WPC\t qw@:1IgV֑O4=|WG޻ލT&-{M+C8@=!Y)3cZ'Z8>C3O"c٭S,-JV\ǘCTr{śרbj4V%(VCq`|ȭdjw+C+TF>7hLҧ[gTtOV Ol^e\k[0;`׈enߗąQ-*:"=Uk)- ƃ{a(W`ށf*2ۢwP# 8d'?^,W~!3_ZK׹S|)`LK]U6_c4O%̦UEK -UrVz@Rs$Lr#rڥJ4mb)#ҝ˳[;*.;cv.'wU: % 0D 0  n 0s UN=  w 4 ULN # N^  mU'@U>'6eU@ 0UUN0 0~ 0[ B 07 0 0 0P 0 0 03 0 0 0j 0 0 0M 0 0q 0 0 0| 0& 0 0h 0 0 0! 0:!!H#N&U>))g) 0-* 0(* D+* AM+[+-!/ 01 02 0]3 0>4 0Y4 0Q5 036 07 07 08 09 0u: 02G; 0y; 0Yu< 0_< 0 -= 07> 0? B*A D/A 0B D/D 0MD 06E 0QE 0:YF 0^F 0<F 1e-GU6GU*G 1uG 72gH H 0NPU UyW 0<![][*_ 02A@__wLhl;Eo  oooot0t0tFt<6X9`("Courier 10cpiX(#$  0  (!2)$ 9H!'X` pX'      XXXX͆XXӀ  0  3|x<6X9`("Courier 10cpiXx6X@8;X@(K9H$'X` pX'     (9 Z6Times New Roman RegularHHA1(\8H\\(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularHP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60ȵ1 U(9 Z(Times New Roman \  `&Times New Roman TakencareofCoelho(9 Z(Times New Roman *+ (_2623  ..(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)   d*2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L  42Emphasis  )$'X` pX'  XXXX͆XXӀ  1    _/͆͆͆͆Theinformationallegedfourpriorconvictions,butthepartieslateragreedthatthey  representedonlytwopriorprisonterms.(RT2402) > )$'X` pX'  XXXX͆XXӀ  2    _/_Noe_Ԁ_Arana_Ԁandappellantweretheonlyeyewitnessestothechargedoffenses.The  bulkoftheirtestimonywenttothesevencountsofwhichappellantwasacquitted.These  werefor_carjacking_,kidnaping,robbery,grandtheftautomobile,criminalthreats,  kidnapingfor_carjacking_Ԁandkidnapingtocommitrobbery.(CT177183)Because  appellantwasacquittedofthesecrimes,theirfactswillnotbedetailedhere. D )$'X` pX'  XXXX͆XXӀ  5    _/Insohold͆͆ing,thecourtdistinguishedthesituationinwhichthesentencingcourtis  choosingaterminacaseonwhichprobationhadnotbeenpreviouslygrantedfromthe  situationinwhichthecourtisdecidingwhethertocontinuesomeoneonprobation.(Id.,at  498499.)\  `&Times New Roman Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(f2O$ 9H!'X` pX'      ($'dxd9:;<A<< c  )$'X` pX'  XXXX͆XXӀ  8    _/PenalCode,section1170,subdivision(a)(3)providesthatthesentencingcourts  shallapplytherulesimposedbytheJudicialCounselinsentencingaconvictedperson.  (Seealso,Pen.Code,͆͆#͆͆#Ԁ1170.3.)Thisdelegationofauthorityisconstitutional.(Peoplev.  Wright,supra,30Cal.3dat711714.)  )$'X` pX'  XXXX͆XXӀ  9    _/Californiasindeterminateterms(seee.g.Pen.Code͆͆#͆͆ #͆͆#͆͆O#Ԁ190,209)arenotatissue  here.  )$'X` pX'  XXXX͆XXӀ  10    _͆͆/The rangein_Blakely_scasewasquitelimited,however.Theapplicablestandard  rangefor_Blakely_Ԁwasfrom49monthsto53months,avarianceofonlyfourmonths.#͆͆#0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK_<6X9`(Courier NewKS8\  `&Times New RomanS64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K_<6X9`(Courier NewKS8\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/K_<6X9`(Courier NewKS8\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7U(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?`%2A`Arial?  S8\  `&Times New RomanS7<(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dT)1dxd<:zTop of For7W(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?`%2A`Arial?  S8\  `&Times New RomanS7<(X75+ ` hp x 5  T)2dxd0KS.SampleK_<6X9`(Courier NewKS8\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK_<6X9`(Courier NewKS8\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  "#$%&'() 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)ai) )$'X` pX'  XXXX͆XXӀ  13    _/CaliforniaappellatecourtshavepreviouslyrejectedchallengestoPenalCode  section1170baseduponthedenialofarighttoajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonable  doubt.(See ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆#_Betterton_(1979)93_Cal.App_.3d406; ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆q#Nelson(1978)85  _Cal.App_.3d99.)Thesecases,however,reliedonWilliamsv.NewYork,supra,337U.S.  241toconcludethatthesentencingprocedureswerenotsubjecttothedueprocess  requirementsofacriminaltrial.( ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆#_Betterton_,supra,93_Cal.App_.3dat412413;    ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆#Nelson,supra,85_Cal.App_.3dat101102.)Thisbegsthequestionpresented   here,whetherthesentencingdeterminationbeingmadewaswithintherealmofmere   sentencingfactorsorelementalfacts.In_Blakely_,theCourtdistinguishedWilliamsbased   uponthefactthatthesentencingjudgetherewasnotusingadditionalfactstoimpose a   sentencegreaterthanwhatstatelawauthorizedonthebasisoftheverdictalone.   (͆͆͆_Blakely_v.Washington,supra,540U.S.at___[124_S.Ct_.at2528;159_L.Ed_.at414];   seealso_Apprendi_v.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.at482,fn.9[ NothinginWilliams   impliesthatajudgemayimposeamoreseveresentencethanthemaximumauthorizedby   thefactsfoundbythejury.(emphasisadded)].)Asnotedabove,theverdictinWilliams  requiredimpositionofthedeathpenaltyunlessthejuryrecommendedalifesentence,at  whichpointthecourtwasgivendiscretiontoreducethesentence.(###͆#See͆͆͆Williamsv.New  York,supra,337U.S.at242252#S ##͆r #.)TheimpositionoftheuppertermunderPenalCode  section1170subdivision(b)involvesnosuchreduction.(O$  )$'X` pX'  XXXX͆XXӀ  3    _/Althoughthecourtandbothpartiesaddressedthemotionwithoutquestioningthe  applicabilityofPenalCodesection17tothisoffense,itappearsthat,withthePenalCode  section666.5allegation,thecrimewasnolongersubjecttotreatmentasamisdemeanor. o )$'X` pX'  XXXX͆XXӀ  11    _/͆͆͆͆Thesentencewassubjecttofurtherenhancementbytwopriorprisontermswithin  themeaningofPenalCodesection667.5.#͆͆#ԀTheseenhancementswerestrickenbythecourt  intheinterestofjusticebecauseof [appellants]history,[appellants]ownpersonal  nature,thetrialasitplayedoutandthesentencetowhichyouaretoservetime,thefact  thatyouwillbedoing80%ofthattimeandthefactoneofthepriorswasthesameasthe  strike.(RT2418)<:Default Para  )$'X` pX'  XXXX͆XXӀ  12    _/͆͆Thestandardrangefor_Blakely_soffensewas49to53months.Thesentencing  courtfoundthat_Blakely_Ԁhadactedwithdeliberatecruelty,andonthatbasis,imposeda  termof90months,asentencethatwaslessthanthe10yearabsolutemaximum,butmore  thanthreeyearslongerthanthestandardrange.(_Blakely_v.Washington,supra,͆͆Ԁ540U.S.  > at___[124_S.Ct_.at2535;159_L.Ed_.at411]#͆͆#.)  w (Vm$0     )$'X` pX'  XXXX͆XXӀ  6    _/ThecourtinLevittrejectedthedefendantsinterpretationoftheLevittcourtsearlier  decisioninPeoplev.Wells(1983)149_Cal.App_.3d721,730asforeclosingthetrial  courtsrelianceonsubstantialevidencethatahighercrimewascommittedwhile  imposingsentenceonthelessercrimefound.(Peoplev.Levitt,supra,156_Cal.App_.3dat  519,fn.5.)InWells,inremandingfor_re_sentencing,thecourtnotedthatthetrialcourt  hadstatedattheinitialsentencingthat,althoughthejuryhadreturnedaverdictof   manslaughter,it shouldhavereturnedaverdictofmurderandadmonishedthetrial   courtthat,whileitcouldconsidertheseverityofthecrimeindeterminingtheultimate    dispositioninthecase, thetrialjudgespersonalbeliefthattheconvictionshouldhave  beenformurder_insead_Ԁofmanslaughter shallplaynopartintheprocess.(Peoplev.  Wells,supra,149_Cal.App_.3dat730.)TheLevittcourtstatedthatitwaspermissiblefor  thesentencingcourttoconsiderevidenceofthegreateroffensetofindaggravation,but  thatitcouldnot baseasentencingdecisiononitspersonalbeliefthatahighercrimewas  committed,ratherthanonspecificevidencethatwouldsupportasentencingdecision   underapplicablerulesandstatutes.