ÿWPCÙ Ê:” $–ä÷U›÷‡½Ñ`À]vW-HQ÷I‘Fï(â[›ƒ#•´s×)îY`ñ÷ó†×¶¶UH-Ã&L¸)2L#ğxëÔ\„ÉÙÀåEåõÇÙÿğƒ óülã 8ò%a—xq®Gs}Jm¿Õ¢<Ædİ:0¥eÎÌRŒí6òF«>û8 x7Ú.ÄŞµj€LD8Ãÿ°Æ‡½Lݽ° _…)„Ç|İ û·/ûù¬°ÌjEn•ÚĞë1É£½Ğµ](ø¶Kó¾“ğÔ² ËIdaf[OÇç‡4µ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ B¼<ş6X9`("Courier 10cpiX3|x«<ş6X9`("Courier 10cpiXôxş6X@É“8Ç;X@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  ÓLOÌ.˜HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCLÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 (ÎáA Z6Times New Roman Regular€œs1Ş ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z(Times New Roman  Ïİ ƒßé$İÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóóİ  İÔ_ÔÔ€X |XXXÔÔ€Š‹«ˆXX |ÔAppellant€is€filing€concurrently€herewith€a€Request€for€Judicial€Notice€of€theĞ ° Ğdocuments€that€are€part€of€the€legislative€history€of€Assembly€Bill€476€from€1977,€the€billĞ ° Ğthat€amended€the€then€newly€enacted€Penal€Code€section€1170.€€For€the€CourtğğsĞ ° Ğconvenience€copies€of€the€referenced€documents€are€attached€to€the€Request€for€JudicialĞ ° ĞNotice€as€exhibits.€Citation€to€the€documents€in€this€letter€are€by€the€exhibit€numbersĞ ° Ğassigned€to€them€in€the€request.€€(((3ßé$¤¤İ ƒ¤T!İÓ  Óİ  İà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó(%Ã$òòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó İ ƒßé$İÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóóİ  İÔ_ÔÔ€X |XXXÔÔ€Š‹«ˆXX |ÔThis€was€provided€to€Assemblyman€Kenneth€L.€Maddy€by€Legislative€Counsel€inĞ ° ĞApril€1977.€In€its€opening€paragraph,€it€explained€that€the€San€Diego€District€AttorneyğğsĞ ° ĞOffice€believed€that€the€determinate€sentencing€act€needed€modification€and€that€thisĞ ° Ğdocument€was€a€tentative€draft€of€suggested€modifications.€It€was€sent€to€this€office€fromĞ ° Ğthe€Legislative€Archives,€and,€for€this€Courtğğs€convenience,€a€copy€of€it€is€attached€to€theĞ ° Ğrequest€for€judicial€notice€of€the€archived€materials€as€Ô_ÔExhÔ_Ô.€B.€ô\  `‹&Times New Roman dİ ƒ¤T!İÓ  Óİ  İÔ_ÔÔ€X |XXXÔÔ€Š‹«ˆXX |ÔClerkĞ ° ĞSupreme€CourtĞ ° ĞState€of€California€Ğ ° Ğfor€delivery€to€the€Honorable€Chief€Justice€Ronald€George€Ğ ° Ğand€Associate€Justices€of€the€CourtĞ ° Ğ€Ìà  àà ` àRE:à ¸ àòòPeople€v.€Shawn€Towneóóà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àĞ °  Ğà  àà ` àà ¸ àSupreme€Court€No.€S125677Ğ °  ĞÌTo€the€Honorable€Chief€Justice€Ronald€George€and€Associate€Justices€of€the€Court:Ğ °  Ğà  àÌà  àAppellant€requests€leave€to€file€this€supplemental€letter€brief€to€address€issues€ofĞ °  Ğlegislative€intent€based€upon€documents€obtained€from€the€state€archives€relating€to€theĞ °  Ğbills€enacting€Penal€Code€section€1170׃×İ ƒ%ÃİòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóóİ  İ×  ×€in€1975„1976€and€amending€it€in€1977„1978.€TheĞ °  Ğissues€presented€in€this€case€require€consideration€of€whether€the€Legislature€meant€forĞ ° Ğthe€middle€term€to€be€mandatory€in€the€absence€of€judicial€factfinding€and€whether€theĞ ° Ğstatute€may€be€interpreted€or€reformed€to€avoid€unconstitutionality.€(See€AOBM€22„25;Ğ ° ĞARBM€8„10,€13„32)€The€legislative€history€casts€light€on€whether€the€LegislatureĞ ° Ğintended€to€make€the€middle€term€mandatory€and€informs€the€remedy€this€Court€canĞ ° Ğemploy€upon€finding€some€provisions€of€Penal€Code€section€1170€unconstitutional.