WPC% ZVqqՌp !(VHE*6"ŕ,vE7ljj':h;n|t@=Y 5+TF%YGjRiҶ>I.-+keJޜ,hJZ@V,^MqiT=aQA4/.r_ 7m:Mn Fzfp[xc&IRt!2RKL>Kvlx26 7)F8sG^/2ς^g9X.v-1y8$Sl-ڸ.WGћz| SU0$]'CT.(8MՅ am,ϐ@XZTgex*g1 '13EEY ߶zQ WJBW;A*ne ,0CIRcdь:njh7ă3Z#U_N % 0( U@1 U:q U9@ ^ w  4 % 4 m6 vM 0l 0D/~sUNUN?N U>U> 0U== 0 0u 0: 0 0 0e 0 0 0Z 0 0 0 0P 0 0 03 0 0U 0 0 0 0?! 0! 0" 0# 0# 0<5$5$5$5$q$q$q$$$$$$$ 0A$$;$s%%%%%%%%%%%%% B%\\NTFDAP\Central Office,,,,0(A Z6Times New Roman Regular($(9 Z(Times New Roman <6X9`("Courier 10cpi(9 Z(Times New Roman 4G2    uZm,:i+003|xU l $    1    _/Y vYInthe_ARBM_,appellantdiscussedpotentialremediesatlengthandurgedthis  Courttoeitherreadarequirementforajurydeterminationofaggravatingfactorsintothe  statuteorsevertheprovisionsforimposinganyuppertermfromthestatutes.Appellant  willnotreiteratealloftheargumentshere,butcontinuestoassertthemandrestatesthem  briefly.((3$ !      0  (#$  0     1 ' SUZAN0SUZAN .   (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular   H   %\  `&Times New Roman\  `&Times New Roman*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *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   *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 ) ` (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   <:Default Para         (Vm$0   page page chapter volume footnote endnote        d !  _e*X` pX*Y vY8XXdd8@INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA, p )   `     p )   ` PlaintiffandRespondent,  0 p )_Crim_.No.S125677 p(#p(#  `     p )   Ѐv. `  0  0p(#(#) @  @ (CourtofAppealNo.B166312) p(#p(#  `  0  0p(#(#)(_Sup.Ct.No_.PA040926) p(#p(#  `     p )   SHAWN_TOWNE_ 0   p ) (#(#  `     p )    ` DefendantandAppellant.   p )   _____________________________________________)   @* *  APPELLANTSSUPPLEMENTAL  @ BRIEF ONTHEMERITS #Y v# vY# v vc# v vԈ  @* `    JONATHANB.STEINER   `    ExecutiveDirector   `    _SUZAN_ԀE._HIER_   `    StaffAttorney   `    (StateBarNo.90470)    `    CALIFORNIAAPPELLATEPROJECT "  `    520S.GrandAvenue,4thFloor #  `    LosAngeles,California90071 $   `    Telephone:(213)2430300 %!!  `    AttorneysforAppellant  '## 8 vdXXd8 eOa@hOaCOaHOaLOaMOa @INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA   `     p THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA, p )   `     p )    ` PlaintiffandRespondent,  0 p )_Crim_.No.S125677 p(#p(#  `     p )   Ѐv. `  0  0p(#(#) @  @ (CourtofAppealNo.B166312) p(#p(#  `  0  0p(#(#)(_Sup.Ct.No_.PA040926) p(#p(#  `     p )   SHAWN_TOWNE_ 0   p ) (#(#  `     p )    ` DefendantandAppellant.   p )   ____________________________________________0 p )p(#p(# %  @* *   APPELLANTSSUPPLEMENTAL  @!BRIEF#Y v # vY# v vN# v vԀONTHEMERITS   #Y vL##YY#Ԉ     ARGUMENT    ?  I.     8 ` THEDECISIONINUNITEDSTATESV.BOOKER  CONFIRMSTHATTHEPROVISIONSFOR  IMPOSINGTHEUPPERTERMINCALIFORNIA   VIOLATETHEFEDERALCONSTITUTION  }!` -` -    6eXXpX` X6  InUnitedStatesv.Booker(2005)543U.S.___[2005LEXIS628;2005Daily # Journal_D.A.R._Ԁ410] vY v v,theCourtaddressedwhethertheFederalSentencingGuidelines % ! [Guidelines]operatedtoviolatetheSixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrial.TheCourt, '"# following_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington# v v##Y v#(2004)540U.S.