(Peoplev.Levitt,supra,156_Cal.App_.3dat519,   fn.5.)ItisdifficulttoseethedistinctionthattheLevittcourtwastryingtomake.    m )$'X` pX'  XXXX͆XXӀ  7    _/_͆͆Pre_Apprendi_,inPeoplev.Hernandez(1998)#͆͆#͆͆19Cal.4th835,842843,thisCourt  heldthatneitherstatenorfederaldoublejeopardyprecludedreconsiderationofthefactual  determinationsonanenhancementanddeclinedtoextendstatedoublejeopardy  protectionsbeyondthoseoffederaldoublejeopardy.WhateverthisCourtmayconclude  aboutwhethertoadheretothisexpansivestatementinthecontextofdoublejeopardy  protections,itshouldnotextendittounderminestateprotectionsunderdueprocessand   therighttoajurytrial.#͆͆#͆͆#͆͆+#  5 ' DEBBIE0DEBBIE .   page page chapter volume footnote endnote j       )$'X` pX'  XXXX͆XXӀ  4    _͆͆͆͆/A#͆͆#ppellantsposition,whichwillbemorefullydevelopedbelow,isthatthefederal  constitutionprecludesthetrialcourtfrommakinganyfactualfindingstoenableitto  imposemorethanthepresumptivemidtermforthecrime(seeSubpartC,infra)andthat  useofacquittedcountstoimposeahighersentenceviolatesdoublejeopardy.(See  SubpartE,infra.)Forpurposesofthisdiscussiononly,itisassumedthatthecourthadthe  discretiontoimposeanuppertermbaseduponitsown_factfinding_Ԁandthattheuseof   acquittedcountsdidnotviolatedoublejeopardy.  e       9H!'X` pX'      _3X` pX` 3%  XXXX͆XX8BXXdd8@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 )  ____________________________________________)  @   APPELLANTSBRIEFONTHEMERITS    `    JONATHANB.STEINER   `    ExecutiveDirector   `    _SUZAN_Ԁ_HIER_   `    StaffAttorney   `    (StateBarNo.90470)    `    CALIFORNIAAPPELLATEPROJECT "  `    520S.GrandAvenue,4thFloor #  `    LosAngeles,California90071 $   `    Telephone:(213)2430300 % !  `    AttorneysforAppellant  '"# _8͆dXXd8@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 )   SHAWNTOWNE 0   p ) (#(#  `     p )    ` DefendantandAppellant.   p )   ____________________________________________)  9X'` pX` X9@    APPELLANTSBRIEFONTHEMERITS  Ԉ  =X` XX'` Xc=@!  QUESTIONSPRESENTED  YԈ    ` 1. DidthetrialcourtabuseitsdiscretionandviolateappellantsFederal  ConstitutionalrightsundertheFifth,SixthandFourteenthAmendmentstodueprocess,a  jurytrialandagainstdoublejeopardybysentencinghimbaseduponfactorsnecessarily  rejectedbythejurysverdictacquittinghimofallbutonecountcharged?    ` 2. DoesBlakelyv.Washington(2004)540U.S.___[124S.Ct.2531; " 159L.Ed.2d403]precludeatrialcourtfrommakingtherequiredfindingsonaggravating $  factorsforanuppertermsentence? &!"  ` 3. Ifso,whatstandardofreviewapplies,andwastheerrorinthiscase (#$ prejudicial?  *%&    ͆͆ qOa  STATEMENTOFTHECASE  e   &6X` X` X6 ` Appellant,ShawnTowne,appealsthejudgmentofconvictionandsentence  foronecountofunlawfuldrivingofavehicle(Veh.Code, XX ͆# ͆X X#Ԁ10851,subd.(a)),with  findingsofapriorviolationofVehicleCodesection10851withinthemeaningofPenal   Codesection666.5,andpriorconvictionsqualifyingasone strikeandtwopriorprison   termenhancements.(Pen.Code,667,667.5,1170.12.)(CT185187,202205)   3X` X` ` 3 ` OnNovember7,2002,appellantwaschargedbyamendedinformationwith   theaboveoffenseandsevenothercountsallegingaseriesofcrimescommittedagainst   NoeAranaonApril1,2002.(Pen.Code,215,subd.(a);207,subd.(a);211;487,  subd.(d);422;209.5subd.(a);209,subd.(b)(1);Veh.Code,10851,subd.(a).)There  wereadditionalallegationsthatappellanthadsufferedapriorconvictionforaseriousor  violentfelony(1995robbery)withinthemeaningofPenalCodesections667  subdivisions(b)(i)and1170.12subdivision(a)(d),servedtwopriorprisontermswithin  themeaningofPenalCodesection667.5subdivision(b)5 #  1      ׀andpreviouslybeenconvicted  ofavehicletakingwithinthemeaningofPenalCodesection666.5.(CT7177)    ` Appellantwastriedbyjuryonthesubstantiveoffenses.(CT100111,185 "  187)OnDecember11,2002,appellantwaivedhistrialrightsastothepriorsand $  qOa q q  admittedthem.(CT109110;RT12551260,16401643)OnDecember13,2002,the  juryacquittedappellantofallcountsexcepttheunlawfuldrivingcount.(CT178187)    ` OnFebruary19,2003,appellantmovedtostrikethe strikeallegation  pursuanttoPenalCodesection1385and#͆ ͆2#Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Romero)(1996)13   Cal.4th49 ͆͆ԀandtoreducetheoffensetoamisdemeanorpursuanttoPenalCodesection17   subdivision(b);hearguedalternativelyforimpositionofthelowertermdoubled.(CT   193203;RT24082413)Bothmotionsweredenied,andthecourtimposedtheupper   termoffouryears,doubledtoeightbecauseofthestrikeprior.(CT202203)Thecourt  struckthePenalCodesection667.5subdivision(b)priorsbaseduponallofthe  circumstances,appellantspersonalhistory,thetermhewouldbeservingandthefactthat  hiscreditswouldbelimitedto80%,andthefactthatoneofthepriorswasthesameasthe  priorthatwasthebasisforthestrike.(RT2418)Appellantwasawardedcreditspursuant  toPenalCodesections2900and4019andorderedtopayrestitutionfinespursuantto  PenalCodesections1202.4and1202.45.(CT202203)   ` OnApril4,2003,appellantfiledatimelynoticeofappeal.(CT205)On   appeal,appellantarguedthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninselectingtheupper " termandindenyingamotiontostrikehisprior strikeconvictionpursuantto#͆ ͆# ͆͆Peoplev. $  #͆ ͆$## ͆͆SuperiorCourt(Romero),supra,13#͆ ͆##͆͆Cal.4th#͆͆## ͆͆Ԁ497.(AOB616,ARB212)Thechallenge &""  totheimpositionoftheuppertermwasbaseduponthetrialcourtsimproperuseofthe ($$ factsunderlyingtheoffensesofwhichappellantwasacquittedtoselecttheupperterm.  (AOB1216,ARB712)    ` TheCourtofAppealrejectedappellantsargumentsonbothgrounds,  finding,inpart,thatanyerrorinusingthefactsfromtheacquittedcountstoimposethe   uppertermwasharmless.(SlipOpn.56)Appellantpetitionedforreview,andfileda   supplementalpetitionaftertheBlakelydecisionwasissued.ThisCourtgrantedreviewon   thethreeissueslistedabove.       STATEMENTOFFACTS  ' 6 #  2          ' 0XXX` ` 0A.0  TheFactsoftheOffense  I( (#(# 0X` XX0 ` OnMarch31,2002,NoeAranawentouttoabar.(RT611)Ataround   midnight,Aranaleftforhome.(RT612613)Onhiswayhome,Aranawasnotfeeling   wellandpulledoffoftheroad,wherehewasapproachedbyappellant,whowasworking   asaprostitute.(RT613614)Thetwoagreedto hookupfortheevening,andappellant   gotintothepassengersideofthecar.(RT614615)    ` Thetwodrovearoundtovariouslocations.(RT614619)Appellantfell  asleepduringtheride.(RT619)Atsomepoint,Aranastoppeddriving,andthetwo  fought.(RT620622)Aranaandappellantdifferedonwhoattackedwhom,withArana  claimingappellantjumpedhimandappellantclaimingthatheawoketofindArana  stranglinghim,buttheyagreedthatafightensuedbetweenthem.(RT621622,1023  1034)Theyalsoagreedthat,intheend,appellanthadprevailed,tiedAranashandsin  frontofhim,andtakenoverthedriving.(RT622,628,10381041)    ` Atjustbefore6a.m.,appellantstoppedatastoreandenteredit.(RT636, " 721)Whileappellantwasinthestore,Aranaleftthecar.(RT636)Hewenttothedoor $  ofanearbyhomeandawokethewomanwholivedthere.(RT636637,721722)He  appearedtobeterrifiedandclaimedtohavejustbeencarjacked.(RT722723)The  womancalled911.(RT723)   ` OfficerPaulLopezpulledoverappellantasappellantdroveAranascaron   the110Freeway.(RT629,902904,907)Althoughappellantspedupasthepolicecar   startedtofollowhim,hepulledtothesideoftheroad#͆ ͆;$# ͆͆Ԁandstopped#͆ ͆0# ͆͆ԀassoonasLopez   activatedhisoverheadlightstosignalhimtodoso.