomore.   [A]llegationsnotnecessarytobeprovedforaconviction...arenot  admittedbyaplea.(SeeUnitedStatesv.Thomas(9thCir.2004)355 ( F.3d1191,1196[quotingUnitedStatesv.Cazares(9thCir.1997)121  < F.3d1241,1246].)Andappellantsadmissionofpersonallyinflicting  P greatbodilyinjurydoesnotequatewithadmittingkickingor d  stompingNelsoninthehead.Thefactualbasisforthegreatbodily (x  injuryadmissionarose,notfromkickingandstomping,butfrom < appellantsknockingNelsonoutwithasinglepunchtothehead; P Nelsonseyesrolledbackinhisheadandhefelltothegroundout d cold.(CTSD7,10.) x EveniftheCourtcouldlookforanadmissionoftheaggravating  factorsbyconsideringanystatementsotherthanthepleaitself(see  Id.at119899),appellantmadenosuchadmissioninthiscase.  Appellant,throughcounsel,statedthattherewasafactualbasisfor ! theplea.(RT5.)Butsuchastipulationamountsonlytoanagreement #, thattherearefactswhichestablishtheelementsoftheoffensesof %@!   conviction.Agreeingthatthereisafactualbasisforthepleadoesnot (T#" constituteanadmissionthatthereisafactualbasisforanynon  chargedaggravatingfactors.   Notonlydidappellantnotadmittheaggravatingfactors,buthe ( expresslychallengedfourofthefiveaggravatingfactorssuggested  < bytheprobationofficerandtwoofthethreeaggravatingfactorsthe  P sentencingcourtfoundpresent.(CTA4;CTSD5;RT22.)For d  purposesofapplyingBlakelyandApprendi,however,whatreally (x  mattersisthatappellantalsochallengedthehistoricalfact"thathe < stompedonthevictimshead"underlyingthesentencingcourts P applicationofthecrueltyandviciousnessaggravatingfactor(rule d 4.421(a)(1)).(CTA4;CTSD5;RT15.)Appellanthascontinuedto x challengethatfindingonappeal.(SeeAOBpp.1821Argument  I(C)(2).)  & 8 "3"   32#  3  .3  0 `   EvenIftheCourtCouldConstruetheRecordtoFindThatAppellant  KnowinglyConsentedtoaCourtTrial,theTrialNeverthelessErred   inApplyingtheWrongBurdenofProof.3;݌! ` `  Ќ  $Thesentencing trialwasconductedinanunconstitutional # '8ٱfashionbecausethecourtdecidedthefactsunderapreponderance %(!  standard,insteadofunderareasonabledoubtstandard.Although '<#" thesentencingcourtdidnotexpresslystatewhatstandardofproofit *P%$ wasapplying,fromitssilencethisCourtmustpresumethatit  applied4  O  5  rule4.420(b)6O.423  7ԀoftheCaliforniaRulesofCourt,which  providesthat [c]ircumstancesinaggravationandmitigationshall ( beestablishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.(SeePeoplev.  < Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331,349(preponderancestandardapplies).)  P Becauseappellanthadaconstitutionalrighttoajurytrialonthe d  aggravatingfactors,thesentencingcourterredininapplyingthe (x  lesserstandardofproof.(SeeUnitedStatesv.VelascoHeredia(9thCir. < 2003)319F.3d1080,1085(Apprendierroroccurredwhentrialcourt P usedpreponderancestandardatsentencingtodeterminedrug d quantity).) x & 0 "3"  32#  4  .3  0 `   AppellantHasEstablishedError3Ź݌` `  Ќ  InsubargumentB,appellantestablishedthathehada  '0constitutionalrighttoajurytrial,andproofbeyondareasonable  doubt,onthenonrecidivistaggravatingfactors.InsubargumentC, !  appellantjustestablishedthoseconstitutionalrightswereviolatedin #  thiscase.Asshownbelow,reversalisrequiredbecausetheerrorwas %4!   neitherharmless,norwaived. 'H#" & ,    , ! !C.0 ` TheStateCannotProvetheErrorsHarmless. ` `   ,ThedispositioninBlakelywasaremandtotheWashington  ',appellatecourt forproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion.  (Blakely,slipop.at18.)Theopiniondidnotaddresswhetherthe  , errorautomaticallyrequiredreversalofthesentenceorwas  @ susceptibletoharmlesserrorreview.Undereitherview,reversalis T  requiredinthiscase. h  Theerrorisa structuraldefect,notamenabletoharmlesserror ,| review,becausethewrongentity,thejudgeratherthanthejury,has @ adjudicatedtheaggravatingfactorandhasappliedthewrong T standardofproof.