WPC) u2 7nk]UfZ= ![q}"sd%v]Ӆw׶Au! fl9o 7wwA]m1%6<:duZ#U>N % 0( U@1 U@q U> ^ w  4 ) ' 8 _ 0la 0D m((k9! 0,A!!  *"*"*"*"*"*"*"5"5"r#y(y(y((((((((((((((((((((((( B(HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL,,,,0(A Z6Times New Roman Regular($(9 Z(Times New Roman (k9 Z(Times New Roman \  `&Times New Roman$\6    `{4:i+003|x  $    1    _InAppellantsReplyBriefontheMerits,appellantsetforthatlengththevarious  dissentingandconcurringopinionsauthoredbybothJusticeScaliaandJusticeThomas  explainingtheflawsinthe_Almendarez_ԄTorresholding.(_ARBM_Ԁ2023)Appellant  additionallypointedouttherethattheholdingof_Almendarez_ԄTorresreliedonthe  distinctionbetween sentencingfactorsand elementsofthecrimethathasnowbeen  rejectedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.(`_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.   atpp.478,484,494;_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington(2004)540U.S.296[159L.Ed.#Q`#403`Q,415   416#Q`!#`Qv`;124_S.Ct_.#Nv##QN#2531NQvN,25382540];seealsoWashingtonv._Recuenco_,supra,548U.S.___   [126_S.Ct_.atp.2552,165_L.Ed_.2datp.475]#NvT#vN#`v5#v`.)#Nv##QN#Ԁ(_ARBM_Ԁ2223)Appellantalsonotedthat   _Almendarez_ԄTorresreliedonQQNQWaltonv.Arizona(1990)497U.S.639,647649[111L.   Ed.2d511,110S.Ct.3047]#NN##QN#Ԁtosupportitsreasoning,butWaltonwasoverruledinlightof   _Apprendi_inRingv.Arizona(2002)536U.S.584,588589[153_L.Ed_.2d556,122_S.Ct_.   2428].(_ARBM_Ԁ23)((3$ !      0  (#$  0  U } $    3    _InMcGee,thisCourtinfootnotesixappearstohavemisreadthisquotefrom  _Apprendi_.Footnotesixdirectlyfollowstheabovequotefrom_Apprendi_andassertsthat  >  likethepetitionerin_Almendarez_ԄTorres,defendanthereadmittedhisinvolvementinthe  Nevadacrimespursuanttopleaagreementsenteredintoshortlyafterhecommitted  thoseoffenses.Thepleaswereenteredpursuanttosafeguardsoftheirown.[citing  _Apprendi_](Peoplev.McGee,supra,38Cal.4thatp.698,fn.6[emphasisadded].This  statementsuggeststhatthisCourtconsideredthereferencein_Apprendi_to_Almendarez_Ԅ  Torresadmissionstothepriorstohaverelatedtohispleatothematthetimetheywere   committed.Infact,thisreferstohisadmissiontothemaspriorsinthelaterproceeding.   Thus,unlikethedefendantinMcGee,whodemandedajurytrialonhispriors(id.atp.   688),_Almendarez_ԄTorresraisedneitherhisrighttoajurytrialnorproofbeyonda   reasonabledoubtastothepriorsinthesubsequentprosecution.        $    5    _AppellanthasarguedextensivelyintheReplyBriefontheMeritsandabovethat  thisCourtshouldnotrelyonthe_Almendarez_ԄTorresexceptionasitisconstitutionally  suspect.Appellantcontinuestomakethatargument,butassumestheexceptionisviable  forpurposesofdiscussionhere.Additionally,asarguedabove,the_Almendarez_ԄTorres  exceptionislimitedtothefactofthepriorconvictionaloneanddoesnotcoverall  aspectsofthe defendantscriminalhistory. a $    7    _IfthereweresomefactorsthatthisCourtcouldconcludethejurywouldhave  foundunderthe_Neder_analysis,thesecondaspectoftheprejudiceassessmentwould  includetheminthecalculus. $    6    _Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,34[87S.Ct.824,17L.Ed.2d705](Vm$0   4 $    2    _Thus,_Almendarez_ԄTorres,likeShepard,wasastatutoryconstructioncase. h $    4    _`Eventhefactofapriorconvictionmaybesubjecttodispute.(SeePeoplev.  _Covino_(1980)100Cal.App.3d660,671[probationreporthadlistedapriorconviction  foracrimeofwhichthedefendanthadbeenfoundnotguiltyononecountandallother  countsweredismissedpursuanttoawritofhabeascorpus];Peoplev.Boyd(1979)24  Cal.3d285[defendantcouldnotbeconvictedofbeinganexfeloninpossessionofa  gunwherepriorfelonyhadbeendecriminalized];Peoplev.Jenkins(1983)142Cal.App.   3d222,227,fn.4[sentencingcourtimproperlyreliedonaconvictionforanoffensethat   hadbeendecriminalized].)Thus,eventhefactofthepriorconvictioncouldbe   characterizedasa disputedfactthatcannotbedeemedtobeconclusivelyprovedbya   judicialrecord.Forthisreasonaswell,the_Almendarez_ԄTorresexceptionappears   dubiousinlightof_Apprendi_anditsprogeny.#Q`S#                d !  `v`@INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA, p )     `     h      p )    PlaintiffandRespondent,0 h 0h(#h(#  0p(#(#)Crim.No.S125677 p(#p(#    `     h      p )   Ѐv. `  0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#)(CourtofAppealNo.B166312) p(#p(#    ` 0 h 0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#)(Sup.Ct.No.PA040926) p(#p(#    `     h      p )   SHAWNTOWNE 0   h 0(#(#0(#(#0p(#(#) p(#p(#    `     h      p )     DefendantandAppellant. h   0  0p(#(#) p(#p(# ____________________________________________)   @P P   APPELLANTSSUPPLEMENTAL  @BRIEF ONTHEMERITSRE:CUNNINGHAMV.CALIFORNIA #`v:#v`Ԉ  @*  BԈ   `     h   JONATHANB.STEINER     `     h   ExecutiveDirector     `     h   SUZANE.HIER     `     h   StaffAttorney     `     h   (StateBarNo.90470)      `     h   CALIFORNIAAPPELLATEPROJECT "    `     h   520S.GrandAvenue,4thFloor #    `     h   LosAngeles,California90071 $     `     h   Telephone:(213)2430300 %!!    `     h   AttorneysforAppellant  '## 8Ndd8 eOa@hOaCOaHOaLOaMOa #`v#v`@INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA, p )     `     h      p )    PlaintiffandRespondent,0 h 0h(#h(#  0p(#(#)Crim.No.S125677 p(#p(#    `     h      p )   Ѐv. `  0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#)(CourtofAppealNo.B166312) p(#p(#    ` 0 h 0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#)(Sup.Ct.No.PA040926) p(#p(#    `     h      p )   SHAWNTOWNE 0   h 0(#(#0(#(#0p(#(#) p(#p(#    `     h      p )     DefendantandAppellant. h   0  0p(#(#) p(#p(# ____________________________________________)   @P P  APPELLANTSSUPPLEMENTAL  @BRIEF ONTHEMERITSRE:CUNNINGHAMV.CALIFORNIA #`v #v`Ԉ  #`v#v`   ARGUMENT          @  INTRODUCTION  w  _  OnFebruary7,2007,thisCourtdirectedthepartiestofilesupplementalbriefing  ontheeffectofCunninghamv.Californiaonanyissuespresentedinthiscase.This  Courtfurtherrequestedbriefingontwospecificquestions.Appellantwillfirstaddress ! thegeneralimpactofCunninghamontheimpositionoftheuppertermhere,includingthe # questionofwhetherrelianceonthefactsofacquittedcountsviolateddoublejeopardy. % ! Thereafter,appellantwilladdressthetwospecificquestionsasked.Finally,appellantwill '"# addressthemoregeneralquestionsofprejudiceandremedy. )$%   +&'  e     I.   8  THEDECISIONINCUNNINGHAMV.CALIFORNIACONFIRMS  THATTHEPROVISIONSFORIMPOSINGTHEUPPERTERMIN  CALIFORNIAVIOLATETHEFEDERALCONSTITUTIONAND  THAT#`v#v`THETRIALCOURTDIDVIOLATEAPPELLANTS   CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSTOAJURYTRIALANDPROOF   BEYONDAREASONABLEDOUBTASWELLASHISRIGHT   AGAINSTDOUBLEJEOPARDYBYUSINGACQUITTEDCOUNTS   TOIMPOSETHEUPPERTERM  #`vv#v`      #`v#v`V  InCunninghamv.California(2007)549U.S.___[#`vT#v`127S.Ct.856#`v#v`;166L.Ed.2d   856]theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatCaliforniassentencingproceduresthat   permitatrialcourttoimposeanuppertermaftermakingitsownfindingsoffact,which  findingsaremadebyapreponderanceoftheevidence,violatetheSixthandFourteenth  Amendmentsofthefederalconstitution.(Id.atp.___[127S.Ct.atpp.873877.)The  trialcourthereimposedtheuppertermbasedinlargepartuponitsfindingsthatappellant  hadunlawfullyterrifiedthevictimbydoingthethingsappellantwasallegedtohavedone  inthiscase.(4RT#`v?#v`24152418)#`vV#v`ԀThejury,however,hadacquittedappellantofdoingany  oftheviolentactsallegedandconvictedhimonlyofunlawfullytakingthevictimscar   afterthevictimhadleft.