Ğ ° ĞÌà  àRespondent€has€argued€that€the€Legislature€merely€established€a€ğ ğpreferenceğğ€forĞ ° Ğthe€middle€term€and€that€legislative€intent€was€merely€to€make€the€middle€term€average€orĞ ° Ğusual,€but€that€the€defendant€has€no€entitlement€or€right€to€the€middle€term€uponĞ ° Ğconviction.€€(RBM€33)€The€statutory€language€and€the€legislative€history€of€the€statuteĞ ° Ğbelie€this€conclusion.€€Ğ ° ĞÌà  àAs€initially€drafted€in€Senate€Bill€42,€Penal€Code€section€1170€did€not€include€theĞ ° Ğcurrent€subdivision€(b)€with€its€requirement€that€the€middle€term€be€imposed€unless€theĞ °  Ğcourt€found€additional€factors€justifying€departure€from€it.€(See€Sen.€Bill€No.€42€(1975„Ğ °! Ğ1976,€Reg.€Sess.)€Ô‡ Š‹«ˆˆŠ‹«ÔğğÔ#†Š‹«ˆˆ Š‹« #Ô€273.)€Rather,€it€merely€stated€that€the€trial€court€shall€sentence€theĞ °" Ğdefendant€to€one€of€the€three€terms€absent€a€grant€of€new€trial€or€probation.€(òòIbidóó.)€In€theĞ °# ĞAugust€7,€1975€version€of€the€bill,€subdivision€(b)€was€added,€providing€for€theĞ °$  Ğmandatory€imposition€of€the€middle€term€absent€additional€findings€and€laying€outĞ °%!! Ğvarious€procedural€rules€for€doing€so.€€(See€Assem.€Amend€to€Sen.€Bill€No.€42€(1975„Ğ ° Ğ1976,€Reg.€Sess.)€Aug.€7,€1975,€p.€111„113.)€While€those€procedures€were€later€amendedĞ ° Ğby€Assembly€Bill€476€to€permit€finding€of€the€factors€at€a€single€sentencing€hearing€andĞ ° Ğwithout€a€motion€by€the€parties,€the€requirement€that€the€court€ğ ğshallğğ€impose€the€middleĞ ° Ğterm€unless€it€made€additional€findings€and€stated€the€reasons€for€the€departure€on€theĞ ° Ğrecord€was€never€eliminated.€(See€Assem.€Bill€476€(1977„1978,€Reg.€Sess.)€Ô‡ Š‹«ˆˆŠ‹«ÔğğÔ#†Š‹«ˆˆ Š‹«a#Ô€15.)€Ğ °  ĞÌà  àAdditionally,€in€1977,€when€AB€476€was€being€drafted€to€amend€the€newlyĞ °  Ğenacted€determinate€sentencing€law€as€passed€in€SB€42,€the€San€Diego€District€AttorneyğğsĞ °  ĞOffice€urged€the€Legislature€to€give€the€sentencing€court€more€discretion€and€reduce€theĞ °  Ğemphasis€on€a€ğ ğnarrow€uniformity.ğğ€(See€Exh.€B,€Suggested€Modification€of€SB€42€„Ğ °  ĞTentative€Draft,€pg.€4.)׃×İ ƒ%ÃİòòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóóİ  İ×  ×€€It€further€argued€to€this€end€that,€ğ ğ[t]he€middle€term€should€beĞ °  Ğviewed€as€the€norm,€but€not€made€mandatory;€.€.€.ğğ€(òòIdóó.,€at€pg.€4.)€The€proposal€went€on€toĞ °  Ğsuggest€that:€(1)€the€requirement€of€a€special€hearing€on€aggravation€or€mitigation€shouldĞ °  Ğbe€eliminated;€(2)€the€choice€of€term€should€be€left€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€court;Ğ ° Ğ(3)€the€Judicial€Councilğğs€sentencing€guidelines€should€be€merely€ğ ğtaken€intoĞ ° Ğconsiderationğğ€instead€of€mandatorily€applied;€and€(4)€the€court€should€be€able€to€use€aĞ ° Ğwide€range€of€information,€including€the€probation€report.€(òòIdóó.,€at€4„7.)€€Ğ ° ĞÌà  àThe€same€office€also€wrote€to€the€Chairman€of€the€Assembly€Committee€forĞ ° ĞCriminal€Justice,€the€Honorable€Kenneth€L.€Maddy,€to€withdraw€its€support€of€the€billĞ ° Ğbecause€its€proposed€amendments,€which€included€those€mentioned€above,€had€not€beenĞ ° Ğadopted.€(See€Exh.€A)€Subsequently,€the€Legislature€did€follow€some€of€these€suggestionsĞ ° Ğas€they€related€to€Penal€Code€section€1170,€such€as€combining€the€hearing€on€aggravatingĞ ° Ğor€mitigating€factors€with€the€sentencing€hearing€and€permitting€consideration€of€theĞ ° Ğprobation€officerğğs€reports.€(See€Pen.€Code,€Ô‡ Š‹«ˆˆŠ‹«ÔğğÔ#†Š‹«ˆˆ Š‹«~#Ô€1170€as€enacted€in€1977;€see€also€Exh.€C,Ğ ° ĞD,€E.)