(Cf.SullivanvLouisana(1993)508U.S.275.)In h Sullivan,JusticeScaliaexplainedthattheerrorinthat | case"misinstructiononthedefinitionofproofbeyonda  reasonable"wasstructuralerrorbecausetherewasjuryverdict  baseduponproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.Harmlesserror ! analysis,underChapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,24, # examines,notwhateffecttheconstitutionalerrormightgenerallybe %0!  expectedtohaveauponareasonablejury,butratherwhateffectit 'D#" hadupontheguiltyverdictinthecaseathand.(Sullivan,508U.S.at *X%$ 279.)Becausetheerrorwithrespecttothereasonabledoubt  instructionmeant, therehasbeennojuryverdictwithinthe  meaningoftheSixthAmendment,theentirepremiseofChapman ( reviewissimplyabsent.(Id.at280.)Inthiscase,asinSullivan,there  < isnoverdict"byjudgeorjury"baseduponreasonabledoubt.  P  Thereisnoobject,sotospeak,uponwhichharmlesserrorscrutiny d  canoperateandreversalismandatory.(Id.;seealsoPeoplev. (x  Orellano(2000)79Cal.App.4th179,186[ Sincewehavenowayof < knowingwhetherthejuryappliedthecorrectburdenofproof,the P convictionsmustbereversed...sothatappellantcanberetried d beforeaproperlyinstructedjury].) x Itstruethatthefailuretoinstructajuryonasingleelementis  subjecttoChapmanharmlesserroranalysisandisnotperse  reversible.(Nederv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1,119S.Ct.1827;  Peoplev.Flood(1998)18Cal.4th470.)ButinNederandinFlood,ajury ! wasseatedandreachedverdicts,andonlyoneelement/factwasnot #, decidedbythejurybecauseofmisinstruction.(Neder,527U.S.at4; %@!  Flood,18Cal.4that475.)Inthiscase,nojuryatallwasseatedfor (T#" appellantssentencing"which,underBlakely,isnow_better *h%$ describedasapenaltytrial"andnoneoftheaggravatingfactswere  decidedbyajury.Appellantdidwaivehisrighttoajuryonthe  substantiveoffenses,buttheentiresentencing trialwasconducted ( withoutajuryandappellantdidnotwaivehisrighttoajuryforthat  < penaltyphase.Becauseappellantwasdeniedajuryverdicton  P multipleaggravatingfacts"victimvulnerabilityandcruelty,the d  errorisstructuralandautomaticallyreversible. (x  Buteveniftheerrorisnotstructural,reversalisrequiredbecause < itwasnotharmless.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtandfederal P courtshaveheldthatconventionalApprendierrorsonenhancements d aresubjecttotheChapmanstandard.(Peoplev.Sengpadychith(2001) x 26Cal.4th316,324;Peoplev.Scott(2001)91_Cal.App_.4th1197,  1209-1211;UnitedStatesv.Garcia-Guizar(9thCir.2000)234F.3d483,  488-489.)UnderChapman,thestatemustprovethattheerroris  harmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Chapmanv.California(1967) ! 386U.S.18,24.)But,inthecontextofanerroraffectingtherighttoa #, jurytrialonelementsorenhancements,areviewingcourtcannot %@!  simplyaskwhethertherewas overwhelmingevidencesupporting (T#" thefindinginquestion.AfarmorerigorousformofChapman *h%$ analysis,focusingonwhatfactsthefactfindernecessarilyfoundin  reachingadecisionisrequiredinthiscontext.Theerror,inthis  context,isnotharmlessiftheomittedelementissusceptibleto ( dispute:  <   X XIf,attheendofthatexamination,the[reviewing]  P courtcannotconcludebeyondareasonabledoubtthat  Z  thejuryverdictwouldhavebeenthesameabsentthe d  error"forexample,wherethedefendantcontestedthe n  omittedelementandraisedevidencesufficientto (x  supportacontraryfinding"itshouldnotfindtheerror 2  harmless. < _ XQ XC / ,(Neder,527U.S.at19.)Itisunclearhowthisstandardappliesinthe P guiltypleacontext,anditsomewaysitmakesnosensetoapplyit d becausetherewasnojuryverdictandnoapplicationofthe x reasonabledoubtstandardtoexamine.Inanyevent,inthiscase  appellantvigorouslyarguedtheabsenceofaggravatingfactors,  presentingevidencethathedidnotkickorstomponNelsonshead  andshowingthatthemanywitnesseswereinconsistentintheir ! descriptionsoftheperpetratorsandappellantsroleintheoffense. #, Becausehecontestedthekickingallegationandbecausetherewas %@!   