(#`v#v`CT178187;4RT12111217#`v #v`)Nothinginthetakingofthecar " afterthevictimwasnolongerpresentcouldpossiblyhavecausedhimtobeterrifiedor $  couldbedeemedtobeaggravatinginanyfashion.Thus,thetrialcourtherewasrelying &!" entirelyonitsownfindings,whichwerecontrarytothefindingsofthejury,thatappellant (#$ hadcommittedtheviolentactsallegedagainsthiminthecountsofwhichhehadbeen *%& acquitted.Insodoing,thecourtviolatedappellantssfederalconstitutionalrights. ,'( Oa    (Cunninghamv.California,supra,549U.S.atp.___[#`v!#v`127S.Ct.atpp.873877]#`vD$#v`.)    Moreover,thetrialcourtsrelianceonthefactsoftheacquittedcountsviolatedthe  stateandfederalproscriptionagainstdoublejeopardy.(SeePeoplev.Seel(2004)34  Cal.4th535,550.)#`v$#v`UnderBlakelyandApprendi,anyfactthatincreasesapenaltyfora   crimeaboveastatutorymaximummustbefoundbyajuryandprovedbeyonda   reasonabledoubtbecauseitisinessencean elementofthegreateroffenseofthecrime    simpliciterplusthefactorthataggravatesit.(SeeApprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530   U.S.466,#`v%#v`494#`v'#v`[147L.Ed.2d435;120S.Ct.2348]#`v>(#v`;AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates  (1998)523U.S.224,249[140L.Ed.2d350,118S.Ct.1219]#`v(#v`Ԁ(dis.opn.ofScalia,J.);see  alsoWashingtonv.Recuenco(2006)548U.S.___[126S.Ct.2546,2552,165L.Ed.2d  466,475].)InSeel,thisCourtrecognizedthatwheretheApprendiruleapplied,sodid  theDoubleJeopardyClause.(See#`v\)#v`Peoplev.Seel,supra,34Cal.4thatp.550.)In  Cunningham,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthattheruleofApprendiappliesto  thefindingofaggravatingfactorsinCalifornia.(Cunninghamv.California,supra,549  U.S.atp.___[#`v*#v`127S.Ct.atpp.873877]#`vn,#v`#Nv#vN.)Thus,#`v,#v`Ԁajuryacquittalofthosefactorsdoes   triggerdoublejeopardyprotections.(#`vV-#v`Peoplev.Seel,supra,34Cal.4thatp.550#`v-#v`;seealso#`vs.#v` " Mongev.California(1998)524U.S.721,737741#`v.#v`[141L.Ed.2d615,118S.Ct.2246]#`vM/#v` $  (dis.opn.ofScalia,J.).)#`v/#v` &""   ($$    II.    8  CUNNINGHAMV.CALIFORNIAANDALMENDAREZTORRESV.  UNITEDSTATESDONOTPERMITTHETRIALJUDGETO  SENTENCEADEFENDANTTOTHEUPPERTERMBASEDUPON  THENUMEROUSRECIDIVISTFACTORSLISTEDIN   CALIFORNIARULESOFCOURT,RULE4.421,SUBDIVISION   (B)(2)TO(B)(5)       |0  ThefirstquestionpresentedbythisCourtsorderofFebruary7,2007was:    8  #`v$0#v`DoCunninghamv.California,supra,andAlmendarezTorresv.United   States(1998)523U.S.224,239247[140L.Ed.2d350,118S.Ct.1219],   permitthetrialjudgetosentencedefendanttotheuppertermbasedonany   orallofthefollowingaggravatingfactors,withoutsubmittingthemtoa   jury:thedefendant'spriorconvictionsasanadultarenumerousandof  increasingseriousness;thedefendanthasservedapriorprisonterm;the  defendantwasonparolewhenthecrimewascommitted;thedefendant's  priorperformanceonprobationorparolewasunsatisfactory(California  RulesofCourt,Rule4.421,subds.(b)(2)(b)(5))?#`v3#v`     Theydonot.AlthoughCunninghamreiteratedtheexceptionfromtheApprendi  ruleforthe factofapriorconvictionwhichwaspremisedonAlmendarezTorres,itis  clearfromApprendiandallpostApprendicases,thattheexceptionofAlmendarez  Torresmaynolongerbeviableandisattheveryleastseverelylimited.Thelimitations  ontheexceptionoperatetoexcludefromitspurviewthevariousrecidivistfactors ! outlinedinrule4.421subdivision(b). #   InApprendi,theCourtstatedthat itisarguablethatAlmendarezTorreswas % ! incorrectlydecided,andthatalogicalapplicationofourreasoningtodayshouldapplyif '"# therecidivistissuewerecontested....(#`vy6#v`Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.atp.#`v:#v` )$% 490[emphasisadded].)TheCourtdeclinedto revisittheissuebecausethedefendant +&' @h @ @  hadnotchallengeditsvalidity,buttheCourtdiddecide totreatthecaseasanarrow  exceptiontothegeneralrulewerecalledattheoutset.(Id.at490[emphasisadded].)  #  1      ׀    InShepardv.UnitedStates(2005)544U.S.13[161L.Ed.2d205;125S.Ct.  1254],theCourtfurtherclarifiedthatAlmendarezTorreswastobereadverynarrowly.   There,theCourtinterpretedafederalstatutethatenhancedasentencebaseduponthe   defendanthavingsufferedpriorviolentfelonyconvictions.Wheretheprioroffenses   werefromotherjurisdictionsthatdefinedtheircrimesmorebroadlythancorresponding   federalstatutes,sentencingcourtshadtodeterminewhethertheconvictionswould  qualifytoenhancethesentenceunderthefederalstatute.TheissuepresentedinShepard  washowfarbehindthestatutoryelementsofthecrimeasentencingcourtcouldlookto  establishthatanearlierpleainanotherjurisdictionwastoanoffensethatwouldqualify  underthefederalstatute.TheCourtheldthat alatercourtdeterminingthecharacterof  anadmittedburglaryisgenerallylimitedtoexaminingthestatutorydefinition,charging  document,writtenpleaagreement,transcriptofthepleacolloquy,andanyexplicitfactual  Oa    findingbythetrialcourttowhichthedefendantassented.(Id.atp.16.)    Asthislistdemonstrates,theCourtlimitedtheconsiderationtoonlythatwhichthe  defendanthadnecessarilyadmittedbyhisplea.Thislimitationwasimposedinpart  becauseofconcernsaboutinfringingthedefendantsjurytrialrightsbypermittingalater   sentencingjudgeto makeadisputedfindingoffactaboutwhatthedefendantandthe   statejudgemusthaveunderstoodaboutthefactualbasisofthepriorplea.(Id.atp.25)   TheCourtconcluded: Whilethedisputedfactherecanbedescribedasafactabouta   priorconviction,itistoofarremovedfromtheconclusivesignificanceofapriorjudicial  record,andtoomuchlikethefindingssubjecttoJonesandApprendi,tosaythat  AlmendarezTorresclearlyauthorizesajudgetoresolvethedispute.(Id.atp.25  [emphasisadded].)Itthusinvoked theruleofreadingstatutestoavoidseriousrisksof  unconstitutionalityandimposedthelimitation.(Id.atpp.2526.)    Inhisconcurringopinion,JusticeThomasnotedthatAlmendarezTorres hasbeen  erodedbythisCourtssubsequentSixthAmendmentjurisprudence.(Id.atp.27.)#Nv -#vNԀHe  thereforeurgedthatthe flawedruleofAlmendarezTorresshouldbereconsideredin   theappropriatecase.(Id.atpp.2728,[conc.opn.ofThomas,J].) "   InPeoplev.McGee(2006)38Cal.4th682,thisCourtrecentlydecidedthat $  SheparddidnotalterCaliforniasrulepermittingthesentencingcourt,notthejury,to &"" reviewtherecordofadefendantsoutofstatepriorconvictiontodeterminewhetherit ($$ wasforacrimethatwouldbeaseriousfelonyinCalifornia.(Id.atpp.685687.)Inso *&& COa C C  holding,thisCourtconcludedthattheAlmendarezTorresexception,retainedby  Apprendi,supporteditsviewthat recidivistsentencingprovisionscouldbefoundbythe  courtwithoutajury(id.atpp.695699)andthat Apprendidoesnotprecludeacourt  frommakingsentencingdeterminationsrelatedtorecidivism.(Id.atp.707[emphasis   added].)ThisCourtwentontoholdthat,althoughShepardmaysuggestthatpermitting   thesentencingjudgetolookattherecordsofapriorpleaproceedingtodetermine   whetherthepriorwouldqualifytoenhanceaCaliforniasentencepresenteda serious   constitutionalissue,Shepardsimplyresolvedamatterofstatutoryinterpretationanddid  notdecidetheconstitutionalissue.(Id.atpp.707709.)Inreachingthisconclusion,this  CourtmisreadAlmendarezTorresandApprenditoexpandtheAlmendarez-Torres  exceptionbeyondbothitsoriginalholdingandthelaterlimitationsputonit.    AlmendarezTorreswasaverylimitedholdingaddressingaverynarrowissue.  Theissuepresentedtherewaswhetherthefederalconstitutionrequiredthataprior  convictionthatwasusedtoimposeanenhancedsentenceforanewoffensebepleadedin  theindictment.(Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.atp.488.)     InAlmendarezTorres,thedefendanthadbeenchargedunderafederalstatutethat " providedthatthepunishmentforviolatingthestatuteincreasedifthedefendanthad $  sufferedcertainpriorconvictions.Thedefendant,whohadinthe current casewaivedhis &"" righttoajurytrial,pleadedguiltyand admitted thathehadsufferedtherequisiteprior ($$ convictions,waschallenging only thefailuretoallegethepriorsinthecurrentindictment. *&& HOa  H H  (AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates,supra,523U.S.atpp.227,248.)Thedefendant  maintainedthatthestatuteunderwhichhewasconvicteddescribedtwooffenses,the  lessersimpleversionoftheoffenseandagreateroffensethatincludedtheelementofa  priorconviction;invokingtherulethatallelementshadtobechargedintheindictment,   hearguedthatthefailuretopleadthepriorsintheindictmentprecludedhisbeing   sentencedonthegreateroffense.(Id.atp.227.)     TheHighCourtrejectedthisargumentbaseduponstatutoryinterpretationthat   demonstratedthatCongresshadnotintendedtomaketheprioranelementoftheoffense,  butratheronlya sentencingfactorthatthecourtcouldconsiderinimposing  punishment.(Id.atpp.228235.)Itwentontoaddresswhether,despitelegislative  intent,theConstitutionprecludedtheCongressfromtreatingthepriorconvictionasa  sentencingfactor.(Id.atpp.237248.)= #  2      ׀Itthenreliedonthefactthatrecidivismwasa  traditional sentencingfactoranddidnot relatetothecommissionoftheoffenseto  helpitreachtheconclusionthatthepriorneednotbetreatedasanelementoftheoffense.  (Id.atpp.243248.)Thesereasonsforexemptingrecidivismfrombeingtreatedasan   element,however,havenowbeensoundlyrejectedbytheHighCourtinconnectionwith " everyother sentencingfactorthathasbeensincebroughtbeforeit.(SeeApprendiv. $  NewJersey,supra,530U.S.atpp.490,494;Ringv.Arizona,supra,536U.S.584,602& &"" #`v ;#v`610[conc.opn.ofScalia,J.#`v]#v`: thefundamentalmeaningofthejurytrialguaranteeofthe ($$ LOa  L L  SixthAmendmentisthatallfactsessentialtoimpositionofthelevelofpunishmentthat  thedefendantreceiveswhetherthestatutecallsthemelementsoftheoffense,sentencing  factors,orMaryJanemustbefoundbythejurybeyondareasonabledoubt.];Blakelyv.  Washington,supra,542U.S.atpp.303304;UnitedStatesv.Booker(2005)543U.S.   220,243244[160L.Ed.2d621,125S.Ct.738];Cunninghamv.California,supra,549   U.S.___[127S.Ct.atp.874]fn.14[wherethemajoritydeclinedtoendorseabifurcated   approachurgedbyJusticeKennedywherebyfactsconcerningtheoffensewouldbe   submittedtothejury,butfactsconcerningtheoffenderwouldnot].)    AlmendarezTorresdidnothavebeforeitthequestionoftherighttoajurytrialon  theissueofthepriororwhatburdenofproofshouldbeappliedtoresolveit.Astothe  latter,theCourtexpresslydeclinedtostateaviewonthestandardofprooftobeapplied  tosuchfacts,becausethedefendanthadadmittedhisrecidivismatthetimehepleaded  guiltyandhadnotraisedtheissue.(AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates,supra,523U.S.  atpp.247248.)    IndiscussingAlmendarezTorres,theApprendimajorityclarified:   8  BecauseAlmendarezTorreshadadmittedthethreeearlierconvictionsfor " aggravatedfeloniesallofwhichhadbeenenteredpursuanttoproceedings # withsubstantialproceduralsafeguardsoftheirownnoquestion $  concerningtherighttoajurytrialorthestandardofproofthatwouldapply %!! toacontestedissueoffactwasbeforetheCourt.(Apprendiv.NewJersey, &"" supra,530U.S.atp.488[emphasisoriginal].) #  3      '##   MOa  M M  TheCourtlaterconcluded:  8  Boththecertaintythatproceduralsafeguardsattachedtoanyfactofprior  conviction,andtherealitythatAlmendarezTorresdidnotchallengethe  accuracyofthatfactinhiscase,mitigatedthedueprocessandSixth   Amendmentconcernsotherwiseimplicatedinallowingajudgetodetermine   afactincreasingpunishmentbeyondthemaximumofthestatutoryrange.   (Id.atp.488.)    Thus,itwasclearinApprendi,thatwhiletheCourtwasnotoverrulingAlmendarez   Torreswithrespecttoitsnarrowholdingastowhetherapriorwasanelementofthe   particularoffensesuchthatithadtobepleadedinanindictment,theCourtintendedthat  itbeaverylimitedexceptiontothegeneralrulethatanyfactincreasingthemaximum  sentencemustbetreatedasanelement.(Id.atpp.489490;seealso#`v^#v`Jonesv.United  States(1999)526U.S.227,248249[143L.Ed.2d311,119S.Ct.1215][limited  AlmendarezTorrestorecidivistissuesanddistinguisheditasapleadingcase].)#`vl#v`    Inthislight,itisapparentthattheonlypotentialremnantoftheAlmendarez  Torres recidivismexceptionisthatforthefactofthepriorconvictionitself,with   convictionbeinglimitedtothe factsnecessarilyestablishedbythepriorjuryfinding  ordefendantsadmissionsatthetimethepriorconvictionoccurred.(SeeApprendiv.  NewJersey,supra,530U.S.atpp.488489;Shepardv.UnitedStates,supra,544U.S.at  pp.1516,2225;seealsoCunninghamv.California,supra,549U.S.___[127S.Ct.at   p.874]fn.14[noexemptionforfactsrelatingtothedefendant].)Moreover,theonly   remainingrationaleformaintainingsuchanexceptionisthelackofdisputeoverthefact   ofthepriorandtheassurancethatthe priorconvictionmustitselfhavebeenestablished   throughproceduressatisfyingthefairnotice,reasonabledoubt,andjurytrialguarantees.  (Jonesv.UnitedStates,supra,526U.S.atp.249;Shepardv.UnitedStates,supra,544  U.S.atp.25;seealsoPeoplev.McGee,supra,38Cal4thatpp.713714[dis.opn.of  Kennard,J.].)    TherecidivistfactorslistedinRule4.421(b)(2)(b)(5)gofarbeyondthebarefact  oftheconvictionoritssignificancebaseduponthefactsnecessarilyfoundbyajuryor  admittedbythedefendant.Rather,theyallrequirefindingofadditionalpotentially  disputedfacts.   0   A.WhethertheDefendantsPriorConvictionsasanAdultthatAre " NumerousandofIncreasingSeriousnessRequiresAdditionalFindings ouvu #(#(# Uu  Whetherpriorconvictionsarenumerousandofincreasingseriousnessdependson % ! findings,notonlythatconvictionsoccurred,butalsoofadditionalfactsestablishingthat '"# theywere numerousandof increasingseriousness.Whetherpriorsarenumerous )$% turnsnotonlyonthenumberofconvictions,butthelengthoftimeittooktoaccumulate +&' them.(SeePeoplev.Simpson(1979)90Cal.App.3d919,926.) Thewordnumerous  mustbeinterpretedinthecontextofthesentencingrules,andtheprovisioninquestion  shouldbecontrastedwiththewordingthatdescribesagoodrecordforpurposesof  mitigation:defendanthasnopriorrecordoraninsignificantrecordofcriminalconduct   consideringtherecencyandfrequencyofpriorcrimes.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule[4.423   (b)(1)](Id.atp.926[fivepriorscommittedbeforetheageof19yearsmadethefinding   thattheywerenumerous compelled];seealsoPeoplev.Searle(1989)213Cal.App.3d   1091,1098[threepriorsfordrivingwhileintoxicatedoccurringwithin11monthsofeach  othertenyearspriortothecurrentoffensewere numerous].)Thequestionsofthe  lengthoftimebetweenpriorsandhowlongagotheyoccurredarefactualdeterminations  beyondthemerefindingoftheconvictionsthemselves.Moreover,anadditionalrelevant  considerationmaybehowlongthedefendantwasincustodyduringtheperiodbetween  convictions.(Cf.,?+ ` hp x X?#`vm#q p`People#` pq}#q p`Ԁv.#` pq4~#q p`ԀHumphrey#` pqy~#v`(1997)58Cal.App.4th809[remotenessofastrike  priornotmitigatingifthedefendanthasbeenincustodyonothercrimesintheinterim];  #`v~#v`People#`v#v`Ԁ#`v#v`Ԁv.