(RT904906)Lopezdrewhisgun,   andbeforehecouldorderappellantoutofthecar,appellantgotout,puthishandsinthe  airandstated, Thiscarisstolen.Ihadnothingtodowithit,butmyfriendstoleit.(RT  906)Shortlythereafter,appellantstatedthathehadbeengoingtoapolicestationto  reportbeingthevictimofanassaultandclaimedthatthecarbelongedtoafriend.(RT  909)   ` AppellanttestifiedthathehadbeenattackedbyAranaandsubduedhim.  (RT10231034)Thereafter,appellanttriedtocall911onacellphone,butthecalldidnot  gothroughbecausehewasinamountainrange.(RT1034)HeandAranadrovearound   foratimeandfinallystoppedatastore.(RT10411045,1210)Appellantwentinside; " whenhelookedout,Aranawasgone.(RT1211)Appellantdrovethecarawayand $  eventuallywenthome.(RT12111216)Thereafter,hetelephonedtheregisteredownerof &""  thecarattheownershomeandwasgoingtowardtheownershomewiththecarwhen ($$ hewasstoppedbythepolice.(RT12161217)Headmittedlyingtothepolicewhenthey  stoppedhim.(RT1217)   0XXX` ` 0 #͆ ͆?1#  B.0  TheCourtsReasoningatSentencing  7  (#(# 0X` XX0 ` Thecourtbeganitspronouncementofsentencewithadenialofamotionto   reducethecrimetoamisdemeanorpursuanttoPenalCode17subdivision(b)e #  3      ׀becauseit   wouldnotbe appropriatetoreduceit...eitherunderthefactsofthecaseoronthe   lengthyhistoryofthedefendant.(RT24142415)ItthenturnedtotheRomeromotion   and,notingthatappellanthadhadanumberofencounterswithlawenforcementsincehis  1995convictionforrobbery,statedthatitwouldnotbeappropriatetostrikethestrike.  (RT2415)   ` ImmediatelyafterdenyingtheRomeromotion,thecourtturnedtoselecting  thetermtoimpose.Itnotedthatthecasewasnoteasyforthejury,butthatthejury   sorteditout.(RT2415)ThecourtstatedthatitwasclearthatbothAranaandappellant  hadlied.(RT24152416)Itfurthernotedthatthejurywasadvisedthatevenaliarlike   Aranahadtherighttobe freefromthekindoftreatmentthatthePeopleallegedtohave "  beeninflictedonhimduringtheseevents.ThecourtwentontoconcludethatArana $  wasterrifiedwhenhelefthiscarandhadbeen afraidforhislife.(RT24152416)The  courtstated:   8 ` IdoknowwithrespecttothechargeonwhichMr.Towne  standsconvictedthattheevidencethatwehavebeforethe   courtthatIbelieveisentirelybelievableisthatwhenMr.   Aranagotoutofthatcarhewasterrified.Hewasafraidfor   hislife.Hethoughtifhedidntgetoutofthereandhidehe   wasdead.SoIambelievingthatheleftthecarinthatstate   ofmindandthat[appellant]hadpossessionofthecaragainst   hiswillandfor[appellants]ownpurposes.(RT2416) ` x` x > ` Basedupontheseconclusions,thecourtdeterminedthatthecrimeherewas   anaggravatedfelony,notasimpleviolationofsection10851.(RT2416)  ͆͆  ͆Idontbelieve  itsjustasimple10851(A)asIvejustdescribedtoyou,Mr.Towne.Ibelievethatits  anaggravatedsituationbasedonwhatIhavejustdescribed.(RT2416,emphasis  added)# CB##͆bB#Ԁ   ` Thereafter,thecourtagainnotedthatappellanthadatenyearcriminal  historyandcommentedthatappellantwas aninnocentofsorts,whohadnotlearned  fromhispastpunishments.(RT2417)Thecourtthenimposedthehightermdoubled.  Itstatedthatitdidso consideringthetrialasittookplacebeforethecourt,the ! convictiononthe10851(a),[and]thefactthatyouhavealengthyhistory.(RT2418 # emphasisadded.) %!!   '##  vh sW tOa@jj&  ARGUMENT  FԈ  8 `  THETRIALCOURTABUSEDITSDISCRETIONAND  VIOLATEDAPPELLANTSSTATEANDFEDERAL  CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSTODUEPROCESS,A  JURYTRIALANDAGAINSTDOUBLEJEOPARDY   BYSENTENCINGHIMUNDERCALIFORNIAS   UNCONSTITUTIONALSENTENCINGSTATUTETO   ANUPPERTERMBASEDUPONFACTORSTHAT   WERENOTFOUNDBYTHEJURYANDWERE    NECESSARILYREJECTEDBYTHEJURYS   VERDICTACQUITTING  FHIMOFALLBUTONE   COUNTCHARGED ` x` x  0XXX` ` 0F  A.0  Introduction  I  (#(# 0X` XX0 ` Appellantwasacquittedofsevenofeightcountsagainstthesamevictim  duringasingleincident.(CT178187)Accordingtothevictim,appellantviolently  assaultedhim,kidnapedhim,madecriminalthreatsagainsthimandtookhiscarbyuseof  force.(RT612637)Thejuryfoundnoneofthistruebeyondareasonabledoubt,  acquittedappellantofallcountsinvolvingviolenceorthreatofviolenceandconvicted  appellantofonecountofunlawfuldrivingofamotorvehicle,achargeappellantadmitted  committing.(CT178187;RT12111217)    ` Despitethisfindingbythejury,thetrialcourtdepartedfromthepresumed " middletermandimposedtheuppertermforthesolecountofunlawfuldrivingbasedin $  partuponitsconclusionthatthevictim,eventhoughhewasaliar,was terrifiedby &!" appellantand afraidforhislifewhenheleftthecarenablingappellanttotakeit.(RT (#$ 24152416)Thejury,however,acquittedappellantofcarjackingandalloftheother *%& countsrelatingtothe kindoftreatmentthatthePeopleallegedthatinfringeduponthe  victims bodilyintegrityandfromwhichonecouldconcludethatappellanthad  unlawfullycausedthevictimtobe terrifiedor afraidforhislife.  e ` Thetrialcourtsrelianceonthesecountsofwhichappellantwasacquitted   wasanimproperexerciseofdiscretionunderCalifornialaw.(See ͆͆Peoplev.Takencareof   (1981)119Cal.App.3d492#͆ ͆eQ# ͆͆;seealsoPeoplev.#͆ ͆Q#ԀRichards(1976)17Cal.3d614,624   [disapprovedonothergrds., ͆͆Peoplev.Carbajal(1995)10#͆ ͆R#͆͆Cal.4th#͆͆S# ͆͆Ԁ1114,1126]#͆ ͆^S#;cf., ͆͆People   v.#͆ ͆S#Coelho(2001)89Cal.App.4th861,874876;butsee ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆UT#Lewis(1991)229  Cal.App.3d259,264265;Cal.Const.Art.I,͆͆#͆͆T#Ԁ16.)Moreover,thecourtsimpositionof  sentenceunderPenalCodesection1170andbaseduponfactorsnotfoundtruebeyonda  reasonabledoubtbythejuryviolatedappellantsfederalconstitutionalrightstoajury,to  proofofguiltbeyondareasonabledoubtandtonotbetwiceplacedinjeopardyforan  offenseofwhichhehasbeenacquitted.(SeeBlakelyv.Washington(2004)540U.S.___[  124S.Ct.2531;159L.Ed.2d403];Greenv.UnitedStates(1957)355U.S.184,188.)   0XXX` ` 0  B.0  TheTrialCourtsUseofCountsofWhichtheDefendantWasAcquittedto " ImposetheUpperTermShouldBeReversedUnderCaliforniaLaw 3X #s#s# 0X` XX0 ` Historically,therighttoajurytrialwasincorporatedintothecriminaljustice % ! systemtoinsertthecommonpeople,intheformofajury,asabufferbetweenthe '"# defendantandtheState.(See͆͆Blakelyv.Washington,supra,#͆͆,Z#Ԁ540U.S.at___[124S.Ct.at )$% 25382539;159L.Ed.2dat415];Duncanv.Louisiana(1968)391U.S.145,155156; +&' Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466,477.)Toenableittoperformitsimportant  function,thejurywasgiventheexclusivepowertomakefactualdeterminationsthatset  thelimitsofpunishment.(See͆͆Blakelyv.Washington,supra,#͆͆N\#Ԁ540U.S.at___[124S.Ct.  at25382540;159L.Ed.2dat415416];Ringv.Arizona(2002)536U.S.584,610[conc.   opn.ofScalia,J.].)    ` Allowingatrialcourttoimposesentencebaseduponitsfindingthatthe   defendanthascommittedtheverycrimesofwhichthejuryhasacquittedhimpermitsthe   judgetounderminethejuryspowertodeterminethefactsuponwhichthesentence  depends.r #  4      ׀Thisisdemonstratedbythewayinwhichtheauthorityofacourttomakeuse  ofafindingconflictingwiththejuryverdictwascharacterizedin ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆_#Levitt͆͆͆(1984)  156Cal.App.3d500#5`##͆T`#,519.   ` InLevitt,thecourtconcludedthatthetrialcourtcouldproperlytakeaview  oftheevidenceastomaliceinahomicidecasethatwascontrarytothefindingofthejury,  whichhadacquittedthedefendantofmurder,anduseittoimposeanaggravatedsentence.  (Id.,at515.)Itfurtherconcluded,however,thatthetrialcourthadimproperlyreliedon   twootherfactors.