___[159_L.Ed_.2d403,415416;124 )$% _S.Ct_.2531]YY vYԀand#Y v#_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,474[147_L.Ed_.2d435;120 +&'  e      _S.Ct.2348] vY,heldthattheydid.Insodoing,theCourtreaffirmeditspreviousstatements  andclarifiedthatneitherlabels,norpromulgatingauthorities,norstatutorysourcesofthe  particularlawinquestionmattertotheanalysis.Rather,iffactsarenecessarybylawto  supportasentencegreaterthanthatotherwiseauthorizedbythefactsestablishedbythe   guiltypleaorjuryverdict,theymustbeadmittedbythedefendantorprovedtoajury   beyondareasonabledoubt.(UnitedStatesv.Booker,supra,543U.S.atp.___[2005   DailyJournalD.A.R.atpp.413417].)     InthecaseoftheGuidelines,theywerepromulgatedbyafederalsentencing  commissionatthedirectionofCongressratherthanbyCongressitselfand,whilecalled  Guidelines,theyaremorethanmeresuggestionsandcreateddifferingsentencingranges  baseduponjudicialfindingsoffact.Moreover,thefederalsentencingstatutemandated  thattheybefollowedbythesentencingcourts.TheCourtheldthat,becausethese  Guidelinesweremandatoryanddirectedthesentencingcourttoimposeasentenceina  specificrangethatwasdetermined,notbytheverdictalone,butbaseduponadditional  factsfoundbythesentencingjudgebyapreponderanceoftheevidence,theywere   unconstitutional.(Id.,atp.___[Id.,atpp.413417].) "   ThisholdinginBookermakesclearthattheprovisioninPenalCodesection1170 $  subdivision(b)thatrequiresthesentencingcourttoimposethemidtermunlessitfinds &"" additionalfactsinaggravationmakesthemidtermthemaximumsentencepermittedbythe ($$ verdictforpurposesofBlakelyanalysis.Itmattersnotthatthethreepotentialtermsare *&& outlinedinthestatutesdirectlyrelatedtothecrime,thatthemandateforthemiddletermis ,(( Oa    foundinaseparatestatute,orthatthehighersentenceiscalledtheupperterminsteadof  anupwarddepartureoranenhancement.(SeeIbid.;seealsoJonesv.UnitedStates(1999)  526U.S.227,232,244,251.)Thefactremainsthatwithoutadditionalfindingsof  aggravatingfactorsthatcannotbebasedonanythingfoundbythejuryinreachingits   verdictonthecrimeoranyimposedenhancement,thesentencingcourtinCaliforniamust   imposethemiddleterm.(SeePen.Code,# v v# v vԀ1170,subd.(b);# v v"# v vPeoplev.# v vO###Y vW#ԀLobaugh(1987)188   Cal.App.3d780,785YY vY.)Themiddleterm,then,is themaximumauthorizedbythefacts   establishedbytheverdict.(UnitedStatesv.Booker,supra,543U.S.atp.___[2005  DailyJournalD.A.R.atp.417].)    Bookerfurthermakesclearthatitisunconstitutionaltoletthesentencingcourt  findtheaggravatingfactorsbyamerepreponderanceoftheevidence.(Id.,atp.___[Id.,  atp.413417].) IfaStatemakesanincreaseinadefendantsauthorizedpunishment  contingentonthefindingofafact,thatfact!nomatterhowtheStatelabelsit!mustbe  foundbyajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.(# v v$##Y v $#Ringv.Arizona(2002)536U.S.584,602  [153L.Ed.2d556,122S.Ct.2428];seealsoYY vYUnitedStatesv.Booker,supra,543U.S.atp.   ___[2005DailyJournalD.A.R.atp.# v v(##Y v/(#,413YY vY.)WhiletheCourtcontinuedtoacknowledge, " asithadinApprendi,thatsentencingcourtscanmakecertainfactualfindingsin $  exercisingsentencingdiscretion,theymustbemadeinthecontextofselectingasentence &"" withinthealreadyauthorizedrange.(Id.,at___[Id.,at414];seealso# v v )##Y v*)#Williamsv.New ($$ York(1949)337U.S.241,246252[constitutionallypermissibletoallowthejudgeto *&& engageinfactfindingrelatedtodeterminingwhethertofollowthejurys  recommendationtoreducetheotherwisemandatorydeathsentence]YY vY;#Y v^,#Blakelyv.  Washington,supra,540U.S.atp.___ vY[159L.Ed.2dat414# v v?,# v v,124S.Ct.at# v vH-##Y v,#Ԁp.,2538];YY vYHarris  v.UnitedStates(2002)536U.S.545# v v-##Y v-#,YY vY560# v v.##Y v.