#`vT#v`Ԁ#`v#v`Nobelton#`v܀#v`Ԁ(1995)#`v&#v`Ԁ38#`vr#v`ԀCal.App.4th76,8485[Pen.Code,#`v#v`#`v##v`Ԁ667.5washoutperiod   runsfromtimeofparole].) "   Whethercrimesareofincreasingseriousnesscaninvolveevenmoreextensive $  factualdeterminations.Ifseriousnessistobedeterminedbylengthofpotentialsentence &"" orthemannerinwhichtheoffenseischaracterizedinthePenalCode(e.g. seriousor ($$  violent),manyoffensesareofthesamelevelofseriousness.(Seee.g.Pen.Code,#`vi#v`#`v#v` *&& 667.5subd.,(c)[listingmultipleviolentfelonies];1192.7,subd.(c)[listingmultiple  seriousfelonies];Pen.Code,#`v#v`#`vޅ#v`Ԁ18[listingthesentencetobeimposedforallfelonieswith  punishmentnototherwiseprescribed];Pen.Code,461,subd.(1)[firstdegreeburglary]  &#`v$#v`#`v+#v`Ԁ451,subd.(c)[arsonofastructureorforestland][bothpunishedbytwo,fourorsix   years].)Thus,distinctionsmadeamongthesecrimes,aswellasdistinctionsdrawn   betweendifferentviolationsofthesamecodesections,wouldhavetoturnona   determinationofthefactsunderlyingthecomparedcrimesorperhapstheactualsentences   imposed.Furthermore,thequestionofwhetherthedefendanthasnumerousprior  convictionsofincreasingseriousnessisgenerallydeterminedbasedupontheinformation  presentedintheprobationofficersreport,whichmayincludeinformationastothefacts  underlyingthepriorsaswellas factuallysupportedarrestdata.(SeePeoplev.Taylor  (1979)92Cal.App.3d831,833;Peoplev.Ramos(1980)106Cal.App.3d591,609610  [findingthatthedefendanthadescalatedfrompettytheftstorobberywasamply  supportedbyhisjuvenileandadultarrestdata].)Noneofthesefindingsthereforeis  conclusivelydemonstratedbyajudicialrecordandbaseduponthemerefactoftheprior   convictionaloneoranythingnecessarilyestablishedbytheverdictatthetimeoftheprior " conviction. $   0   B.WhethertheDefendantHasServedaPriorPrisonTermRequires &"" AdditionalFindings'"#(#(#  acU#NvH#vN4  Thecaselawrelatingtowhatwillestablishadequateproofofanenhancement )$% underPenalCodesection667.5subdivision(b)demonstratesratherclearlythatproofof +&' theserviceofapriorprisonterminvolvesmorethanashowingofthemerefactofa  convictionitself.(Seee.g.#`vq#v`People#`v#v`Ԁv.#`v/#v`Ԁ#`vt#v`Tenner#`v#v`Ԁ(1993)#`v#v`Ԁ6#`vK#v`ԀCal.4th#`v#v`Ԁ559;Peoplev.Seals(1993)  14Cal.App.4th1379[wheredefendantservedaterminyouthauthority,thefindingthat  hehadapriorprisontermdependedonwhetherhehadbeendirectlycommittedtoyouth   authorityormerelyhousedthere]#`vّ#v`.)Additionally,defendantssometimesareinitially   placedonprobationforapriorconvictionandonlygotoprisonafterprobationisrevoked   orsometimesreceive papercommitmentsandarereleaseddirectlyfromcountyjail   becauseofhavingservedtheentireprisontermpresentence.Findingthepriorprison  termineitherofthosesituationswouldinvolveanotherlayerofproofbeyondthemere  proofthataconvictionwashad.   0   C.WhethertheDefendantWasOnParoleWhentheCrimeWasCommitted    RequiresAdditional acȕFindings #Nv #vN(#(#   Thisfactorrequiresproofthatthedefendantnotonlyhadapriorconviction,but  wassentencedtostateprisonasaresult,servedhisterm,paroled,andhadnotcompleted  histimeonparole.Thesefactsarenotreadilyapparentfromthefactofapriorconviction  alone.Moreover,thefactofbeingonparoleisnotsomethingthatcanbeprovedby ! simplereferencetoofficialrecords,asthoserecordsaresubjecttochallenge.(See,e.g., # Peoplev.Willis(2002)28Cal.4th22[evidencefoundinawarrantlessparolesearchhad % ! tobesuppressedbecausetheinformationobtainedbythepoliceastothedefendants '"# parolestatuswaserroneous].) )$%  0   D.WhethertheDefendantsPriorPerformanceonProbationorParoleWas +&' UnsatisfactoryRequiresAdditionalFindings#Nv#vN (#(#  owH'  Thisfactorrequiresadeterminationoffactsthatdemonstrateapoorprior  performanceonprobation.Suchfactsmayincludedruguseoraddictionduring  probation.(SeePeoplev.Regalado(1980)108Cal.App.3d531,540[thesentencing   judgesreferencetothedefendantsdrugaddictionwhilestatingreasonsforimposingthe   uppertermwasdeemedtorelatetoafindingofpoorperformanceonprobation].)Most   anydemonstrationofpoorperformancewouldlikelybebasedupontheprobationor   paroleofficerscommentsastowhetherthedefendanthadnotbeenbehavingproperlyon  probationorparole.Eventheuseofthefactofcommissionofanotheroffensewhileon  probationcanbeanimproperfactorforfindingapoorpriorperformanceonprobationif  theviolatingoffensewasalsothebasisofanenhancementforapriorprisonterm,making  theuseofthe poorperformanceonprobationadualuse.(SeePeoplev.Calhoun(1981)  125Cal.App.3d731,733734.)     E.Conclusion owf     Thus,allofthe recidivistfactorslistedinrule4.421caninvolvefindingsasto    disputedfacts.ApprendianditsprogenyholdthattheSixthandFourteenth " Amendments guaranteeajuryfindingonanydisputedfactessentialtoincreasethe $  ceilingofapotentialsentence.(Shepardv.UnitedStates,supra,544U.S.atp.25.)That &"" these disputedfactsrelatetorecidivismdoesnotchangethat.Whilethesedisputed ($$ factsmightbedescribedasfactsaboutpriorconvictions,theyare toofarremovedfrom *&& theconclusivesignificanceofapriorjudicialrecord,andtoomuchlikethefindings  subjecttoJonesandApprendi,tosaythatAlmendarezTorresclearlyauthorizesajudge  toresolvethedispute.(Ibid.[emphasisadded].)? #  4          Whilesomeofthesefactsmaybeeasilyproved,theeaseofproofisnotthetest.   Thatthefactismoreorlesseasytoprovedoesnotalteritsnatureasanelementthat   createsaquestionoffactforthejuryratherthanaquestionoflawforthecourt.(See,e.g.,   Peoplev.Flood(1998)18Cal.4th470,482[errortoinstructthattheofficersdefendant   wasevadingwere peaceofficersandthusdirectaverdictonanelementofaPen.  Code,#`vS#v`#`vg#v`Ԁ830violation].)#Nv#vN    InCunningham,theCourtheldthatimpositionoftheupperterminCaliforniawas  adeparturefromthemaximumsentenceauthorizedbymereconvictionofthecrimeitself.  Thus,factorsinaggravationactas elementsofagreateroffense,andimpositionofthe  uppertermisnotconstitutionallypermissibleunlessthose elementsarefoundina  mannercompliantwiththerightstoajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.    QuestionsastothecontinuingvalidityoftheAlmendarezTorresexceptiontothis  rulethatfactsenhancingasentenceareelementalsuggestthatthisCourtshouldnotrely  onittopermittheimpositionoftheuppertermbaseduponasentencingjudgehaving  foundthefactofapriorconviction.WhateverthisCourtdeterminesastothecontinuing   validityoftheexceptionforthefindingofthepriorconvictionitself,however,itisvery   clearthatexpandingittoincludethefactorslistedinRule4.421(b)(2)(b)(5)wouldrun   afoulofthefederalConstitutionalprotectionsintheSixthandFourteenthAmendments.       III.     8  THEDEFENDANTSSIXTHAMENDMENTRIGHTSUNDER  CUNNINGHAMAREVIOLATED,IFTHETRIALJUDGE,IN  EXERCISINGDISCRETIONTOIMPOSETHEUPPERTERM,  RELIESONAGGRAVATINGFACTORSTHATHAVENOTBEEN   ESTABLISHEDINCOMPLIANCEWITHTHESIXTH   AMENDMENT,EVENIFTHEREISAVAILABLEASINGLE   POTENTIALLYAGGRAVATINGFACTTHATHASBEEN   ESTABLISHEDBYMEANSSATISFYINGTHECONSTITUTION ow        ThesecondquestionpresentedbythisCourtsorderofFebruary7,2007was:   8  IsthereanyviolationofthedefendantsSixthAmendmentrightsunder   Cunninghamv.California,supra,ifthedefendantiseligiblefortheupper   termbaseduponasingleaggravatingfactorthathasbeenestablishedby  meansthatsatisfythegoverningSixthAmendmentauthoritiesby,for  example,ajuryfinding,thedefendantscriminalhistory,orthedefendants  admissionevenifthetrialjudgereliesonotheraggravatingfactors(not  establishedbysuchmeans)inexercisinghisorherdiscretiontoselect  amongthethreesentencesforwhichthedefendantiseligible?     