(Id.,at516518.)Inassessingwhethertherelianceofthetrialcourton " thetwoimproperfactorsinaggravationwasprejudicial,thecourtnotedthatthetrialcourt  therefeltthatthecrimesinthatcasehadactuallybeenmurders,ratherthanthe  manslaughtersfoundbythejury,andthattherewassubstantialevidencetosupporta  findingthattheyweremurdersbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Id.,at518519.)Thecourt   thenstated:   W8 ` Underthesecircumstances,thefollowingconclusionsappear   inevitable.First,thecourtwastryingtopartiallycorrectfor   thejurysverdictintheonewayitwasentitledtodo,bygiving   defendantthemaximumpossibletermforthelessercrime   foundbythejurybasedonsubstantialevidencethatahigher  crimewasinfactcommitted;ineffectthecourtreliedon  evidenceofmurdertomakethesentencemorecommensurate  tothatprescribedformurderers.(Id.,at518519,emphasis  added,footnoteomitted.)1e` `   ` Such correctionofajuryverdictiscontrarytotheverypurposeofthejury  trialright.JusticeScaliainBlakelyrepeatedlyemphasizedtheimportanceofthejurys  placein ourconstitutionalstructure.(͆͆Blakelyv.Washington,supra,#͆͆fi#Ԁ540U.S.at___  [124S.Ct.at25382539;159L.Ed.2dat415].)HefurtherstatedinBlakely:  8 `  Justassuffrageensuresthepeoplesultimatecontrolinthe   legislativeandexecutivebranches,jurytrialismeanttoensure ! theircontrolinthejudiciary....Apprendicarriesoutthisdesign " byensuringthatthejudgesauthoritytosentencederives # whollyfromthejurysverdict.Withoutthatrestriction,the $  jurywouldnotexercisethecontrolthattheFramersintended. %!! ...ThejurycouldnotfunctionascircuitbreakerintheStates &"" machineryofjusticeifitwererelegatedtomakinga '## determinationthatthedefendantatsomepointdidsomething ($$ wrong,amerepreliminarytoajudicialinquisitionintothe )%% factsofthecrimethestateactuallyseekstopunish.(Id.,at *&& ___[Id.,at25382539;Id.,at415416]emphasisadded.)+''` `  ЇsjJusticeScaliafurtherconcludedthattheFramerswouldnot haveleftthedefinitionofthe  scopeofjurypoweruptojudges,andthatthejurytrialguaranteewasintheConstitution  becausetheFramerswere unwillingtotrustgovernmenttomarkouttheroleofthejury.  (Id.,at___[Id.,at2540;Id.,at416].)Thus,allowingasentencingcourtthatdisagrees   withthejurysfindingastoguiltto correctthatfindingwouldberepugnanttothe   Framersdesiretogivethejury,asarepresentativeofthe commonpeople,controlover   thejudiciary.(SeeId.,at___[Id.,at2539;Id.,at415](quotingJohnAdams).)    ` ThevariouscourtsofappealinCaliforniahavegrappledwiththepropriety  ofthesentencingcourtmakingfindingscontrarytothejurysverdict.Indoingso,the  courtshavepermitteddifferentdegreesofvariancebetweenthejurysfindingsandthose  ofthesentencingcourt.   ` In ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆s#Takencareof(1981)119͆͆Cal.App.3d#͆͆t#Ԁ492,498,thecourthadto  determinewhetherthetrialcourtcouldproperlyrelyonthefactsunderlyingtwocountsof  whichthedefendanthadbeenacquittedindecidingwhethertodenyprobation.Itassumed  thatthetrialcourthaddonesobyemployingapreponderanceoftheevidencestandardin   makingitsfindingofaggravatingfactorscontrarytothejurysverdict.(Id.,at497.)The " questionofwhethertheuseofthelesserstandardofproofundersuchcircumstanceswas $  properwasaquestionoffirstimpressionatthetime.(Ibid.) &""  ` TheTakencareofcourtnotedthat,inPeoplev.Fulton(1979)92Cal.App.3d ($$ 972,thecourthadheldthatfactsunderlyingacountonwhichthejuryhadbeenunableto *&& reachaverdictcouldbeproperlyusedatsentencingbecausePenalCodesection1170  subdivision(b)permitsthesentencingcourttoconsidertheentirerecordinthecase,but  hadexpresslydeclinedtoaddresswhetherthetrialcourtcouldconsiderasaggravationa  chargeonwhichajuryhadacquitted.(Id.,atp.976,fn.1.)TheTakencareofcourtthen,   withoutexplainingthestatutory,constitutionalorcaselawunderpinningsforits   conclusion,heldthatwhere thetrieroffacthasfound[thedefendant]notguiltyofa   countinamultiplecountprosecution,thesamestandardofproofofbeyondareasonable   doubtshouldapplytobothconvictionandsentencing.(Id.,at498.)7 #  5      ׀ ͆͆Ԁ   ` Thecourtexplaineditsconclusion:  #͆ ͆{#͆͆8 ` Itwouldbeanomaloustoholdthatifthejuryfindsthe  defendantnotguiltyofacountutilizingtheconstitutionally  exactingstandardofproofbeyondareasonabledoubt,he  shouldfacethesameallegedcrimeatsentencingundera  preponderanceofevidencestandard.Weareunpreparedto  holdthattwostandardsoperatesimultaneouslyinacasewhere  adefendantisacquitted.Suchaholdingwouldbeludicrous.  Adefendantwhowonavictoryatthehandsofthejurycould  neverthelessbesubjectedtoamoreharshsentenceifhewas  contemporaneouslyfoundguiltyofanothercrimeinthesame  case.(Ibid.) ` `  #͆͆L|#k| ͆͆ ` Thereafter,inpermittingthesentencingcourttousefactorsthatwere " apparentlycontrarytoajurysverdict,someappellatecourtswouldattempttodemonstrate $  thatthetrialcourtsfindingwasnotnecessarilyinconsistentwiththejurysverdict.(See  #͆ ͆ # ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆# ͆͆Reyes(1987)195Cal.App.3d957,964[ajuryfindingthatthedefendanthadnot  inflictedgreatbodilyinjuryonanelderlyvictimwasnotinconsistentwiththecourts  relianceonthefactthatthedefendanthadusedgratuitousviolenceandinjuredthevictim];   #͆ ͆ # ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆# ͆͆Lopez(1982)131Cal.App.3d565,567[afindingthatthedefendantdidnotuse   agunwasnotinconsistentwithafindingthathewasarmedwithone];seealso#͆ ͆# ͆͆Peoplev.   #͆ ͆# ͆͆Bermurdez(1984)157Cal.App.3d619,626[wherethejuryhungonacount,thelackofa   juryfindingdidnotprecludeuseoftheevidencesupportingit];#͆ ͆K# ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆A# ͆͆Fulton,supra,  92Cal.App.3dat976[same].)#͆ ͆#Ԁ   `  ͆͆Somecourtsstatedthatthesentencingcourtmustnotusethecountsof  whichthedefendantwasacquitted,but,havingheardtheevidencesupportingthe  acquittedcounts,couldusethatevidence.(See#͆ ͆@# ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆v# ͆͆Gragg#͆ ͆Ȉ#(1989)216͆͆Cal.App.3d#͆͆#  32,4245[judge correctlystatedthatitwouldnot payheedtoacquittedcountand  couldusetheevidencepresentedonthatcountasinformationforfindingaggravation,but  wasprohibitedfrom theunwarrantedpracticeofimposingextrapunishmentona   defendantconvictedofonechargebasedonaconclusionbythejudgethatthejuryerredin " acquittingthedefendantonanycompanioncharges.].)Somecourtsdeclinedtocomment $  onwhetherafindingdirectlycontrarytothejurysverdictwouldbepermissible.(See &""  ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆# ͆͆Castorena,supra,51Cal.App.4that562,fn.9[allowingthatthecourtcoulduse ($$ evidenceofelementsthatwouldhavemadethecrimeagreateroffensethanthatcharged *&& andnoting wedonotaddressthequestionofwhetheracourtcanaggravateasentence  basedonafindingofmaliceinacasewhereajuryhasacquittedthedefendantof[the  greateroffense].].)#͆ ͆p#   ` In ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆#Lewis,supra,229Cal.App.3d259,thecourtheldthat,because   thejurysfindingthatthedefendanthadnotusedaweaponwasmadeunderabeyonda   reasonabledoubtstandard,andthesentencingcourtcouldfindfactorsinaggravation   underapreponderanceoftheevidencestandard,therewasnoproblemwiththecourt   aggravatingthedefendantssentencebaseduponafindingthatheusedaweaponinthe  courseoftheoffense.(Id.,at264265;seealsoInreGaryB.(1998)61Cal.App.4th844,  850.)Asnotedabove,thecourtin ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆#Levitt,supra,156Cal.App.3dat515reached  asimilarconclusionandpermittedthecourttorelyonmaliceasanaggravatingfactor  despitethefactthatitwascontrarytothejurysimpliedfindingofnomalice. Thejurys  verdictdidnotimplyarejectionoftheevidenceofmalice;itmerelymeantthatthejury  didnotfeelmalicewasprovenbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thestandardgoverninga  sentencingcourtisfarlessstringent;...