#Ԁ[allowingthejudgetofindfactsthatestablished   amandatoryminimumsentencewasconstitutionalastheresultingsentencewasYY vY a   sentencethejudgecouldhaveimposedabsentthefinding.# v v/##Y v/#]YY vY.)Insuchacontext,the   aggravatingfactorsarenotbeingusedto swellthepenaltyabovewhatthelawhas   provided,but# v v0# v v areinterposedmerelytocheckthejudicialdiscretionintheexerciseofthe  permittedmercy.(Id.,atp.561562[internalcitationomitted].)# v v1# v vԀBecauseinCalifornia  themiddletermismandatorywithoutadditionalfindingsoffact,thejudicialfindingof  aggravatingfactorsisbeingusedto swellthepenalty,notinformanexerciseofmercy.  Accordingly,PenalCodesection1170subdivision(b)sprovisionforimpositionofthe  uppertermbaseduponjudicialfactfindingisunconstitutional.   @h @ @     II.   # v v2##Y v0#  8  ASSUMINGTHATPENALCODESECTION1170SUBDIVISION  (B)CANBESAVEDBYREFORMATIONORSEVERANCE,THE  REMEDYMUSTPRESERVETHELEGISLATIVEGOALTO  PROMOTEUNIFORMSENTENCINGBYGRANTINGONLY   LIMITEDDISCRETIONTOTHESENTENCINGJUDGE  4     N58 @ YY vY     ThequestionremainswhatremedythisCourtshouldadopttorectifythe   unconstitutionalprocedure.InBooker,theCourtoptedtoseverandexcisetheprovision   thatmadetheGuidelinesmandatory.(Id.,atp.___[Id.,atp.417423].)Itdidsobased   uponthefederalrulesofstatutoryconstructionandreformationandtheconclusionthatthe   Congresswouldhavepreferredthisremedyoverallothers.(Ibid.)Whatevermaybethe  casewithrespecttothefederalsystem,asimilarremedywouldbeinappropriatein  California.    AsappellantarguedintheAppellantsReplyBriefontheMerits(ARBM) #  1      ,this  Courtshouldundertaketoreformthestatuteorseverprovisionsonly# v v7##Y v$7#inamannerthatwill  satisfyascloselyaspossibletheprimarylegislativegoalsbehindthestatute.(SeeKoppv.  FairPol.PracticesCom.(1995)11Cal.4th607,660661.)YY vYHere,theprimarygoalis# v vX<##Y vw<#Ԁto   promoteuniformityinthesentencingofoffenderscommittingthesameoffense.(Pen. " Code, vY#Y v|=#Ԁ1170subd.(a)(1);Peoplev.Simon(1983)144Cal.App.3d761,765;Parnas& $  Salerno,TheInfluenceBehind,SubstanceandImpactoftheNewDeterminateSentencing &!" Oa    LawinCalifornia(1978)11U.C.DavisL.Rev.29,3132,3940.)YYԀAkeycomponentof  theplantopromotesuchuniformitywasto vYgrantonlyverylimited,wellregulated  discretiontothesentencingcourt.# v v?# v v(Pen.Code,# v v3@# v vԀ1170,subd.(a)(1)# v v@# v v;# v v@##Y v?#Peoplev.Martin  (1986)42Cal.3d437,442443YY vYԀ[# v vA##Y vA# themovementtopromoteuniformityinsentencing...   wasinnosmallpartamovementtodiminishjudicialdiscretion.(Emphasisadded.)YY vY])     Thisdesiretorestrictjudicialdiscretionisdemonstratedbythefactthatinsteadof   asentencingrangeforthelower,middleandupperterm,theLegislaturegaveonlyasingle   fixedtermforeach.Italsorequiredthatthecourtconsidercertainaggravatingfactorslaid  outinthePenalCode(# v vB##Y vB#Pen.Code, vY#Y vD#1170.7,1170.71,1170.72;1170.73,1170.74,  1170.75,1170.76,1170.78,1170.8,1170.81,1170.82,1170.84,1170.85,1170.86,  1170.89),providedthatthecourtotherwisefollowtherulesoftheJudicialCouncil,and  requiredthatthecourtidentifythefactorsitwasusingontherecord.(Pen.Code, vY1170,  subd.(b).) v vԀAdditionally,theLegislaturecreatedmanysentenceenhancementsthathadto  betriedtothejuryandfoundbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thus,unlikethefederal  government,theCaliforniaLegislaturedidnotleavefindingsonsuchthingsasgreat   taking,weaponuseorevenrecidivismuptothetrialjudgealone.(See# v vF##Y vF#Pen.Code, vY#Y vH# " 666.5,1025,1170.1,subd.