Californiassentencingschemecreatesathreestepprocessforimpositionofthe  upperterm.WhetherfactualfindingsbythejudgeviolatetheConstitutionunder  Cunninghamdependsonwhenintheprocessthosefindingsaremadeandhowtheyare  used.Ifthesentencingcourtreliesonamixtureofconstitutionallycompliantfactorsand   unconstitutionalfactorsindecidingthataggravatingfactorsjustifytheimpositionofthe " uppertermandthedefendantisthereforeeligiblefortheupperterm,aconstitutional $  violationoccurs.If,afterfindingthedefendanteligiblefortheuppertermbasedononly &!" constitutionallycompliantfactors,thecourtreliesonitsownfactualfindingsindeciding (#$ whethertoimposethemidtermortheavailableupperterm,thatlatterfactfindingdoesnot *%& violatetheconstitution.    #Nv#vN Factfindingtoelevateasentencefrom[themiddletermtotheupperterm],our  decisionsmakeplain,fallswithintheprovinceofthejuryemployingabeyonda  reasonabledoubtstandard,notthebailiwickofajudgedeterminingwherethe   preponderanceoftheevidencelies.(Cunninghamv.California,supra,549U.S.atp.   ___[127S.Ct.atp.875].)Therefore,theCourtinCunninghamheldthatCalifornias   sentencingschemepermittingsuchfactfindingwasunconstitutional. BecausetheDSL   allocatestojudgessoleauthoritytofindfactspermittingtheimpositionoftheupperterm  sentence,thesystemviolatestheSixthAmendment.(Id.atp.___[Id.atp.876].)    Instatingthebasicrulerequiringajuryfindingofallfactsnecessarytopermitthe  impositionoftheupperterm,however,theCourtinCunninghamrepeatedtheexception  for apriorconviction.(Id.atp.___[Id.atp.873]#Nv)#vN.)Thus,theremayberoomfor  argumentthattheAlmendarezTorresexceptionwouldprotectanuppertermfrom  constitutionalchallengeifitwerebasedsolelyonthefactofapriorconviction.0 #  5      #Nv#vN  Furthermore,ofcourse,theConstitutionpermitsimpositionofanincreasedsentence   baseduponfactsfoundbythejuryorknowinglyadmittedbythedefendantwhohas " waivedajury.(SeeBlakelyv.Washington,supra,542U.S.atp.303.)Thus,imposition  oftheuppertermbaseduponfactorsfoundbythejuryoradmittedbythedefendant  wouldalsopassconstitutionalmuster.Whetheragivensentencetotheupperterm  imposedunderthecurrentsystemmaybeconstitutionallycompliantrequiresan   examinationofexactlyhowtheCaliforniaschemeoperates.     x       PenalCodesection1170,subdivision(b)createsathreestepprocessforthe   impositionofanuppertermsentence.Thesentencingjudgemust:(1)findfactorsin   aggravationandmitigation;then(2)assessthequalitativevalueofthesefactorsand  weighthemagainsteachothertodeterminewhethertheaggravatingfactorsoutweigh  mitigatingfactors;and(3)iftheaggravatingfactorsoutweighthemitigatingfactors,  decidewhethertoimposetheupperterm.(SeePeoplev.Hall(1994)8Cal.4th950,957  958;Peoplev.Wright(1982)30Cal.3d705,709710,720;Peoplev.Myers(1983)148  Cal.App.3d699,704;Pen.Code,#`v#v`#`v#v`Ԁ1170;Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.408(a);4.420.)  #`v[#v`PenalCode,section1170,subdivision(a)(3)providesthatthesentencingcourtsshall  applytherulesimposedbytheJudicialCouncilinmakingthesedeterminations.(Seealso,   Pen.Code,1170.3;Peoplev.Wright,supra,30Cal.3datpp.711714.) "   Thefindingofafactthatcouldbeaggravatingisbutthefirststep,anditalone $  doesnotmaketheuppertermavailable#`v#v`.Rather,theuppertermbecomesavailableonly &"" afterthesentencingcourthascompletedthesecondstepofassessingthevalueofthe ($$ factortoaggravateandfindingitofsufficientvaluetojustifytheimpositionoftheupper *&& termandtooutweighanyfactorsinmitigation.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420.)    Themiddletermmustbeimposedunlesstheimpositionoftheupperterm...is  justifiedbycircumstancesinaggravation....(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(a).)   Theselectionoftheuppertermisjustifiedonlyif,afterconsiderationofallofthe   relevantfacts,thecircumstancesinaggravationoutweighthecircumstancesin   mitigation.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(b).)Moreover,thisCourthasrecognized,    selectionoftheuppertermisjustified onlyifcircumstancesinaggravation are   establishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence andoutweigh circumstancesin  mitigation.(Peoplev.Hall,supra,8Cal.4thatp.957[emphasisadded].)Thus,the  necessary justificationthatmakestheuppertermtheavailablesentencedoesnotoccur  until afterthecourthasweightedandbalancedthevariousfactorsfound.     Accordingly,theidentificationofasinglepotentialaggravatingfactorthathas  beendeterminedbymeansthatsatisfytheSixthAmendmentdoesnotautomaticallytake  thesentencingdecisionoutofthepurviewofCunninghamormakeanysentencing  determinationthereafternecessarilycompliantwiththeSixthandFourteenth   Amendments.Thisissobecauseasinglepotentiallyaggravatingfactordoesnot,upon " simplybeingdetermined,automaticallyauthorizetheupperterm.Itcandosoonlyafter $  beingfoundtobequalitativelysufficienttojustifytheuppertermandtooutweighany &"" mitigation. ($$   Itistruethatasinglefactorinaggravationcanbesufficienttojustifythe *&& impositionoftheupperterm.(SeePeoplev.Osband(1996)13Cal.4th622,728.)This  doesnotmeanthatanygivenfactorinaggravationwillnecessarilyjustifytheupperterm  inanygivencase.Thedeterminationofwhethertheuppertermisjustifieddependson  botha qualitativeandquantitativeanalysisoftheaggravatingfactors.(SeePeoplev.   Kellett(1982)134Cal.App.3d949,963;Peoplev.Searle,supra,213Cal.App.3d   1091,1100.)Onappeal,ifthisanalysissuggeststhatthetrialcourtcouldanddidgive   adequateweighttosoundaggravatingfactorssuchthattheappellatecourtcanconclude   thatthetrialcourtcouldandwouldimposetheuppertermbasedupononlyproperfactors  uponremand,anerrorinrelyingononeormoreimproperfactorscanbedeemed  harmless.(Ibid.)Ifontheotherhand,itisnotclearthattheuppertermcouldorwould  havebeenimposedbaseduponthesingleproperfactoralone,thecasemustberemanded  tothetrialcourtforresentencing.(SeePeoplev.Covino,supra,100Cal.App.3datpp.  670672.)Buttheavailabilityofthisharmlesserroranalysisdoesnotmeanthat,where  thesentencingcourtreliedonamixofconstitutionallysoundfactorsandunconstitutional  factors,thesentencewasautomaticallyconstitutional.     Individualcriteriaintheruleshavenofixedmathematicalvalue....(Peoplev. " Regalado,supra,108Cal.App.3datp.539.)And,onlyafterthevalueissetand $  establishedtobesufficienttooutweighcountervailingfactors,doestheimpositionofa &"" termotherthanthemiddletermbecomelegallyavailable.(Peoplev.Hall,supra,8Cal. ($$ 4thatp.957;Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420.) *&&   AsappellantarguedinhisReplyBriefontheMerits,forthisreason,thefactofa  priorconvictionalonedoesnotevennecessarilyqualifyasanaggravatingfactor.(ARBM  1920)Aggravationorcircumstancesinaggravationaredefinedas factsthatjustifythe  impositionoftheuppertermreferredtoinPenalCodesection1170(b).(Cal.Rulesof   Court,rule4.405(4).)Asnotedabove,suchfacts justifytheuppertermonlyafterthey   aredeterminedtobeofsufficientweighttodoso.     Therefore,whenasentencingcourthasreliedonbothaconstitutionallysound   factorandafactorfoundbyunconstitutionalmeanstofindsufficientaggravationto  justifytheupperterm,itwillhaveusedtheunconstitutionalfactortomaketheupperterm  available.Theunconstitutionallyfoundfactorhasbeenusedelementallyasafact  necessarytomaketheuppertermthemaximumavailable.(SeeApprendiv.NewJersey,  supra,530U.S.atpp.490,494.)    