(Ibid.)k #  6      ׀   Ї ` ThiscreatedaconflictwithTakencareof.(See ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆#Spencer(1996)51  Cal.App.4th1208,1223.)InSpencer,thecourtreversedtheimpositionoftheupperterm  baseduponthetrialcourtsfindingthatthevictimsinamanslaughtercasewere  particularlyvulnerable.Thejuryhadacquittedthedefendantofthegreatercharged   murderbasedonatheoryofimperfectselfdefense.(Id.,at1222.)Theappellatecourt   concludedthatthefindingofvulnerabilityhadtohavebeenbaseduponarejectionofthe   imperfectselfdefensefoundbythejury,andthus,couldnotbetheproperbasisfor   aggravatingthemanslaughterofwhichthedefendanthadbeenconvicted.(Id.,at1223.)   ͆͆TheAttorneyGeneralpositedtheargumentthatthetrialcourtwas atlibertytodisregard  thejurysfindingandmakeitsownunderalesserstandardofproof.(Ibid.)Thecourt  notedthesplitbetweenLewisandTakencareofastowhetherthisassertionwaslegally  soundanddeclinedtoresolveitbecausethetrialcourthadnotpurportedtomakesucha   findingbaseduponthelesserstandard.(Ibid.)   ` Oftheviewsexpressedbythevariouscourts,theonethatmostcarefully   protectsthejurysroleastheultimatefactfinderandbufferbetweentheStateandthe  defendant,istheruleadoptedinTakencareof.TheFramersoftheConstitutionwould  surelyhaveagreedthat#͆ ͆l#͆͆itwouldbeanomaloustopermitadefendanttofacethesame   crimeofwhichhehadbeenacquittedbyajuryatsentencingunderapreponderanceof   evidencestandard.(#͆͆B# ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆V#Takencareof,supra,119͆͆Cal.App.3d#͆͆ʝ#Ԁat498.)Moreover,the   Framerswouldnotquibblewiththenotionthatitwouldbe ludicroustopermita͆͆    defendantwhowonavictoryatthehandsofthejury[to]neverthelessbesubjectedtoa  moreharshsentenceifhewascontemporaneouslyfoundguiltyofanothercrimeinthe  samecase.(Ibid;seeBlakelyv.Washington,supra,#͆͆#Ԁ540U.S.at___[124S.Ct.at2538  2539͆͆;159L.Ed2dat415416];#͆͆[#Duncanv.Louisiana,supra,391U.S.at155156;cf.,  Peoplev.Coelho,supra,89Cal.App.4thatp.876[toprotectthejurytrialright,among  others,atsentencing,thecourtshouldconfineitsconsiderationofthecircumstancesofthe  offensetothosefactsitcanconcludebeyondareasonabledoubtwerefoundbythejury  beyondareasonabledoubt.]͆͆.)ThisCourtshouldthereforeadopttheruleofTakencareof   toprotecttherighttoajurytrialundertheCaliforniaConstitution,ArticleI,section16,if " nottheSixthAmendmentoftheFederalConstitution.(See#͆͆# ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆ϣ#͆͆Fields(1996)13 $   Cal.4th289,298[ theCaliforniaConstitutionisadocumentofindependentforceand &"" effectthatmaybeinterpretedinamannermoreprotectiveofthedefendantsrightsthan  thatextendedbythefederalConstitution.].)l #  7      ׀    ` Indoingso,thisCourtwouldbeinkeepingwithitspreviousdecisionin  #͆͆!# ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆#ԀRichards,supra,17Cal.3dat624(disapprovedonothergrds., ͆͆Peoplev.   Carbajal,supra,10#͆ ͆!#͆͆Cal.4th#͆͆#Ԁat1126)wherethisCourtprecludedtheorderofrestitution   baseduponcountsofwhichthedefendanthadbeenacquitted͆͆.Inaddressingtheargument   thatthetrialcourtwasdoingnomorethanaciviljurycoulddounderthelesserstandard   applicablethere,thisCourtstated, Itisentirelyirrelevantthattheburdenofproofina  criminalcasediffersfromtheburdeninacivilcase.Thisisnotacivilcase.Itisa  criminalproceedinginwhichthedefendant,protectinghisliberty,willbeacquittedifhe  raisesareasonabledoubtofhisguilt.Inthecourseofconvincingajurytodoubthisguilt  ononecharge,adefendantshouldnothavetheadditionaltaskofpersuadingthejudge  regardingthesubsequentsentencingdispositiononothercharges."(Ibid.)#͆͆z#͆͆   ` AnapplicationoftheTakencareofruletothiscasedemonstratesthatthetrial  courtabuseditsdiscretionhere.#͆͆߫#ԀThetrialcourtsdeterminationthattheterrorexperienced   byAranaasheleftthecarcouldbeusedtoaggravateappellantssubsequentcrimeofauto " takingrunsafoulofthejurysnecessaryfindings.Thejurywasnotconvincedbeyonda  reasonabledoubtthatappellantwasnotthevictimofAranasaggressionorthatanyforce  usedbyappellantwasnotdoneinselfdefense.Itacquittedappellantofeverycount  involvingviolenceorthreatofviolenceanddidsoeveninthefaceofbeingtoldthat    liarslikeAranaareentitledtobefreefromcrime.(RT2415)Thesentencingcourts   determinationthatappellantcouldbeheldtoblameforAranasterrordemonstratedits   conclusionthatappellanthadcommittedactsconstitutingunlawfulforcethathadcaused   Aranatoabandonhiscar,afindingrejectedbythejurywhenitacquittedappellantof  carjacking,robberyandmakingcriminalthreats.Moreover,therewasnosupportinthe  recordforafindingthatappellantcausedterrorintheactualtakingofthecar;appellant  wasinthestorewhenAranaleftandtookthecarafterAranawasgone.(RT636,1211)   ` AssumingthatappellantdidnotunlawfullyterrorizeArana,appellantonly  tookanunoccupiedcarwithoutpermission.Thus,thecircumstancesoftheoffenseas  foundbythejurywerenotaggravated.Hadthecourtproperlyreliedonlyonthefactsthat  wereconsistentwiththejurysverdicts,itlikelywouldhaveimposedthestandard,oreven   themitigated,term. "  ` Ascounselargued,therewereseveralmitigatingfactorsthatweresupported $  bytherecord.Onewasthatappellantadmittedhiscommissionoftheautotakingearly &"" andthroughouttrial.(RT24112412;Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.423(b)(3).)Anotherwas ($$ thatthecrimearosebecauseofoddcircumstances,withAranaabandoningthecarafter *&& vh v v  theirconflict.(RT24092410;Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.423(a)(2)(3)(4)[victiminitiated  orprovokedtheincident;thecrimewastheresultofunusualcircumstances,behavior  partiallyexcusableforareasonnotamountingtoadefense].)Counseladditionallynoted  thatappellantwasreturningthecarwhencaught.(RT2409;seeCal.RulesofCourt,rule   4.423(a)(6)[effortstoavoiddamage],(b)(5)[restitutionmade].)    ` Inlightofalloftheavailablemitigation,itislikelythatthecourt,aftera   properexerciseofdiscretionbaseduponaproperapplicationofthelawtoallofthefacts,   wouldnotimposetheuppertermdoubled.Accordingly,thesentencemustbereversed.  (See ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆#Watson(19K+ X` p x %#%X` ` K8͆͆56)46Cal.2d818,836.)#͆8͆C#   ?XXX%#%X` X%#[?  C.0  UnderBlakelyv.Washington,PenalCodesection1170isUnconstitutional  InsofarasitPermitstheImpositionoftheUpperTermBasedonRequired  FindingsofAggravatingFactorsFoundOnlybytheJudgebya  PreponderanceoftheEvidence hs#s#     Otherthanthefactofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyfora  crimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury,andproved  beyondareasonabledoubt.(Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.at490.)In ! Blakelyv.Washington,supra,540U.S.___[124S.Ct.2531;159L.Ed.2d403]͆,the # UnitedStatesSupremeCourtreiteratedthisruleandclarifiedthat, therelevantstatutory % ! maximumisnotthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimposeafterfindingadditional '"# facts,butthemaximumhemayimposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.(Id.,at___[Id., )$%  at413414;Id.,at2537][Emphasisadded].)#ܾ# +&' sW se s    InCalifornia,thefindingofguiltbyjuryverdictoradmissionalonepermitsonly   theimpositionofthemiddletermsetoutbystatute.