conflictingevidencetheerrorcannotbeharmlessunderNeder. (T#"  ,ButevenunderamoretraditionalChapmananalysis,thestate   cannotprovetheerrorharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.In  argumentI(E),above,appellanthasfullyexploredtheprejudicial ( effectofthesentencingcourtserroneousfactfinding,showingthe  < closenessoftheevidenceontheaggravatingfactors"inparticular  P theevidenceregardingwhetherappellantwasakicker/stomper. d  Appellantalsodemonstratedthatthequestionofwhetherthe (x  aggravatingfactorsoutweighedthemitigatingfactorswasalsoclose. < Appellantdoesnotrepeatthoseargumentshere,butreferstheCourt P tothatearlierargumentshowingthatthedenialofappellantsright d toajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtwasnot x harmless.  & , , D.0 ` TheClaimIsNotWaivedbyAnyOmissiontoObject ` `   ,%Appellantsfailuretoobjectinthesuperiorcourttojudicialfact  ',findingdoesnotwaivehisconstitutionalclaims.Certain ! fundamentalconstitutionalrights,suchasdoublejeopardyandthe # righttojurytrial,arenotforfeitedbyafailuretoobject.Forinstance, %0!  adefendantsfailuretoobjecttothedischargeofthejury,priorto 'D#" theadjudicationofchargedpriors,mightwaiveastatestatutory *X%$ error,butitdoesnotwaiveafundamentalclaimsofdoublejeopardy  andtherighttoajurytrial: Defendantsfailuretoobjectalsowould  notprecludehisassertingonappealthathewasdeniedhis ( constitutionalrighttoajurytrial.[Citations.](Peoplev.Saunders  < (1993)5Cal.4th580,589,fn.5;seealso592[sameholdingredouble  P jeopardyclaim];accordPeoplev.Valladoli(1996)13Cal.4th590,606 d  [doublejeopardy].)Morerecently,theCourt,hasreaffirmedthat (x   [a]defendantisnotprecludedfromraisingforthefirsttimeon < appealaclaimassertingthedeprivationofcertainfundamental, P constitutionalrights.(Peoplev.Vera(1997)15Cal.4th269,276-277 d [citingSaunders,5Cal.4that592[pleaofonceinjeopardy];Peoplev. x Holmes(1960)54Cal.2d442,443-444[constitutionalrighttojury  trial].)  BecauseappellantconteststhedenialofhisSixthAmendment  righttoajurytrial,andproofbeyondareasonabledoubt,onthe ! aggravatingfactors,hislackofanobjectioninthesuperiorcourt #, doesnotforfeitappellatereview. %@!  Inanyevent,anywaiverisexcusedbecauseanyobjectionwould (T#" havebeenfutile.(E.g.Peoplev.Hill(1998)17Cal.4th800,820;People *h%$ v.Abbaszadeh(2003)106_Cal.App_.4th642,648-649;seealsoPeoplev.  Birks(1998)19Cal.4th108,116,fn.6[nowaiverwherelowercourt  wasboundbyhighercourtonissue].)Atthetimeofappellants ( sentencing,i.e.priortoBlakely,itwouldhavebeenfutiletoobjectto  < requestajuryatsentencinginanoncapitalsentencingina  P Californiacourt.Anditwouldhavebeenequallyfutiletorequest d  applicationofthereasonabledoubtstandard.Californiacaselaw, (x  statutes,andrules,evenafterApprendi,remainedabarriertosucha < claim. #  5      ׀TheclaimbeingfutilepriortoBlakely,thereisnowaiver. P Evenwithoutanobjection,thisCourthasdiscretionarypowerto d reviewtheissue. Thefactthataparty,byfailingtoraiseanissue x below,mayforfeittherighttoraisetheissueonappealdoesnot  meanthatanappellatecourtisprecludedfromconsideringthe  issue.(6Witkin&Epstein,Cal.CriminalLaw(3ded.2000)  ReversibleError,36,p.497[originalemphasis].) Anappellate  courtisgenerallynotprohibitedfromreachingaquestionthathas ( notbeenpreservedforreviewbyaparty....Whetherornotit  < shoulddosoisentrustedtoitsdiscretion.(Peoplev.Williams(1998)  P 17Cal.4th148,161162,fn.6.) d  Statutorybasestoreviewtheissuealsoexistundersection1259, (x  which,inrelevantpart,provides: Uponanappealtakenbythe < defendant,theappellatecourtmay,withoutexceptionhavingbeen P takeninthetrialcourt,reviewanyquestionoflawinvolvedinany d ruling,order,instruction,orthingwhatsoeversaidordoneatthe x trialorpriortooraferjudgment,...andwhichaffectedthe  substantialrightsofthedefendant.Violationofthefederal  constitutionalrighttoajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonable  doubtconstitutesanegregiousviolationofappellantsrightsunder ! theFifth,SixthandFourteenthAmendmentstotheU.S. #, Constitution,andthusaffectshissubstantialrights.Andit %@!   constitutesapurequestionoflaw. (T#" Accordingly,theissueisnotwaivedandappellantssentence   mustbevacated.  &      ,III. (  ru   ,'XX****  ,   08(0X0XX  ##XX    #XXXX#XXXX 6݌   ЌXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  $ X8(X$  #XX##x#