€€But,€despite€the€earlier€direct€request€that€the€Legislature€not€make€the€middle€termĞ ° Ğmandatory,€but€rather€ğ ğthe€normğğ€(or€ğ ğthe€preferenceğğ€as€respondent€has€suggested),€theĞ ° ĞLegislature€retained€the€mandatory€ğ ğshall.ğğ€It€further€continued€to€mandate€that€the€trialĞ °  Ğcourt€follow€the€rules€laid€out€by€the€Judicial€Council.€Ğ °! ĞÌà  àThis€retention€of€the€mandatory€language€as€to€the€imposition€of€the€middle€termĞ °# Ğdemonstrates€a€clear€legislative€intent€to€require€the€sentencing€court€to€impose€the€middleĞ °$  Ğterm€unless€additional€facts€were€found.€(Cf.,€òòKusior€v.€Silveróó€(1960)€54€Cal.2d€603,€618Ğ °%!! Ğ[Ô‡Š,nˆˆŠ‹«Ôğ ğÔ#†Š‹«ˆˆŠ,n#ÔÔ‡Š,nˆˆŠ‹«Ôfailure€to€make€changes€in€a€given€statute€in€a€particular€respect€when€the€subject€isĞ ° Ğbefore€the€Legislature,€and€changes€are€made€in€other€respects,€is€indicative€of€anĞ ° Ğintention€to€leave€the€law€unchanged€in€that€respect.Ô#†Š‹«ˆˆŠ,nN#Ôğğ];€òòÔ‡Š,nˆˆŠ‹«ÔMadrid€v.€Justice€CourtÔ#†Š‹«ˆˆŠ,n¢#ÔóóÔ‡Š,nˆˆŠ‹«Ô€(1975)€52Ğ ° ĞCal.App.3d€819,€825Ô#†Š‹«ˆˆŠ,nş#Ô„826.)€The€Legislature€plainly€rejected€the€suggestion€of€expandingĞ ° Ğthe€trial€courtğğs€discretion€to€enable€it€to€impose€any€of€the€three€terms€at€will.€Neither€didĞ ° Ğit€permit€the€trial€court€to€ignore€the€rules€of€the€Judicial€Council€in€making€its€findingsĞ °  Ğon€aggravating€or€mitigating€factors.€€€Ğ °  ĞÌà  àThe€fact€that,€in€1977,€the€Legislature€declined€the€district€attorneyğğs€invitation€toĞ °  Ğalter€the€statute€to€give€the€trial€court€the€option€of€imposing€the€upper€term€without€aĞ °  Ğfinding€of€any€additional€facts€also€undercuts€respondentğğs€argument€that€this€Court€couldĞ °  Ğreform€Penal€Code€section€1170€to€do€just€that.€The€rejection€of€the€suggestion€in€1977Ğ °  Ğdemonstrates€clearly€that€such€a€solution€was€contrary€to€the€intent€of€the€Legislature.€AsĞ °  Ğa€result,€this€Court€should€not€now€do€what€the€Legislature€has€already€opted€against.€(SeeĞ °  ĞÔ‡ Š‹«ˆˆŠ‹«ÔÔ‡ ‹ت‹ˆ Š‹«ÔòòKopp€v.€Fair€Pol.€Practices€Comóó.€(1995)€11€Cal.4th€607,€Ô#†‹ت‹‹ ‹ت– #ÔÔ#†Š‹«ˆ‹‹تµ #Ô661.)€Therefore,€this€CourtĞ ° Ğshould€reject€respondentğğs€argument€that€the€statute€can€be€reformed€by€removing€theĞ ° Ğrequirement€of€additional€findings€to€justify€imposition€of€the€upper€term.€(RABM€50„53)Ğ ° ĞÌà  àAdditionally,€as€the€Legislature€did€not€adopt€the€proposal€of€making€the€middleĞ ° Ğterm€and€the€rules€of€the€Judicial€Council€mere€suggestions€for€the€trial€court,€it€is€clearĞ ° Ğthat€its€primary€goal€was,€as€the€district€attorney€had€asserted,€to€promote€uniformity€ofĞ ° Ğsentences.€(See€Exh.€B,€pp.€2„5.)€Thus,€this€Court€should€also€reject€respondentğğsĞ ° Ğargument€that€the€statute€can€be€reformed€to€permit€imposition€of€the€upper€term€basedĞ ° Ğonly€upon€factors€that€may€survive€òòBlakelyóó.€(RABM€39„49)€As€appellant€urged€in€hisĞ ° ĞReply€Brief€on€the€Merits,€this€Court€should€not€interpret€or€reform€the€statute€in€aĞ ° Ğmanner€that€would€skew€the€sentencing€by€permitting€upper€terms€based€on€only€a€limitedĞ ° Ğnumber€of€aggravating€factors€that€by€chance€or€dubious€exception€to€the€òòBlakelyóóruleĞ ° Ğsurvive€after€the€provision€for€judicial€factfinding€has€been€stricken€as€unconstitutional.Ğ ° Ğ(See€ARBM€17„25)€€€Ğ °  ĞÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àRespectfully€submitted,€Ğ °" ĞÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àSuzan€E.€HierĞ °'## Ğà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àAttorney€for€Appellant