(Pen.Code,#y##͆_##͆͆#͆͆͆Ԁ1170subd.(b).)The  courtmayimposetheuppertermonlyincaseswhereitfindsfactorsinaggravation,  whichcannotbebasedonelementsoftheoffenseorimposedenhancements,andfurther   concludesthatthosefactorsoutweighanyfactorsinmitigation.(SeeIbid.;Cal.Rulesof   Court,rule4.420.)Thus,Californiassentencingschemecontravenesthedictatesof   Blakely.       ` 1.CaliforniasSentencingScheme h      ` ThePenalCodesetsoutsentencingprovisionsinvariouslocations.For  mostfelonyoffenses,thecodeprovidesforadeterminatesentencetobechosenfrom  threeterms:lower,middleandupper.(Seee.g.,Pen.Code,#?##͆^##͆͆7#͆͆͆Ԁ18.)###͆#͆PenalCodesection  1170outlineshowthechoiceamongthethreetermsistobemade.Itprovidesin  pertinentpart:   #J#8#8͆8+#8  (a)(3)Inanycaseinwhichthepunishment...isatermofimprisonmentin   thestateprisonofanyspecificationofthreetimeperiods,thecourtshall ! sentencethedefendanttooneofthetermsofimprisonmentspecified...In " sentencing...,thecourtshallapplythesentencingrulesoftheJudicial # Council....#͆8͆I#8͆͆(b)Whenajudgmentofimprisonmentistobeimposedandthe $  statutespecifiesthreepossibleterms,thecourtshallorderimpositionofthe %!! middleterm,unlesstherearecircumstancesinaggravationormitigationof &"" thecrime....Indeterminingwhethertherearecircumstancesthatjustify '## impositionoftheupperorlowerterm,thecourtmayconsidertherecordin ($$ thecase,theprobationofficer'sreport,otherreportsincludingreports )%% receivedpursuanttoSection1203.03andstatementsinaggravationor *&& mitigationsubmittedbytheprosecution,thedefendant,orthevictim,orthe +'' familyofthevictimifthevictimisdeceased,andanyfurtherevidence  introducedatthesentencinghearing.Thecourtshallsetforthontherecord  thefactsandreasonsforimposingtheupperorlowerterm.Thecourtmay  notimposeanuppertermbyusingthefactofanyenhancementuponwhich  sentenceisimposedunderanyprovisionoflaw.#͆8͆a#͆͆͆Ԁ(Emphasisadded.)!! B X` X%#%XXX%#[B ` Thissectionmandatestheimpositionofthemiddletermunlessthecourt   findsandstatesontherecordcircumstancesinaggravationormitigation.(See#L# # ͆ k#Peoplev.   #͆ ͆#͆͆͆Wright(1982)30Cal.3d705,709;#y##͆#͆͆͆Ԁ Intheabsenceofaggravatingormitigating   circumstances,thecourtisrequiredtoimposethemiddleterm.#!##͆@#( ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆E#͆͆͆ԀLobaugh   (1987)188Cal.App.3d780,785[emphasisadded];seealso###͆#Ԁ ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆}#͆͆͆Langevin(1984)  155Cal.App.3d520,523524;###͆# ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆#͆͆͆Arauz(1992)5Cal.App.4th663,674(conc.and  diss.opn.#͆ ##͆͆#͆͆ԀYegan,J.[quotingPen.Code,1170andconcluding, Thus,themidtermisthe  presumptivesentenceselectedbytheLegislature.(emphasisadded)].#͆͆#͆͆͆   ` Afactthatisanelementofthecrimeshallnotbeusedtoimposetheupper  term.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(d)> #  8      ;Peoplev.Bowen(1992)11Cal.App.4th102,  105;## # ͆ #Peoplev.#͆ ͆#͆͆͆Castorena(1996)51Cal.App.4th558,562.)###͆4#͆ԀAfactchargedandfound  trueasanenhancementmaynotbeusedtoimposetheuppertermunlessthepunishment   fortheenhancementhasbeenlawfullystricken.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(c);Pen. " Code,#͆#͆Ԁ1170,subd.(b);## # ͆ 9#Peoplev.#͆ ͆#͆͆͆Garcia(1995)32Cal.App.4th1756,17751776.) $  Thus,nofactsreflectedbythejurysverdictastotheoffensemayeverbeusedas &"" aggravatingcircumstancesandthoseestablishinganenhancementmaybeusedonlyifthe  enhancementisstricken.(See,## # ͆ $#Peoplev.#͆ ͆#͆Lobato(2003)109Cal.App.4th762,767  [verdictreflectsonly#A##͆"#͆thefindingsthatthejurywascompelledtomake].)  $ ` Thefactorsjustifyingtheuppertermneedonlybeprovedbya   preponderanceoftheevidence.(Cal.RulesofCourtrule4.420(b),(d);Pen.Code,   1170,subd.(a)(3);seealso## # # # ͆ #Peoplev.#͆ ͆#Wright,supra,30Cal.3dat710; ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆#͆Levitt,   supra,156Cal.App.3dat514516;Evid.Code,#͆#͆Ԁ115.)    ` Circumstancesinaggravation,whichare factswhichjustifytheimposition  oftheupperprisontermreferredtoinsection1170(b)(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.405  (d)),includefactsrelatingtothecrimeaswellasfactsrelatingtothedefendant.(Cal.  RulesofCourt,rule4.421;## # ͆ #Peoplev.#͆ ͆#͆͆͆Cheatham(1979)23Cal.3d829,834836.)###͆#͆ԀIn  addition,therearestatutorilymandatedcircumstancesinaggravation.(Pen.Code,#͆#͆  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.)Thecourtmayalsoconsider   additionalcriteriareasonablyrelatedtothedecisionbeingmade.(Cal.RulesofCourt,   rule4.408;###͆}# ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆J#͆͆͆Cheatham,supra,23Cal.3dat834836;## # ͆ #Peoplev.#͆ ͆0#͆͆͆Hall(1994)8 " Cal.4th950[thesamerulesapplyforthechoiceofenhancementterms].) $   ` Thedifferencebetweenthemidtermandtheuppertermvariesfromcrimeto &"" crime,buttheincreasesareneverlessthanoneyear.Forexample,thedefaultsentence ($$ foranyfelonyis16months,twoyearsorthreeyears;thejumpfrommidtermtoupper *&& tOa te t  termisfiftypercent.(Seealsoe.g.,Pen.Code,#͆#193[penaltyforvoluntary  manslaughter:midtermsixyears,upperterm11years];Pen.Code,264[penaltyforrape:  midtermsixyears,uppertermeightyears].)͆ԀAdditionally,thedifferencebetweenthe  midtermandtheuppertermforsomeenhancementscanbeevenhigher.(See,e.g.,Pen.   Code,#͆#͆Ԁ12022.5[penaltyforgunuse:midtermfouryears,upperterm10years].)    ` Thus,uponconviction,withoutafindingofadditionalfactorsbeyondthose   essentialtotheconvictionitself,thesentencingcourtmustimposethemidtermdesignated   fortheparticularoffense.Thecourtmay,however,thereaftermakeafinding,bya  preponderanceoftheevidence,ofanyofawiderangeoffactors,whichcannotbeanyof  thosefoundbythejuryindecidingguiltoradmittedbythedefendantinpleadingguilty,  andbasedonthosefactors,imposeasentencethatisatleastayearlongerthanthat  authorizedbytheguiltyverdictalone.   0 `   2.0 ` s#` s# ApprendiandBlakelyandtheFederalDueProcessRightstoa  JuryTrialandProofBeyondaReasonableDoubt  s# s#  _ ` ThedueprocessclauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentandthejurytrialright ! oftheSixthAmendmentcombineto entitleacriminaldefendanttoajurydetermination # thatheisguiltyofeveryelementofthecrimewithwhichheischarged,beyonda %!! reasonabledoubt.[Citations].(Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.at476477, '##  citingInreWinship(1970)397U.S.358,365.) )%%  ` Thus,inApprendi,theCourtstruckdownaNewJerseystatutethat   permittedthemaximumsentenceforacrimetoincreasefrom10yearsto20yearsbased  uponajudicialfindingbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthecrimewascommitted  withapurposetointimidateanindividualorgroupbecauseofrace,color,gender,   handicap,religion,sexualorientationorethnicity.(Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530   U.S.,at468469,491492,497.)Insodoing,theCourtrejectedNewJerseysargument   thatthehatecrimefactorwasnotanelementofacriminaloffensebutwas,instead,a    sentencingfactor.TheSupremeCourtheldthat,howevertheStatechoosesto  denominateagivenfact, [o]therthanthefactofapriorconviction,anyfactthat  increasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbe  submittedtoajury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Apprendiv.NewJersey,  supra,530U.S.,at490.)   ` InBlakelyv.Washington,supra,540U.S.