(e);12022,12022.6.)YY vYԀ $    GiventheLegislaturescleardesiretostrictlylimitjudicialdiscretion,itwouldbe &"" whollyinappropriateforthisCourttoremedytheconstitutionalproblembyseveringthe ($$ limitationonjudicialpowerandgivingthesentencingcourtunfettereddiscretionto *&& COa C C  imposetheuppertermthattheLegislaturehasnotdeterminedtobetheappropriate  sentenceinmostcases.(# v vGI##Y vfI#Koppv.FairPol.PracticesCom.,supra,11Cal.4thatp.,660  661YY vY,670671.)Thereisnothingunconstitutionalinthelimitationitself.And,presumably,  eveniftheLegislatureweretoopttogivethecourtunlimiteddiscretionastoanyofthe   termsdescribed,itmayreconsiderwhethertheupperendoftherangeisreallyappropriate   inmostinstances.ThisisalegislativedeterminationthatthisCourtshouldnotundertake.   (See# v v\L# v v#Y v{L#Metromediav.SanDiego(1982)#YYN#Ԁ32Cal.3d180,187;YYArpv.Workers'Compensation   AppealsBoard(1977)#YY$O#Ԁ19Cal.3d395,409411.)YY vY    Additionally,theLegislaturesdecisiontorequireajuryfindingformost  enhancementsdemonstratesitsreadinesstosubmitaggravatingcircumstancestothejury.  Thus,asappellantpositedintheARBM,itmaybethatthisCourtcouldreformthestatute  toaddajurytrialrequirementforallaggravatingfactors.(ARBM2526)Ontheother  hand,because# v vO##Y vO#thedeterminationofwhethertochangethesentencingschemeorthe  proceduresatacriminaltrialandhowtodosoisproperlyalegislativefunction,this  Courtshouldnotundertakethis wholesalerewritingofthestatute.(CityofCarmelby   theSeav.Young(1970)2Cal.3d259,272;seealsoYY vYMetromediav.SanDiego,supra,32 " Cal.3datp.187;# v vS# v vArpv.Workers'CompensationAppealsBoard,supra,# v vQT# v vԀ19Cal.3datpp., $  409411;AmericanAcademyofPediatricsv.Lungren(1997)16Cal.4th307,#Y vS#Ԁ344.) &""   ThisCourtshouldinstead,assuggestedintheARBM,severtheonlyaspectofthe ($$ statutethatisunconstitutional,theprovisionsconferringuponthesentencingjudgethe *&& HOa  H H  powertoimposetheuppertermbasedonfactualfindingsmadebythejudgealoneonthe  basisofapreponderanceoftheevidence.Thissolutionkeepsthebasicsentencing  schemeintactwithminimaldisturbance,whiletheLegislatureconsiderswhatother  changesitmaywanttomakeinthesystemthatwouldbothserveitspurposesandcomply   withtheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates.(ARBM2630)     Additionally,asevenrespondentrecognizes,ifthisCourtweretoadopt   respondentssuggestionofconstruingtheprovisionmandatingthemidtermoutofthe   statutetogivethesentencingcourtunfettereddiscretiontoimposetheupperterm,itcould  onlyapplysucharemedyprospectively.(See#YYT#YY vYBouiev.CityofColumbia(1964)378U.S.  347,352354# v vTZ# v v#Y vsZ#;AnswerBriefontheMeritsp.50[requestingprospectiveapplicationofthe  interpretation].)Federaldueprocessprohibitstheretroactiveapplicationofajudicial  enlargementofacriminalstatuteinamannerthatwouldoperatelikeanexpostfactolaw.  (#YY[#YY vYBouiev.CityofColumbia(1964)378U.S.atpp.,352354# v v\# v v#Y v\#.) Anexpostfactolawhas  beendefinedby[theUnitedStatesSupreme]Courtasone...thataggravatesacrime,or  makesitgreaterthanitwaswhenitwascommitted.[Citation]Ifastatelegislatureis   barredbytheExPostFactoClausefrompassingsuchalaw,itmustfollowthataState " SupremeCourtisbarredbytheDueProcessClausefromachievingpreciselythesame $  resultbyjudicialconstruction.(Id.,atp.353354.)ThisCourthasalsoheldthatan &"" unforeseeableexpansionofcriminalliabilitybaseduponjudicialinterpretationcannotbe ($$ appliedretroactively.