WPC Hvng>mpf^%PNRMjE/eN۳S%W|K24/ j%H8lẤGdKE]T%"ve~8ZD1\`rgq]o>@%{qL Q ><&۳3oI"n%c qIvcѣv P^lR qa:y庠14Zds=S!5˴O/o F,"< n5e^h_Q%o{&VAjO+eew5{4,}tLc=5Ubl/Ha E_/5Hfۜ1={qtIÒ"hCp+Ъs3nbjSijҺ@ gC&'G vyNoM}5s[&:H,.*Rt䳫[i d˃ܚ\tΨ#> UN %U 0([U NN^ w4 mU@U@_UNU>UF+UDqqqU>      B 0 0DeEHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL,,,,0(A Z6Times New Roman Regular($(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular0 J0:i+003|xU(k9 Z(Times New Roman (9 Z(Times New Roman (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular\  `&Times New Roman@F Z.Tiffany Lt BT Lightz\ Z,GoudyOlSt BT Roman  9 Ѵ( 9Z+&Courier Regular  a'  X<<Ց C#Ց]#E:D <alifornia#DE:ǣ#   *Ԁ   AE:D 22ppellate#DE:_#  Ѐ PE:D ||roject#DE:##G)#  XZGxxxx   f July9,2004!   | Page  1  #GZ# p  dT6CAPletter1CAP LetterheadX̉XXXXX  U  ?`XX̉  C$  ?`ALIFORNIA ?` $ԀA$  ?`PPELLATE ?` $ԀP$  ?`ROJECTX̉X $   x @n XX̉>  nLOSANGELESOFFICE  520S.GrandAvenue,FourthFloor ` LosAngeles,California90071 (H xhTELEPHONE:(213)2430300 h FACSIMILE:(213)2430303 ( x @anonprofitcorporationestablishedbytheStateBarofCalifornia  @ <$ DAZ) dE` # A $ D   $3 S^-\ >ExecutiveDirector $ JonathanB.Steiner   AssistantDirector   JayM.Kohorn 4T  Attorneys Ll KathleenC.Caverly  ElizabethA.Courtenay d RonnieDuberstein  LisaFerreira | RichardFitzer ( NancyGaynor  DeeHayashi  @ SuzanE.Hier     $8 XAttorneys(contd) $ ^-\\^-JillIshida  ЀPatriciaH.Jenkins < RichardB.Lennon  CherylLutz 4T GaryM.Mandinach  StephanieG.Miller Ll LarryPizarro  FlorenceR.H.Popper d WilliamC.Spater   JamesA.Uyeda |! OfficeAdministrator # AmyC.GriffinX1X\^-  @$ XX  XXXX1@*(3$ !  !  __RJune28,2004  TotheHonorableRonaldGeorge,ChiefJustice  andtheHonorableAssociateJustices  SupremeCourtoftheStateofCalifornia   RonaldReaganBldg.   300S.SpringStreet   2ndFloor   LosAngeles,CA90013      `  RE:|0  Peoplev.#SU|#Shawn_Towne_ (#(#    `    CourtofAppealNo.B166312   TotheHonorableChiefJusticeandAssociateJustices:    Petitionerseeksleavetofilethissupplementallettercontainingpointsand  authoritiesrelevanttothePetitionforReviewfiledbypetitioneronJune18,2004.The  requestisbasedupontheJune24,2004filingbyUnitedStatesSupremeCourtof  _Blakely_v.Washington(2004)___U.S.___[No.021632;2004DailyJournal_D.A.R._  7581,June25,2004DailyJournalReports],adecisionthatisrelevanttotheissue  presentedforreview.    InthePetitionforReview,petitionersoughtreviewbasedinpartuponthetrial  courtshavingviolatedpetitionersFederalConstitutionalrightundertheSixthand  FourteenthAmendmentstoatrialbyjurybyimposingtheupperterminthiscasebased  uponthefactsofcountsofwhichpetitionerwasacquittedbythejury.(Petitionfor  Review,pgs.38)TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecisionin_Blakely_demonstrates   thatpetitionersrighttoajuryunderthefederalconstitutionwasindeedviolatedhere. !   In_Blakely_,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatWashingtonssentencing # scheme,whichprovidesforonemaximumsentencefortheusualcase,andahigher $  maximumsentenceincasesinwhichthesentencecourtfindsaggravatingfactorsbya %!! preponderanceoftheevidence,tobeunconstitutionalandaviolationoftherighttotrial &"" byjury.(_Blakely_v.Washington(2004)___U.S.___[No.021632;2004DailyJournal '## _D.A.R._Ԁat75827583];seealso_Apprendi_v.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,490.)The ($$ courtreachedthisconclusionbyapplyingtherulefrom_Apprendi_that, [_o]ther_Ԁthanthe )%% factofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondthe *&& prescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury,andprovedb_eyond_Ԁa +'' reasonabledoubt.