___[124S.Ct.2531;159L.Ed  2d403],theCourtheldthatWashingtonssentencingscheme,whichprovidedforone  maximumsentencefortheusualcase,andahighermaximumsentenceincasesinwhich   thesentencingcourtfoundaggravatingfactorsbyapreponderanceoftheevidence,tobe " unconstitutionalandaviolationofthefederalconstitutionalrightstotrialbyjuryand $  proofofguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt.(SeeId.,at___[124S.Ct.at25362538].)The &"" CourtreachedthisconclusionbyapplyingtherulefromApprendi. ($$  *&&  ` Insodoing,theCourtexplainedinBlakely:  8 ` ## therelevantstatutorymaximumisnotthemaximum  sentenceajudgemayimposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,but  themaximumhemayimposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.  Whenajudgeinflictspunishmentthatthejury'sverdictalone   doesnotallow,thejuryhasnotfoundallthefactswhichthe   lawmakesessentialtothepunishment,[Citation],andthe   judgeexceedshisproperauthority.#>#(Blakelyv.Washington,   supra,540U.S.at___[124S.Ct.at2537;159L.Ed.2dat   413414].) ` `  UnderWashingtonlaw,thesentencingcourtcouldnotimposethegreatermaximum   sentencewithoutfindingfactsotherthantheelementsoftheoffenseascommittedwith  thefirearmusethathadbeenadmittedbyBlakely.Thus,thejudgewasnecessarily  findingfactsbeyondthoseestablishedbytheverdictofguilt,andsuchpracticeoffended  theConstitution.(Ibid.)   ` TheholdingsofApprendiandBlakelydidnotchangetherulethatrightsto  ajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubt###͆ #͆Ԁdonotapplyto sentencingfactors,  whicharethosefactorsthatcomeintoplayonlyafterthedefendanthasbeenfoundguilty  ofacrimebeyondareasonabledoubtandthatdonotpermitasentencebeyondthe ! prescribedmaximumestablishedbythejuryverdict.(McMillanv.Pennsylvania(1986) # 477U.S.79,8590;Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.at481,485486,494&fn. %!! 19.)Statutorylabels,however,arenotcontrolling,andcallingacircumstancea '##  sentencingfactordoesnotmakeitso.(Ringv.Arizona(2002)536U.S.584,602; )%% Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.at494[ [T]herelevantinquiryisonenotof +'' form,butofeffect!doestherequiredfindingexposethedefendanttoagreater  punishmentthanthatauthorizedbythejurysverdict?].) Itwoulddemeanthe  importanceofthereasonabledoubtstandardindeed,itwoulddemeantheConstitution  itselfifthesubstanceofthestandardcouldbeavoidedbynothingmorethana   legislativedeclarationthatprohibitedconductisnotanelementofacrime.(McMillan   v.Pennsylvania,supra,477U.S.at102[dis.opn.ofStevens,J].)#,##͆n#͆    ` Thequestionofwhichfactorsqualifyasmeresentencingfactorsandwhich   areinsteadelementalinnaturehasbeenaddressedbytheSupremeCourtmanytimes.In  1949,inWilliamsv.NewYork(1949)337U.S.241,246252,theCourtheldthatthe  defendantsconfrontationrightswerenotviolatedbypermittingthesentencingcourtina  deathcasetousehearsayinmakingthedecisionastowhethertoreduceadeathsentence  toalifeterm.TheCourtnotedthattheconcernsinexercisingsentencingdiscretion  necessitatedconsiderationoffactorsandevidenceoutsideofthatstrictlyrelevanttothe  questionofguilt.(Id.,at246247.)ThediscretionbeingexercisedinWilliams,however,  wasnotwhethertoincreasethedefendantssentencetodeathoreventochoosebetween   equaloptionsoflifeordeath;thechoiceinWilliamswaswhethertoleavethesentenceat " death(adecisionforwhichthecourthadtogivenoreasonatall(id.,at251252)),or $  exercisetheoptionthatbecameavailabletoitbecauseofajuryrecommendationtoreduce &"" thesentencetolifeimprisonment.(Seeid.,at243,fn.2.)BlakelydistinguishedWilliams ($$ onthisbasis.(Blakelyv.Washington,supra,540U.S.at___[124S.Ct.at2528];seealso *&& Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.at482,fn.9[ NothinginWilliamsimpliesthat  ajudgemayimposeamoreseveresentencethanthemaximumauthorizedbythefacts  foundbythejury.(Emphasisadded)].)# ##͆ #͆   ` In1986,theCourtupheld,againstadueprocessandjurytrialright   challenge,thepracticeinPennsylvaniaofpermittingthetrialcourttofindbya   preponderanceoftheevidencefactsthatwoulddictateastatutoryminimumsentence.   (McMillanv.Pennsylvania,supra,477U.S.at8490##.)Inthatcase,theCourt   distinguishedsentencingconsiderationsthatdidnotalterthemaximumtermforan  offensefromelementsoftheoffense.(Id.,at488.)AsnotedinApprendi,however,the  Courttheredidnot budgefromthepositionthat...astateschemethatkeepsfromthe  juryfactsthatexposedefendantstogreateroradditionalpunishmentmayraiseserious  constitutionalconcern#͆#.(Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.at486;seealsoBlakely  v.Washington,supra,540U.S.at___[124S.Ct.atp.2538;159L.Ed.atp.414]  [distinguishingMcMillanonthebasisthatthestatutetheredidnotauthorizeasentencein  excessofthatotherwiseauthorizedfortheoffense];seealsoHarrisv.UnitedStates   (2002)536U.S.545[reaffirmingtheconstitutionalityofpermittingthesentencingjudge " tofindfactsthattheLegislaturedictatedwouldrequireaminimumsentencewithinthe $  rangepermittedfortheoffensealoneandnotingthattheminimumsentencemandatedin &"" suchacasewas asentencethejudgecouldhaveimposedabsentthefinding.(Id.,at ($$ 560.)].) *&&  ` InJonesv.UnitedStates(1999)526U.S.227,theCourtconstruedafederal  statutetorequireajuryfindingoffactsthatwouldelevatethepenaltyforcarjackingfrom  15yearstoapotentiallifesentence.TheCourtdidso,inpart,toavoidhavingthestatute  beatoddswiththefederalConstitution.(Id.,at239252.)    ` Finally,followingApprendi,theCourtstruckdowntheArizonadeath   penaltystatutebecauseitpermittedthetrialcourtalonetodeterminethepresenceof   aggravatingfactorsnecessarytoimposethedeathpenalty.(Ringv.Arizona,supra,536   U.S.at609.) Ifastatemakesanincreaseinadefendantsauthorizedpunishment  contingentonthefindingofafact,thatfactnomatterhowtheStatelabelsitmustbe  foundbyajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.(Id.,at602.)ConcurringinRing,Justice  Scaliaclarifiedthebasicruleunderlyingwhetherajuryfindingisrequired, Ibelievethat  thefundamentalmeaningofthejurytrialguaranteeoftheSixthAmendmentisthatall  factsessentialtoimpositionofthelevelofpunishmentthatthedefendantreceives  whetherthestatutecallsthemelementsoftheoffense,sentencingfactors,orMaryJane  mustbefoundbythejurybeyondareasonabledoubt.(Id.,at610[conc.opn.ofScalia,   J.].) "  ` Therecurringthemeinthesecasesistheimportanceofthejurysroleinour $  systemandthatfactfindingauthoritylefttothesentencingcourtisprimarilythat &"" connectedwiththeexerciseoflenience,imposinglessthanthemaximumpermittedbythe ($$ verdictalone.Thus,theCourtinApprendiquotedBlackstonetoobserve, Toguard *&& againstaspiritofoppressionandtyrannyonthepartofrulers,andasthegreatbulwark  ofourcivilandpoliticalliberties[Citation],trialbyjuryhasbeenunderstoodtorequire  thatthetruthofeveryaccusation,whetherpreferredintheshapeofindictment,  information,orappeal,shouldafterwardsbeconfirmedbytheunanimoussufferageof   twelveofthedefendantsequalsandneighbours....[Citation](Apprendiv.NewJersey,   supra,530U.S.at477.)Additionally,inJonesv.UnitedStates,supra,526U.S.at246,   theCourtalsoquotedBlackstoneashavingcontendedthat otherlibertieswouldremain   secureonlysolongasthispalladium[trialbyjury]remainssacredandinviolate,....   ` InBlakely,theCourtconfirmedthis:  8 ` Ourcommitmentto4  8͆͆Apprendi#͆8͆a'#4C'ses  8͆͆Ԁinthiscontextreflectsnotjust  respectforlongstandingprecedent,buttheneedtogive  intelligiblecontenttotherightofjurytrial.Thatrightisno  mereproceduralformality,butafundamentalreservationof  powerinourconstitutionalstructure.