(Peoplev.Morante(1999)20Cal.4th403,430432;#YYI]#YY vYPeoplev.King *&& LOa  L L  (1993)5Cal.4th59,7980;# v v`# v v#Y v`#Ԁ#YYa#YY vYseealso,e.g.,# v v!b# v vPeoplev.# v vb# v vBlakeley(2000)23# v vb# v vCal.4th82,91;  Peoplev.# v v9c# v vԀMartinez(1999)20# v vc# v vCal.4th# v vd# v vԀ225,238241;# v vMd# v vPeoplev.# v vd# v vԀDavis(1994)7# v vd# v vCal.4th797,  811812;# v vGe# v vPeoplev.Escobar(1992)3Cal.4th740,752.# v ve# v v)  # v v'f##Y v@b#YY vY  Clearly,removingthemandatethatthemiddletermbeimposedunlessaggravating   factorswerefoundandgivingthesentencingcourtdiscretiontoimposetheupperterm   uponafindingofguiltalonewithoutfindingfactorsinaggravationwouldincreasethe   penaltybeyondthatineffectatthetimeappellantcommittedhiscrime.Suchanincrease   insentencewouldviolateexpostfactoprovisions.(SeePeoplev.King,supra,5Cal.4that  p.,7980;# v vf# v vԀCollinsv.Youngblood(1990)497U.S.37,42[111L.Ed.2d30,3839,110S.Ct.  2715];Peoplev.Farley(1996)45Cal.App.4th1697,1707.)Moreover,theaggravating  factorsare elementalinthattheuppertermcannotbeimposedwithoutthem.(See  # v v@i# v v#Y vf#Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,486,490494[147L.Ed.2d435;120S.Ct.  2348]#YYj#.) vY v vԀThus,removingthemis analogoustoexpanding[appellants]criminalliability..  .byeliminatingarequiredelementoftheoffenseandthuswouldviolateexpostfactoif  suchachangewasunforeseeable.(See# v vk# v v#Y vk#Peoplev.Morante(1999)20Cal.4th403,430   432.)GiventhatPenalCodesection1170subdivision(b)hasfornearly30years " mandatedthemiddletermunlesstherewerefindingsofadditionalfactors,removingthat $  mandatewouldbeunforeseeable.Accordingly,sucharemedywouldhavetobeapplied &"" prospectivelyonlyandcouldnotbeappliedtoappellant. ($$   *&& MOa  M M     CONCLUSION  o   o  Forthemostpart,Californiassentencingschemerequiresfactsthatincreasea  sentencebetriedtoajuryandfoundbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thus,theBlakelylineof  casesmayhavelimitedimpactonCalifornia.But,incertainlimitedinstances,the   Legislaturehasunconstitutionallyprovidedthatthesentencingcourtmayincreasea   sentencebeyondthatpermittedbytheverdictaloneuponthefindingofadditionalfactsby   amerepreponderanceoftheevidence.Theimpositionoftheuppertermisonesuch   instance.Asthisdelegationoffactfindingauthoritytothejudgeinsteadofthejury  violatestheSixthandFourteenthAmendmentsofthefederalconstitution,thisprovision  cannotstand.( vYUnitedStatesv.Booker,supra,543U.S.atp.___[2005DailyJournal  D.A.R.atpp.,413417]#Y vas#;#YYm#Blakelyv.Washington,supra,540U.S.atp.___YY vY[159L.Ed.2d  at413414# v vt# v v,124S.Ct.at2537]# v vu##Y vt#.)YY  Dated:February2,20050  RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTED(#(#    ` 0 0 (# (#CALIFORNIAAPPELLATEPROJECT (#(#    `    `    JonathanB.Steiner "    `    ExecutiveDirector #  vY   `    _______________________________ %!!    `       `    SuzanE.Hier '##    `    StaffAttorney ($$    `    AttorneysforAppellant# v vu##Y viw#  )%%  @++" TABLEOFCONTENTS    D(#Page(s)  APPELLANTSSUPPLEMENTAL  BRIEFONTHEMERITS""J(#.{ { 1  ARGUMENT""J(#.= = 1     I.0 ` THEDECISIONINUNITEDSTATESV.BOOKERCONFIRMSTHAT   THEPROVISIONSFORIMPOSINGTHEUPPERTERMIN   CALIFORNIAVIOLATETHEFEDERALCONSTITUTION#""J(#.?` (#` (##1     II.0 ` ASSUMINGTHATPENALCODESECTION1170 ` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#SUBDIVISION(B)CANBESAVEDBYREFORMATIONOR   SEVERANCE,THEREMEDYMUSTPRESERVETHELEGISLATIVE  GOALTOPROMOTEUNIFORMSENTENCINGBYGRANTING  ONLYLIMITEDDISCRETIONTOTHESENTENCINGJUDGE#""J(#.z z C` (#` (##5  CONCLUSIONL"L"I(#. 