Thisissoevenwherenofactorinmitigationisidentifiedbecausethequalitative  valueofanyparticularpotentiallyaggravatingfactorcanbedeemedtobetoosmallto  overcomethestatutorypresumptioninfavorofthemiddletermandtojustifythe   impositionoftheupperterm.Apriorconvictionofamitigatedoffensemaybe " insufficient,evenwithoutcountervailingmitigation.Forexample,apriorresidential $  burglarycommittedbyacold,hungrydefendant,whoenteredanemptyvacationhometo &"" getoutofthecoldandfindsomethingtoeat,maynotbesoaggravating.Amisdemeanor ($$ trespassconvictionundersimilarcircumstanceswouldbeevenlessaggravating.This *&& wouldbeespeciallysoifthatpriorweretheonlycrimethedefendanthadpreviously  committed.Thus,acourtmayconcludethatthesinglepriorwouldnotalonejustifythe  uppertermandwouldimposetheuppertermonlyifitfoundotherfactorssurroundingthe  currentoffensethatwerealsoaggravating.     TheonlytimewithintheCaliforniaschemethatthesentencingcourtisinthe   positiontomakefactualdeterminationsthatwillnotoffendtheconstitutionisinthethird   stepoftheprocessdescribedabove.Thatiswhenthecourtisdecidingwhethertoimpose   thejustifieduppertermorjustimposethemiddleterm.Thatiswhenthecourthasthe  typeofsentencingdiscretiontochooseasentencewithinamaximumthatpermitsjudicial  findingof sentencingfactorsofwhichtheCourtinApprendiandthecasesfollowingit  approved.(SeeApprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.atp.481;Blakelyv.Washington,  supra,542U.S.atpp.308309.)    TheteachingofApprendianditsprogenyisthatthejurymustfindallofthefacts  uponwhichthemaximumpotentialsentencedepends.Thejudgemustthenbasethe  decisionastothemaximumavailablesentenceonthesefactsalone.Ifthecourtrelieson   factsnotfoundbythejurytomakethemaximumavailable,theSixthandFourteenth " Amendmentsareviolated. $    Thus,fortheCaliforniasystemtooperateconstitutionally,thefactsfoundinthe &"" firststepoftheCaliforniaprocessmustbefoundbyconstitutionallycompliantmeans.In ($$ thesecondstep,onlythosefactsfoundinthefirststepmaybeusedbythecourtin *&& makingitsdeterminationofwhethertheuppertermis justifiedandthereforeavailable.  Inthefinalstep,whendecidingwhethertoimposetheuppertermthathasthenbecome  withinthecourtsdiscretiontoimpose,thecourtmaymakeitsownfactualfindings  withoutrunningafouloftheconstitution.        IV.  +8  APPELLANTSCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSWEREVIOLATED  BYTHETRIALCOURTSSELECTIONOFTHEUPPERTERMIN  THISCASE     7l  Inthiscase,asinmostcases,thetrialcourtdidnotmovefromsteptostepinthe   threepartsentencingprocessdescribedabove.Rather,itmadeallofitscommentsina   singlecourseofexplainingthesentencebeingimposed.     Thus,thecourtcommentedonhowterrifiedthevictimhadbeen,andthatthe   victimwasaliar,butevenaliardidnotdeservetobetreatedasappellanthadallegedly   treatedhimtomakehimsoterrified.Thecourtalsocommentedthatappellantwasaliar.  Thecourtfurthernotedthatappellanthadalengthypriorrecord,butitalsocommented  thathewasaninnocentofsortswhohadnotlearnedmuchfromhispastexperiences.It  thenimposedtheuppertermontheoffense.Thereafter,itstruckthePenalCodesection  667.5enhancementsbaseduponallofthecircumstancesbeforeit,includingappellants  personalnatureandthesentencebeingimposed.#Nv#vN(4RT24152418)    Thesecomments,whichfocusedinlargepartontheviolencethathadbeenalleged   andthevictimsfrightandwhichalsorecognizedmitigatingfacetsofappellants " personality#Nv#vN,demonstratethatthecourtusedthefactsofthecountsofwhichappellantwas $  acquittedtofindsufficientaggravationtooutweighmitigationandjustifytheupperterm. &!" Thecourt,whichhadnoreasontobelievethatitcouldnotusethemforthispurpose,was (#$ usingthosefactorstodeterminewhethertheuppertermwasavailable. *%&   Thecourtsuseofthosefactstomakeaggravationoutweighmitigationandjustify  theuppertermwaselementaluseofthem;theywerenecessarytomaketheupperterm  available.(SeeApprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.,atpp.491497;Ringv.Arizona,  supra,536U.S.atp.602;Blakelyv.Washington,supra,542U.S.atpp.303304#NvL#vN.)Thus,   thecourtviolatedappellantsrightstoajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtin   imposingtheupperterm.(Cunninghamv.California,supra,549U.S.___[127S.Ct.at   pp.876]#Nv#vN.)      `     h      V .    8  PREJUDICEFORSENTENCINGADEFENDANTTOTHEUPPER  TERMINVIOLATIONOFTHESIXTHANDFOURTEEN  AMENDMENTMUSTBEASSESSEDUNDERCHAPMANAND  THEERRORWASPREJUDICIALINTHISCASE       f  InWashingtonv.Recuenco,supra,548U.S.___[126S.Ct.2546;165L.Ed.2d   466],theCourtheldthatApprendi/Blakelyerrorisnotstructuralandmaybesubjectto   harmlesserroranalysisundertheChapman3 #  6      standard.(Id.atp.___[126S.Ct.atpp.   25512553;165L.Ed.2datpp.474477].)Insodoing,theCourtanalogizedtoNederv.   UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1,8[119S.Ct.1827,144L.Ed.2d35],whichapplied  harmlesserroranalysistothefailuretoobtainajuryfindingonanelementoftheoffense.  NotingthatafterApprendi,sentencingfactorshadbeentreatedaselementsthathadtobe  triedtoajuryandprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt,theCourtconcludedthatthesame  ruleofprejudiceaswasappliedtotheerrorinNedershouldapply#NvI#vNԀtofailurestoobtaina  juryverdictonsentencingfactors.(Washingtonv.Recuenco,supra,548U.S.___[126  S.Ct.atpp.25522553;165L.Ed.2datpp.475477].#Nv#vN)    Thus,theChapmanstandardofprejudicemustapplytothiscaseaswell.As ! appellantarguedinhisOpeningBriefontheMerits,thisstandardmustbe#Nv#vNappliedin # multiplecontextstodetermineprejudicefromCunninghamerrorinCalifornia.First,it %!! mustbeappliedtodeterminewhetheritisclearbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthe '## aggravatingfactorrelieduponwouldhavebeenfoundbythejuryhaditbeenaskedto  findit(theNederanalysis).Ifthecourtreliedonsomeconstitutionallycompliantfactors  andsomeunconstitutionallyfoundfactors,thetestwillhavetobeappliedinasecond  contexttodeterminewhetherthecourtcouldhave,andwouldhave,imposedtheupper   termbyrelyingonlyonfactorsthatwereconstitutionallysound.1 #  7      ׀(AOBM4548)     Astothefirststep,itisclearthatthejuryinthiscase,ifasked,wouldnothave   foundtheaggravatingfactorsrelatedtotheviolenceoftheoffensebecauseitacquitted   appellantofeverycountinvolvingviolence.(CT178187,4RT12111217)Thus,the  juryherewasgiventheopportunitytofindthefactorsandfoundthemnottrue.    Thetrialcourthere,however,didhavefactorsuponwhichitcouldconstitutionally  relytoimposetheupperterm#Nv#vN.Itcouldconstitutionallyrelyonappellantspriorprison  terms.TheywereallegedagainsthimunderPenalCodesection667.5andadmittedby  himafterhewaivedhistrialrights.(4RT12551260,16401643)Becausethetrialcourt  didnotimposethesection667.5enhancements(4RT2418),thedualuseprohibitionof  PenalCodesection1170,subdivision(b)didnotprecludetheirconsiderationasfactorsin   aggravation. "   Thisfact,however,doesnotrenderthecourtsrelianceonthefactsofthe $  acquittedcountsharmless.Unlessthetrialcourthasmadeclearthattheconstitutionally &"" soundfactorsalonewouldsupporttheupperterm,itcannotbedeterminedbeyonda  reasonabledoubtthattheunconstitutionalfactorplayednoroleinthedecisiontomake  theuppertermavailable.And,unlessitplayednoroleinthatdetermination,the  defendantsrightstoajuryfindingofthetruthbeyondareasonabledoubtofallofthe   factsnecessarytomaketheuppertermavailablewillhavebeenviolated.     Thesentencingcourthereimposedtheuppertermbasedlargelyonappellants   havingterrifiedthevictimbydoingthethings allegedagainstappellanthere.