WPC -G<q; -ͨ_PoρO& 1 p=YvpWעC4<7J&u^{ o*rh xnB'Z⿔LMAgF$j`4N @='EJmjf)k"Es#-{W{%_;zJҨrWȆI){<8ݹ,$wHV4UޓB . 4& Kd=17;[ t)KeDi©X5pܦ1B^L(V]B*i7"??Dr]5ej彬Om$0Avf)sX]扱U:ŭkeDy0Kϟ\esƏlj#B UN %Y 0x_ U: N^ w4#7F mHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 0D____ 0 Bqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq 0NQ-HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(P`$vvvUSUS.,,@E Z"Book Antiqua c0 z0onatha3|xU(#$  0  (~(2$ `!X5XXXvXX5USUS.,      0   d(O$ G !$X5XXXvXX5USUS.,    1    _ ` The_Blakely_Ԁopinioncanalsobeaccessedbyclicking4 O  5  here6O0!  7 l^Ԁ(inthe  electronicversionofthisbrief)orbypastingthefollowinglinkintoaninternet   browser:  http://a257._g.akamaitech.net_/7/257/2422/24june20041200/_www.supremecourt  us.gov_/opinions/03pdf/02-1632._pdf_.http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24june20041200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1632.pdf `!X5XXXvXX5USUS.,  _   Brief: _AOB_    _Blakely_ԀIssues: InsufficiencyoftheEvidenceinSupportofCurrentConduct  "  AggravatingFactor ,  _Blakely_ԀIssueNotRaisedinTrialCourt @   ProceedingBelow: GuiltyPlea T --------------------- ^ Posted:7/2/04 h Peoplev._Tewolde_,A106273 "r Author:JonathanD.Soglin  ,| ~    Argument      I  TheTrialCourtsDeterminationofthePresenceandAbsenceofMitigating  andAggravatingSentenceFactorsWasErroneous `.    Q  ,Inthisargument,appellantchallengestheadequacyoftheevidenceoffered   bytheprosecutiontoprovethefactsunderlyingthepresenceofcertain  "  aggravatingfactorsandtheabsenceofcertainmitigatingfactors.Asexplainedin 6  thestandardofreviewdiscussionimmediatelybelow(which,inturn, J  incorporatessomeoftheargumentIIanalysisoftherighttoajurytrialon ^ aggravatingfactors),thefederalconstitutionalrighttodueprocessrequiresthat "r nonrecidivistaggravatingfactors,usedtoimposetheuppertermunder 6 CaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLaw(_DSL_),beprovedbeyondareasonable J doubt.(_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington(no.021632,June24,2004)____U.S.____,2004WL ^ 1402697,2004_DJDAR_Ԁ7581. #  1      )(Thepresenceorabsenceofmitigatingfactors, r however,stillneedonlybeprovedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.)This   changeinlawaffectshowthiscourtreviewsthesufficiencyoftheevidenceofthe "  nonrecidivistaggravatingfactors. $ ButeveniftheCourtdisagrees,andholdsthatallaggravatingfactorsare   subjectonlytothepreponderancestandard,reversalisstillrequiredbecausethe  evidenceremainsinsufficient,evenunderthatstandard. ( v ,h A.0  StandardofReview <(#(#  c  , Itistruethatinchallengingasentencingcourtsdeterminationthat  @ aggravatingfactorsoutweighmitigatingfactorstheappellantmustshowthatthe T  lowercourtsdecisionwasarbitraryor outsidetheboundsofreason.(Peoplev. h  _Cluff_(2001)87_Cal.App_.4th991,998(internalcitationsandquotationmarks ,| omitted).)Butitsalsotruethat [a]trialcourtabusesitsdiscretionwhenthe @ factualfindingscriticaltoitsdecisionfindnosupportintheevidence.(_Cluff_,87 T _Cal.App_.4that998.)Inthisargument,appellantchallengesthesentencingcourts h factualfindingsunderlyingthemitigatingandaggravatingfactors,notthe | ultimateweighingoffactors.  ThisCourtgenerallyreviewsfindingsoffactunderthesubstantialevidence  test.(SeePeoplev._Cromer_(2001)24Cal.4th889,894.)Butinapplyingthe ! substantialevidencetest,theCourtmustdeterminewhatburdenofproofthe # prosecutionhadinthesentencingcourt.Rule4.420(b)oftheCaliforniaRulesof %0!  Courtprovidesthat [c]ircumstancesinaggravationandmitigationshallbe 'D#"  establishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.(SeealsoPeoplev.Scott(1994)9 *X%$ Cal.4th331,349(preponderancestandardapplies).)Butthisisnowonlypartially  true.   AsisexplainedindepthinargumentII,appellanthasaconstitutionalrightto ( ajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtwithrespecttothefacts  < underlyingnon-recidivistaggravatingfactors.(Blakely,2004WL1402697,2004  P DJDAR7581;Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466.)Accordingly,the d  traditionalcriminalcasesufficiencyoftheevidencestandardappliestonon (x  recidivistaggravatingfactors,suchasthecruelty/viciousnessfindingchallenged < insubargumentD,below.Astothataggravatingfactor,thisCourtmust P determine whether,afterviewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothe d prosecution,anyrationaltrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsof x thecruelty/viciousnessfinding beyondareasonable_doubt._Ԁ(Jacksonv.  Virginia(1979)443U.S.307,319,italicsinoriginal.)ButeveniftheCourtapplies  thelowerpreponderancestandardtoalloftheaggravatingfactors,theevidence  wasinsufficient. ! Astothefindingsonthemitigatingfactors,challengedbelowinsub #, argumentC,thoseremainsubjecttoproofbyapreponderanceoftheevidence. %@!   ,  &   B.0  GeneralSentencingBackground   (T#"(#(#  ****'(