10     @  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES    D(#Page(s)    K+ ` hp x eXXXK  X' XYFEDERALCASES      2%#X#Y XX'~#Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)   X 2%#2%#530U.S.466l"l"I".A A 1    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XApprendiv.NewJersey(2000)    X 2%#2%#530U.S.466l"l"I".A A 9    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XBlakelyv.Washington(2004)    X 2%#2%#540U.S.___[159L.Ed.2d403]!!F".,1,4    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XBouiev.CityofColumbia(1964)    X 2%#2%#378U.S.347l"l"I".A A 8    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XBouiev.CityofColumbia(1964)   X 2%#2%#378U.S.352354l"l"I". 8   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XCollinsv.Youngblood(1990)   X 2%#2%#497U.S.37l"l"I". 9   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XHarrisv.UnitedStates(2002)   X 2%#2%#536U.S.545l"l"I".A A 4   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XJonesv.UnitedStates(1999)   X 2%#2%#526U.S.227l"l"I".A A 3   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XRingv.Arizona(2002)    X 2%#2%#536U.S.584l"l"I".A A 3 !  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv.Booker(2005) # ! ee"2%#!  543U.S.___[2005LEXIS628;2005DailyJournalD.A.R.410]pp?".JJK1,2,3,10 $  Williamsv.NewYork(1949) &!" $ ee ee"$  337U.S.241""J(#. @  D .| | 3 '"# @* +&' @$ STATECASES   ! 2%#ee !AmericanAcademyofPediatricsv.Lungren(1997)   X 2%#2%#16Cal.4th307""J(#. @l"l"I". 7   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XArpv.Workers'CompensationAppealsBoard(1977)    X 2%#2%#19Cal.3d395""J(#. @l"l"I". 7    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XCityofCarmelbytheSeav.Young(1970)    X 2%#2%#2Cal.3d259""J(#.! ! @l"l"I".! ! 7    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XKoppv.FairPol.PracticesCom.(1995)    X 2%#2%#11Cal.4th607!!G(#. @!!F". 5,7    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XMetromediav.SanDiego(1982)   X 2%#2%#32Cal.3d180""J(#. @l"l"I". 7   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Blakeley(2000)   X 2%#2%#23Cal.4th82""J(#.] ] @l"l"I".] ] 9   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Davis(1994)   X 2%#2%#7Cal.4th797l"l"I".] ] 9   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Escobar(1992)   X 2%#2%#3Cal.4th740""J(#.] ] @l"l"I".] ] 9   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Farley(1996)   X 2%#2%#45Cal.App.4th1697""J(#. !@l"l"I". !9   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.King(1993) !  X 2%#2%#5Cal.4th59!!F". 8,9 "  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Lobaugh(1987) $   X 2%#2%#188Cal.App.3d780""J(#. @l"l"I". 3 %!!  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Martin(1986) '##  X 2%#2%#42Cal.3d437""J(#. @l"l"I". 6 ($$  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Martinez(1999) *&&  X 2%#2%#20Cal.4th225""J(#. @l"l"I". 9 +''  X 2%#2%#Peoplev.Morante(1999)   X 2%#2%#20Cal.4th403!!G(#. @!!F". 8,9   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Simon(1983)   X 2%#2%#144Cal.App.3d761""J(#. @l"l"I". 5   X?+ ` hp x 2%#?  STATESTATUTES       2%#X PenalCodesections:    ! ee"2%#!  1170!!G(#.@!!F".4,5     666.5""J(#.6     1025""J(#.6    1170RR>(#.2,3,5,6,9    1170.1.""J(#. @l"l"I". 6  B+ ` hp x ee"B! ee"X!  1170.7""J(#.d d 6    1170.71""J(#. 6    1170.72""J(#. @l"l"I". 6