(Id.,at490.) ,((  -)) _  TheCourtexplainedinBlakely:  8  8`    SUSU therelevantstatutorymaximumisnotthemaximum  sentenceajudgemayimposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,  butthemaximumhemayimposewithoutanyadditional  findings.Whenajudgeinflictspunishmentthatthejury's  verdictalonedoesnotallow,thejuryhasnotfoundallthe   factswhichthelawmakesessentialtothepunishment,   [Citation],andthejudgeexceedshisproperauthority.#SU SU #   Blakelyv.Washington(2004)___U.S.___[No.021632;   2004DailyJournalD.A.R.at75827583] ` x` x Thus,becausetheWashingtonsentencingcourtcouldnotimposethegreatermaximum   sentencewithoutfindingfactsbeyondthemereelementsoftheoffense,thejudgewas   necessarilyfindingfactsbeyondthoseestablishedbythejurysverdictofguilt.(Ibid.)     SimilarlyinCalifornia,  8  8`    [w]henajudgmentofimprisonmentistobeimposeda SUSUnd  thestatutespecifiesthreepossibleterms,thecourtshallorder  impositionofthemiddleterm,unlesstherearecircumstances  inaggravationormitigationofthecrime.#SU SU# SUSUԀ(Pen.Code,#SU SU'# SUSU  1170,subd.(b).)#SU SUz#Ԁ` x` x Thecourtmustfurtherstateitsreasonsforimposingtheupperterm.Thosereasonsmay  bebasedupontheevidenceattrial,evidenceintroducedatthesentencinghearingandthe  probationofficersreportsamongotherthings.(Pen.Code,1170,subd.(b).)They  mustbeprovedbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceandmaynotbebaseduponafact  thatisanelementofthecrime.(Pen.Code,1170,subd.(a)(3)[thesentencingcourts  shallapplytherulesimposedbytheJudicialCounsel];Cal.RulesofCourtrule4.420(b),  (d);seealso|SUPeoplev.Bowen(1992)11Cal.App.4th102,105#SU|#.)    Inthiscase,applyingthesesentencingrules,thetrialcourtsentencedpetitionerto   theuppertermbased,inpart,onthecourtsfindingthatpetitionerhadcommittedthe ! actschargedinthecountsofwhichhehadbeenacquittedbythejury.(RT24152416) " Thiswasaclearviolationofpetitionersrighttoajurytrial.(Blakelyv. # Washington(2004)___U.S.___[No.021632;2004DailyJournalD.A.R.at7582 $  7583];seealsoApprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.,at490.)TheCourtofAppeal %!! foundthatanypotentialerrorinthetrialcourtshavingdonesowasharmlessbecause &"" thetrialcourtcouldhavebasedtheuppertermontheothersentencingfactorsrelatingto '## petitionerspriorperformanceonprobationandparolethatthecourtmentionedatthe ($$ timeofsentencing.(SlipOpn.,atpg.6.)Anycourtfindingonthesefactors,however, )%% wouldalsoviolatetheSupremeCourtsholdinginBlakely.(Blakelyv. *&& Washington(2004)___U.S.___[No.021632;2004DailyJournalD.A.R.at7582 +'' 7583].) ,((  -)) _R 9     AsnotedinthePetitionforReview,theCaliforniaCourtsofAppealarespliton  whetherasentencingcourtmayusethefactsofcountsofwhichthedefendantwas  acquittedtoimposetheharshestsentenceallowedforthecrimeofwhichthedefendant  wasconvicted.(See|SUPeoplev.#SU|:# SUSUSpencer(1996)51#SU SU#|SUCal.App.4th#SU|#|SU1208,1223;compare  #SU|1 #|SUPeoplev.#SU| #|SUTakencareof(1981)119#SU| #SUSUCal.App.3d#SUSUL!#|SUԀ492,498#SU|!#|SUԀwith#SU|!#|SUPeoplev.#SU|."#|SULewis(1991)229  #SU|"#SUSUCal.App.3d#SUSU"#|SU259.)#SU|7##|SUThe#SU|##Lewiscourttookthepositionthat,becausethesentencingcourt   usesapreponderancestandardwhilethejuryusesbeyondareasonabledoubt,the   inconsistencyinthefindingsdidnotmatter.(Id.,at264.)Thisholdingwasclearly   inconsistentwithBlakelyandcannotstand.     TobringCalifornialawintoconformitywiththerequirementsofthefederal   constitution,secureuniformityindecisionsandvindicatepetitionersrighttoajurytrial,   thisCourtshouldgrantreviewandreversepetitionerssentencetotheupperterm.      `     h   Respectfullysubmitted,  |SU   `     h   CALIFORNIAAPPELLATEPROJECT     `     h   JONATHANB.STEINER     `     h   ExecutiveDirector     `     h    x       `     h   SUZANE.HIER     `     h   AttorneysforPetitioner  #SU|'#