(4RT   24152418)Asnoted,however,appellantwasacquittedofeveryviolentcrimecharged.  (CT178187;4RT12111217)Thecourtdidalsorefertoappellantspriorrecordbut  alsonotedamitigatingaspectofhispersonality,thatappellantwas aninnocentofsorts.  (4RT2417)Astheviolenceofwhichappellantwasacquittedwasprominentthecourts  discussionandtherewassomemitigationthatmayhavecounteredanyaggravationfrom  appellantsrecord,itcannotbesaidthattheerrorinrelyingonthefactsofwhich  appellanthadbeenacquittedwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.(SeeChapmanv.  California,supra,386U.S.atp.24;seealsoPeoplev.Covino,supra,#Nv#vN100Cal.App.3dat   pp.670672#Nv#vNԀ[wherethecourtreversedunderaWatsonstandardbasedonthepresenceof " onlyonevalidaggravatingfactorandsomepotentialmitigation].)Accordingly,the $  sentencemustbereversed,andthecauseremandedforanewhearing.  &""    VI.  S8  TOREMEDYTHECONSTITUTIONALINFIRMITYOFTHE  CALIFORNIASENTENCINGSCHEME,THISCOURTSHOULD  NOTATTEMPTTOREWRITETHECODEANDSHOULD  REFORMTHESTATUTETOPERMITONLYSENTENCESTO   THEMIDDLETERM,ORALTERNATIVELY,TOLIMITUPPER   TERMSENTENCESTOTHOSECASESINWHICHTHE   AGGRAVATINGFACTORSWEREFOUNDBYTHEJURYOR   ADMITTEDBYTHEDEFENDANT    p fb     x  @x        InCunningham,theCourtput theballin Californiascourttoadjust   CaliforniassentencingschemeinlightoftheHighCourtsdecision.(Cunninghamv.   California,supra,549U.S.___[127S.Ct.atp.876]#Nv #vN.#Nv#vN)TheLegislaturehasapparently  begunworkondoingso.(See#`v#v`Sen.BillNo.40(20072008Reg.Sess.)#`v\#v`#Nv#vN.)ThisCourt,  therefore,shouldnotattempttorewritethestatute,butshouldfashionamethodbywhich  trialcourtscanoperateconstitutionallyuntiltheLegislaturehashadtimetoact.    AsappellantnotedinhisReplyBriefontheMerits,rewritingthestatutetomakeit  constitutionalispredominatelyalegislativefunctionthatnormallyshouldnotbe  undertakenbythecourts.(See#`v#v`#Nv#vNCityofCarmelbytheSeav.Young(1970)2Cal.3d259,  272#Nv#vN;#Nv#vNMetromediav.SanDiego(1982)32Cal.3d180#Nvc#vN,187;#Nv#vNArpv.WorkersComp. ! AppealsBd.(1977)19Cal.3d395,409411;#Nv#vNԀARBM1726#`vC#v`#Nv#vN.)AnyeffortsthisCourtcould # undertaketoreformthestatutearelimitedbyitsabilitytodeterminetheLegislatures % ! intentinwritingthestatuteandwhetheraproposedremedywouldcomeclosestto '"# satisfyingthoselegislativegoals.(#`v #v`Arpv.WorkersComp.AppealsBd.,supra,19Cal.3d )$% atpp.407408;Koppv.FairPol.PracticesCom.(1995)11Cal.4th607#NvK#vN,660661; +&' ARBM1726#`v#v`#Nv#vN.)    Asappellantadditionallyargued,thisCourtshouldnotreformthestatuteto  provideforjurytrials.Determiningtheprocedurestobeimplementedtoprovidefor  pleadingtheallegationsandsubmittingthemtothejuryarelargelylegislativefunctions.   (See#`v #v`#NvP #vNCityofCarmelbytheSeav.Young,supra,2Cal.3datp.272,ARBM2426#Nv;"#vN.#`v!#v`#Nv"#vN)     NeithershouldthisCourtreformthesystemtopermituppertermswheneverthe   defendanthasapriorconvictionthatisexemptunderAlmendarezTorres.(ARBM1726)   Thisisso,notonlybecauseofthedubiousvalidityofAlmendarezTorres,butbecauseit  wouldunfairlyskewsentencinginamannercontrarytotheLegislativegoalsbehindthe  DeterminateSentencingLaw[DSL].    AsthisCourtnotedindeterminingthevalidityoftheRulesofCourtgoverning  factorsinaggravationandmitigation,theintentoftheLegislatureinadoptingDSLwas  topromoteuniformityofsentencing.(SeePeoplev.Hall,supra,8Cal.4thatp.958;  Peoplev.Cheatham(1979)23Cal.3d829,832833.)ThisCourtfurtherconcludedthat  theLegislatureintendedthatthetermsbefixedbaseduponcircumstancesrelatingto both    thedefendantandthecrime.(Peoplev.Hall,supra,8Cal.4thatp.961.)Bypermitting " courtstocontinuetoimposetheuppertermbaseduponfactsrelatingtothedefendant, $  suchashispriorrecord,butnotfactsrelatingtothecommissionofthecrime,thisCourt &"" wouldcreateaschemeinwhichhalfofthetraditionalequationanticipatedbythe ($$ Legislatureismissingandwould,contrarytothepurposeofthedeterminatesentencing *&& schemeinquestion,increasedisparityinsentencing.    Moreover,itmustbepresumedthatinfixingtheavailabletermsforthevarious  offensesandenhancementsoutlinedinthecodes,theLegislaturereliedonthemannerin  whichthesystemhadbeenheldtooperate,anddidnotintendthatonlysomepeopleto   whomaggravatingfactorsappliedwouldremaineligiblefortheupperterm.(Cf.People   v.Hall,supra,8Cal.4thatpp.962963[theLegislatureisdeemedtobeawareofexisting   statutesandjudicialdecisionsandtoenactstatutesinlightthereof;andtheLegislature   didnotwanta potentiallyinconsistentsentencingscheme].)    Forthesesamereasons,thesolutionofallowinguppertermstobeimposedinonly  thosecasesinwhichtheaggravatingfactorhasbeenfoundbythejuryoradmittedbythe  defendantisalsoproblematic.Thissolution,however,isfairerandwouldmoreclosely  matchtheLegislaturesintentthan#NvT##vNtoremovethepresumptionofthemidtermfromthe  statuteasrespondentproposed.(RABM5053,#Nv.#NN#QN##NQRSB814#NN/##QN/#NQvN)    AppellanthasaddressedinpriorbriefingthereasonswhythisCourtshouldnot  removethepresumptionofthemidtermfromthestatute.(SeeARBM3132;Appellants   SupplementalReplyBriefontheMerits510.)ThefactthattheLegislatureisdeemedto " havereliedonexistinglawinenactingnewlawsisanotherreasonnottoadoptsucha $  remedy.TheLegislature,whenfixingthestatutoryupperterms#Nvd0#vN,wouldnothaveassumed &"" thateveryoneirrespectiveofwhetheraggravatingfactorspreponderatedwouldbe ($$ eligibleforit.Rather,inchoosingthethreetermsforanygivencrime,theLegislature *&& wouldhavesupposedthatmostdefendantswouldgetthemiddleterm,whichthe  Legislaturehaddeemedthepresumptivelyappropriatesentenceforthecri#Nv2#vNme.(Cf.People  v.Hall,supra,8Cal.4thatpp.962963#Nv4#vN.)    RatherthanattemptingtoguesswhattheLegislaturemightultimatelydecideisthe   bestwaytopreservethedefendantsSixthandFourteenthAmendmentrightsinthe   sentencingprocess,thisCourtshouldsimplyrequirethatallcasesthatwereandarebeing   resolvedunderthecurrentlawbelimitedtothemiddleterm.Asappellantarguedinhis   ReplyBriefontheMerits,thisisthecoursetakenbytheKansasSupremeCourtwhileit  waitedforitsLegislaturetoact.(ARBM2630)Thissolutionwouldclearlybe  constitutionalandwouldnotruntheriskofprovidingaremedythatwillbesubjectto  laterconstitutionalchallenge,anditwouldmostcloselycomplywiththeLegislatures  determinationofwhattheusualsentencewouldbeforthemajorityofcasesanditsdesire  tohaveuniformityofsentencing.      CONCLUSION f9      Becausethetrialcourtherereliedonfactsofcrimesofwhichappellanthadbeen  acquittedtoimposetheupperterminviolationofappellantsfederalconstitutionalrights  toajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtandoftheDoubleJeopardyClause,   hissentencemustbereversed,andthecaseremandedtopermittheimpositionofa   constitutionalsentence.   #NvE5#NNDated:February27,20070  0h(#(#RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTED h(#h(#    ` 0 0 (# (# h CALIFORNIAAPPELLATEPROJECT(#(# Ѐ   `    `     h JonathanB.Steiner     `     h ExecutiveDirector   <#QNE0#NQ   `     h ____________________________________     `     h SuzanE.Hier     `     h StaffAttorney     `     h AttorneysforAppellant#NN;#vN#`v$>#v`   $@``" TABLEOFCONTENTS      `     h      p      x Page(s)  6f  APPELLANTSSUPPLEMENTALBRIEF    ONTHEMERITSRE:CUNNINGHAMV.CALIFORNIA""J(#.ZZ41   4Vm  4Vm@B0     ARGUMENT#""J(#.x x (#(##14Vm@B\B݌   Ќ  4Vm  4VmB0     INTRODUCTION#""J(#.  (#(##14VmBC݌    Ќ  4Vm  4VmC0       I.0` (#(#THEDECISIONINCUNNINGHAMV.CALIFORNIA4VmCC݌ ` (#` (# Ќ     ` CONFIRMSTHATTHEPROVISIONSFORIMPOSING      ` THEUPPERTERMINCALIFORNIAVIOLATETHE      ` FEDERALCONSTITUTIONANDTHATTHETRIAL   0  0` (#(#COURTDIDVIOLATEAPPELLANTSCONSTITUTIONAL` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#RIGHTSTOAJURYTRIALANDPROOFBEYONDAREASONABLE  DOUBTASWELLASHISRIGHTAGAINSTDOUBLEJEOPARDY  BYUSINGACQUITTEDCOUNTSTO` (#` (#    ` IMPOSETHEUPPERTERM""J(#.*2    4Vm  4VmcG0       II.0` (#(#CUNNINGHAMV.CALIFORNIAANDALMENDAREZTORRES4VmcGG݌` (#` (# Ќ  0  0` (#(#V.UNITEDSTATESDONOTPERMITTHETRIALJUDGETO  SENTENCEADEFENDANTTOTHEUPPERTERMBASED` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#UPONTHENUMEROUSRECIDIVISTFACTORSLISTEDIN  CALIFORNIARULESOFCOURT,RULE4.421,SUBDIVISION` (#` (#    ` (B)(2)TO(B)(5)""J(#.$$$4  4Vm  4VmJ0        `  A.WhethertheDefendantsPriorConvictionsasanAdult4VmJ3J݌ (#(# Ќ  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#ThatAreNumerousandofIncreasingSeriousnessRequires ! ЀAdditionalFindings#P"P"I(#.VV0 (# (##11 " 4Vm  4VmK0     ݀0(#(#0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#B.WhethertheDefendantHasServedaPriorPrisonTerm4VmK L݌$  (# (# Ќ     `  RequiresAdditionalFindingsP"P"I(#.;13 % ! 4Vm  4VmtM0        `  C.WhethertheDefendantWasOnParoleWhentheCrime4VmtMM݌'"#(#(# Ќ     `  WasCommittedRequiresAdditionalFindingsP"P"I(#.I14 (#$ 4Vm +&'   0  4VmN0` (#(#     `  D.WhethertheDefendantsPriorPerformanceon4VmN)O݌` (#` (# Ќ     `  ProbationorParoleWasUnsatisfactoryRequires  ЀAdditionalFindingsP"P"I(#.D15  4Vm  4VmP0        `  E.Conclusion#P"P"I(#.'(#(##154VmPP݌  Ќ  4Vm  4VmQ0       III.0` (#(#THEDEFENDANTSSIXTHAMENDMENTRIGHTS4VmQQ݌ ` (#` (# Ќ     ` UNDERCUNNINGHAMAREVIOLATED,IFTHETRIAL      ` JUDGE,INEXERCISINGDISCRETIONTOIMPOSETHE      ` UPPERTERM,RELIESONAGGRAVATINGFACTORS      ` THATHAVENOTBEENESTABLISHEDINCOMPLIANCE      ` WITHTHESIXTHAMENDMENT,EVENIFTHEREIS      ` AVAILABLEASINGLEPOTENTIALLYAGGRAVATING      ` FACTTHATHASBEENESTABLISHEDBYMEANS      ` SATISFYINGTHECONSTITUTIONP"P"I(#./18  4Vm  4VmnU0       IV.0` (#(#APPELLANTSCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSWERE4VmnUU݌` (#` (# Ќ     ` VIOLATEDBYTHETRIALCOURTSSELECTIONOF     ` THEUPPERTERMINTHISCASEP"P"I(#./26  4Vm  4VmW0       V.0` (#(#PREJUDICEFORSENTENCINGADEFENDANTTO4VmW-W݌` (#` (# Ќ  0  0` (#(#THEUPPERTERMINVIOLATIONOFTHESIXTHANDFOURTEEN  AMENDMENTMUSTBEASSESSEDUNDERCHAPMANANDTHE  ERRORWASPREJUDICIALIN` (#` (#    ` THISCASE  P"P"I(#.28  4Vm  4Vm@Y0       VI.0` (#(#TOREMEDYTHECONSTITUTIONALINFIRMITYOF4Vm@Y\Y݌` (#` (# Ќ     ` THECALIFORNIASENTENCINGSCHEME,THISCOURT     ` SHOULDNOTATTEMPTTOREWRITETHECODEAND      ` SHOULDREFORMTHESTATUTETOPERMITONLY !    ` SENTENCESTOTHEMIDDLETERM,ORALTERNATIVELY, "    ` TOLIMITUPPERTERMSENTENCESTOTHOSECASES #    ` INWHICHTHEAGGRAVATINGFACTORSWEREFOUND $     ` BYTHEJURYORADMITTEDBYTHEDEFENDANTP"P"I(#.::<31 %!! 4Vm  4Vm\0     CONCLUSION#P"P"I(#. (#(##354Vm\\݌ '## Ќ  A  ($$ @  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES      `    `     h      p      x Page(s)   #Nv?#vN#`vA@#v`  FEDERALCASES   _  442%#X |AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)    4 523U.S.224UU#%#. 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,16,17,19,32    ?+ ` hp x 442%#?     442%#XApprendiv.NewJersey(2000)    4 530U.S.466HH(#. 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,15,16,21,23,24,27,28     | ?+ ` hp x 442%#? 442%#X  |Blakelyv.Washington(2004)    4 540U.S.2963%#. 3,5,9,20,24,27,28    | ?+ ` hp x 442%#?  442%#X |Chapmanv.California(1967)    4 386U.S.18@%#.< < 26,28,30   ?+ ` hp x 442%#?    442%#XCunninghamv.California(2007)   4 549U.S.___oo%#. 2,3,4,8,9,11,16,18,19,21,27,28,31   | ?+ ` hp x 442%#? 442%#X  |Jonesv.UnitedStates(1999)   4 526U.S.227@%#. 10,11,16   ?+ ` hp x 442%#?    442%#XMongev.California(1998)   4 524U.S.721""I%#. 3   | ?+ ` hp x 442%#?  442%#X |Nederv.UnitedStates(1999)   4 527U.S.1 ! !D%#. 28,29   | ?+ ` hp x 442%#?  442%#X |Ringv.Arizona(2002) !  4 536U.S.584 B%#. 5,8,27 "  | ?+ ` hp x 442%#? 442%#X  |Shepardv.UnitedStates(2005) $   4 544U.S.138%#.< < 5,6,7,8,11,15 % !  | ?+ ` hp x 442%#? 442%#X  |UnitedStatesv.Booker(2005) '"#  4 543U.S.220""I%#. 9 (#$  ?+ ` hp x 442%#? )$%   442%#XWaltonv.Arizona(1990) *%&  4 497U.S.639""I%#. 5 +&' Washingtonv.Recuenco(2006)   4 548U.S.___ B%#. 3,5,28   ?+ ` hp x 442%#?    442%#X  STATECASES       Arpv.Workers'CompensationAppealsBoard(1977)    4 19Cal.3d395M"M"H%#. 31    | ?+ ` hp x 442%#? 442%#X  |CityofCarmelbytheSeav.Young(1970)    4 2Cal.3d259 ! !D%#. 31,32       Koppv.FairPol.PracticesCom.(1995)    4 11Cal.4th607M"M"H%#.2 2 31    | ?+ ` hp x 442%#?  442%#X |Metromediav.SanDiego(1982)    4 32Cal.3d180M"M"H%#. 31   | ?+ ` hp x 442%#?  442%#X |Peoplev.Boyd(1979)   4 24Cal.3d285M"M"H%#. 16   ?+ ` hp x 442%#?    442%#XPeoplev.Calhoun(1981)   4 125Cal.App.3d731M"M"H%#.  #15   | ?+ ` hp x 442%#?  442%#X |Peoplev.Cheatham(1979)   4 23Cal.3d829M"M"H%#. 32   | ?+ ` hp x 442%#?  442%#X |Peoplev.Covino(1980)   4 100Cal.App.3d660@%#.  #16,22,30   ?+ ` hp x 442%#?     442%#XPeoplev.Flood(1998) !  4 18Cal.4th470M"M"H%#.2 2 16 "  ?+ ` hp x 442%#? #   442%#XPeoplev.Hall(1994) $   4 8Cal.4th9504%#. 20,21,22,32,33,34 % !  | ?+ ` hp x 442%#? 442%#X  |Peoplev.Humphrey(1997) '"#  4 58Cal.App.4th809M"M"H%#.#12 (#$  ?+ ` hp x 442%#? )$%   442%#XPeoplev.Jenkins(1983) *%&  4 142Cal.App.3d222M"M"H%#.  #16 +&' Peoplev.Kellett(1982)   4 134Cal.App.3d949M"M"H%#.  #22   ?+ ` hp x 442%#?    442%#XPeoplev.McGee(2006)   4 38Cal.4th6821 1 A%#.2 2 6,10,11   | ?+ ` hp x 442%#?  442%#X |Peoplev.Myers(1983)    4 148Cal.App.3d699M"M"H%#.  #20    | ?+ ` hp x 442%#?  442%#X |Peoplev.Nobelton(1995)    4 38Cal.App.4th76M"M"H%#.pp"12    ?+ ` hp x 442%#?     442%#XPeoplev.Osband(1996)    4 13Cal.4th622M"M"H%#.2 2 22    | ?+ ` hp x 442%#?  442%#X |Peoplev.Ramos(1980)   4 106Cal.App.3d591M"M"H%#.  #13   ?+ ` hp x 442%#?    442%#XPeoplev.Regalado(1980)   4 108Cal.App.3d531 ! !D%#.  #15,22   ?+ ` hp x 442%#?    442%#XPeoplev.Seals(1993)   4 14Cal.App.4th1379M"M"H%#.HH$14   ?+ ` hp x 442%#?    442%#XPeoplev.Searle(1989)   4 213Cal.App.3d1091 ! !D%#.xx$12,22   ?+ ` hp x 442%#?    442%#XPeoplev.Seel(2004)   4 34Cal.4th535""I%#.2 2 3    | ?+ ` hp x 442%#? 442%#X  |Peoplev.Simpson(1979) "  4 90Cal.App.3d919M"M"H%#."12 #  | ?+ ` hp x 442%#? 442%#X  |Peoplev.Taylor(1979) %!!  4 92Cal.App.3d831M"M"H%#."13 &""  | ?+ ` hp x 442%#?  442%#X |Peoplev.Tenner(1993) ($$  4 6Cal.4th559M"M"H%#. 14 )%%  *&&  | ?+ ` hp x 442%#?_ +''   442%#X |Peoplev.Willis(2002)   4 28Cal.4th22M"M"H%#. 14   ?+ ` hp x 442%#?    442%#XPeoplev.Wright(1982)   4 30Cal.3d705M"M"H%#. 20      | ?+ ` hp x 442%#??+ ` hp x X?  STATESTATUTES       442%#X | PenalCodesection(s):        #Nv^#vN 4 18M"M"H%#. 13       4 451P"P"I(#.x x 13    ?+ ` hp x 442%#?    |  442%#X 4 461M"M"H%#.x x 13     4 830P"P"I(#.x x 16     4 667.5@@9(#.  12,13,14,26,29    ?+ ` hp x 442%#?   442%#X 4 1170@%#. 20,23,29    ?+ ` hp x 442%#?   442%#X 4 1170.3M"M"H%#. 20     4 1192.7P"P"I(#. 13    #Nv#vN#`v_#v` | CaliforniaRulesofCourtrules:      4 4.405M"M"H%#.  23 !  ?+ ` hp x 442%#? "   442%#X 4 4.408M"M"H%#.  20 #  | ?+ ` hp x 442%#?   442%#X 4 4.420 ! !D%#.  21,22 % !  &!"  4 4.423P"P"I(#.  12 '"#   ?+ ` hp x 442%#??+ ` hp x X? Legislature:  )$%  ?+ ` hp x X?  442%#XSen.BillNo.40M"M"H%#.~ ~ 29 +&' #Nv##QN#