#͆8͆'#Ԁ8͆͆ԀJustassuffrageensures  thepeople'sultimatecontrolinthelegislativeandexecutive  branches,jurytrialismeanttoensuretheircontrolinthe  judiciary.#͆8͆e)#...4  8͆͆Apprendi#͆8͆*#4*ses  8͆͆Ԁcarriesoutthisdesignbyensuringthat  thejudge'sauthoritytosentencederiveswhollyfromthejury's  verdict.Withoutthatrestriction,thejurywouldnotexercise  thecontrolthattheFramersintended. ` `  #͆8͆+#'(Seealso,Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.at498,conc.opn.ofScalia,J. " concurring[judgesareapartoftheState,and [t]hefoundersoftheAmericanRepublic $  werenotpreparedtoleave[criminaljustice]totheState,....].)   &""  ` Thisexclusivecontroloverfactfindingastoalltheessentialprerequisitesfor ($$ theimpositionofthemaximumauthorizedsentenceisentirelyconsistentwiththeCourts *&& limitationofsentencingfactorslefttothejudgetothosefactsrelatingtoanimpositionofa  sentenceequalto,orlessthan,thesentencepermittedbythefactsalreadyfoundbythe  jury.(See͆͆͆Williamsv.NewYork,supra,337U.S.241[courtfactfindingrelatedto  determiningwhethertofollowthejurysrecommendationtoreducetheotherwise   mandatorydeathsentence]#/##͆/#;͆͆͆McMillanv.Pennsylvania,supra,477U.S.79#>1##͆]1#Ԁ[court   factfindinglimitedtoadeterminationoffactsrelatingtoamandatoryminimumsentence   whichwasnecessarilywithintherangetowhichthecourtcouldsentencethedefendant   withoutanyadditionalfindingoffact];seealsoApprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.  at482,fn.9.)   ` AstheCourtexplainedinHarrisv.UnitedStates,supra,536U.S.at561  562:  8͆͆8 ` Withinthelimitsofanydiscretionastothepunishment  whichthelawmayhaveallowed,thejudge,whenhe  pronouncessentence,maysufferhisdiscretiontobe  influencedbymattershowninaggravationormitigation,not  coveredbytheallegationsoftheindictment.Wherethelaw  permitstheheaviestpunishment,onascalelaiddown,tobe  inflicted,andhasmerelycommittedtothejudgetheauthority   tointerposeitsmercyandinflictapunishmentofalighter ! grade,norightsoftheaccusedareviolatedthoughinthe " indictmentthereisnomentionofmitigatingcircumstances. # Theaggravatingcircumstancesspokenofcannotswellthe $  penaltyabovewhatthelawhasprovidedfortheactscharged %!! againsttheprisoner,andtheyareinterposedmerelytocheck &"" thejudicialdiscretionintheexerciseofthepermittedmercy. '## Thisisanentirelydifferentthingfrompunishingoneforwhat ($$ isnotallegedagainsthim.[Citation])%%` `    *&& (Seealso,#͆8͆84#Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.at8͆͆Ԁ479#͆8͆9#ԀW4[thetrialjudgeinEnglandin   the18thcenturyhadlittlediscretionandimposedaspecifiedsentenceunlesshethought  circumstancesjustifiedcommutingit].)  0 `  3.0 ` s#` s# BlakelyandItsPredecessorsAppliedtoCaliforniasSentencing   Scheme:PenalCodesection1170isUnconstitutionalAsIt    PermitsImpositionofaSentenceGreaterthanthatAuthorized   bytheVerdictAloneBasedSolelyonFactsFoundbytheJudge   byaMerePreponderanceoftheEvidence sg;  s# s# s#s#Ks#I; ` AssetoutbytheSupremeCourtinBlakelyv.Washingtonthesentencing  schemeinWashingtonasapplicabletoBlakelycouldbedescribedasfollows:  8 ` ͆͆ InWashington,seconddegreekidnapingisaclassBfelony.  [Citation]Statelawprovidesthatnopersonconvictedofa  [classB]felonyshallbepunishedbyconfinement...  exceeding...atermoftenyears.[Citation]Otherprovisions  ofstatelaw,however,furtherlimittherangeofsentencesa  judgemayimpose.Washington'sSentencingReformAct  specifies,forpetitioner'soffenseofseconddegreekidnaping  withafirearm,a standardrangeof49to53months.  [Citationswithexplanationofcalculation]Ajudgemay  imposeasentenceabovethestandardrangeifhefinds  substantialandcompellingreasonsjustifyinganexceptional   sentence.[Citation]TheActlistsaggravatingfactorsthat ! justifysuchadeparture,whichitrecitestobeillustrativerather " thanexhaustive.[Citation]Nevertheless,areasonofferedto # justifyanexceptionalsentencecanbeconsideredonlyifit $  takesintoaccountfactorsotherthanthosewhichareusedin %!! computingthestandardrangesentencefortheoffense. &"" [Citation]#͆͆V>#͆͆ԀWhenajudgeimposesanexceptionalsentence,he '## mustsetforthfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw ($$ supportingit.[Citation]#͆͆D#͆͆ԀAreviewingcourtwillreversethe )%% sentenceifitfindsthatunderaclearlyerroneousstandard *&& thereisinsufficientevidenceintherecordtosupportthe +'' reasonsforimposinganexceptionalsentence.[Citation]#͆͆E#͆͆  (Blakelyv.Washington,supra,#͆͆\F#540U.S.at___[124S.Ct.at  2535;159L.Ed.at411].)` `  8>͆͆͆ ` Thus,whileWashingtonsdeterminatesentencingschemewasdividedinto  severaldifferentranges,andthemaximumsentenceavailableforagivenclassofcrimes   wasdelineatedbyanouteraggravatedrange,thesentencingcourtwasconstrainedto   imposeasentencewithinthatouterrangebyvariouslegislativemandates.Thecourts   abilitytodepartfromthestandardrangetoahigherrangeuptotheoutermostlimit#iG##͆G#͆   turned,inpart,onthecourtsfindingoffactsinadditionto,anddifferentfrom,those  foundbythejuryinconvictingthedefendantoftheunderlyingcrime.(Ibid.)Sotoois  thecaseinCalifornia.  #I##͆J# ` UnderCaliforniasparallelscheme,thedeterminate? #  9      ׀termsaredividedintoa  singlespecifiednumberofmonthsoryears;thereisamiddletermratherthanamiddle  range@ #  10      .͆(Pen.Code,#HM##͆)M##͆͆M#͆͆͆Ԁ1170,subd.(b).)Whileeachcrimewithadeterminatesentence  couldbepunishedbyasmuchasasinglespecifiedupperterm,theimpositionofthat  uppertermislimitedbytherequirementthatthecourtfirstfindcircumstancesin   aggravation.(Ibid.)Thosecircumstancesareoutlinedinillustrativelistsaswellasin " mandatorystatutes.(SeeCal.RulesofCourt4.408(a);4.421(c);Pen.Code,#M##͆N##͆͆IP#͆͆#͆͆P#͆͆͆Ԁ1170, $  subd.(b);1170.7et.seq.)Theymaynotbebasedonelementsoftheoffenseorany  enhancementimposed.(SeeCal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(d);Peoplev.Bowen,supra,  11Cal.App.4that105;#P# Peoplev.# zR#Castorena,supra,#R##͆Q#͆Ԁ51Cal.App.4that562;#(S# Peoplev.  # S#Garcia,supra,#-T##͆jS#͆Ԁ32Cal.App.4that17751776;#T# Peoplev.# +U#Quinones(1988)#}U##͆T#͆202Cal.App.3d   1154;#U# Peoplev.# V#Hawk(1979)#V##͆V#͆Ԁ91Cal.App.3d938,941.)   #%W##͆gW# ` Thus,underPenalCodesection1170,themiddletermrepresentsthe   maximumsentenceauthorizedbythejurysfindingsalone.Itmattersnotthatthestatute   alsoanticipatesthatthecrimemaybepunishedbytheuppertermifcircumstances  warrant.Thosecircumstancesarebydefinitionoutsidetheelementsofthecrimeitself  thatwerepresentedto,andfoundby,thejury,andarefoundbythesentencingcourtbya  merepreponderancebasedonevidencethatneednothavebeenpresentedtothejury.͆͆͆Ԁ#fZ#8   ` Additionally,bothCaliforniaandWashingtonrequirethatthesentencing  courtsetforthontherecordthefactsandreasonsforimposingtheupperterm.#8Z#Ԁ(Pen.  Code,#͆Z##͆͆[#͆Ԁ1170subd.(b).)And,#͆b\#͆theappellatecourtinCalifornia,similartothecourtin  Washington,willreversethedeterminationonlyifthereisinsufficientevidenceto   supportthefindingbyapreponderance,andapplyingadeferentialabuseofdiscretion " standard,theappellatecourtfindsthattheuseofthefactorwasprejudicialunderthe $  reasonableprobabilitytestof#r^# # ͆ \#Peoplev.#͆ ͆^#͆͆͆Watson,supra,46Cal.2dat836.(See#D_# Peoplev. &""  # _#Levitt,supra,#G`##͆c_#͆Ԁ156Cal.App.3dat518519#͆`#͆#`#.)Ԁ   p  ($$  ` Inthiscase,appellantwasconvictedofviolatingVehicleCodesection   10851afterhavingpreviouslybeenconvictedofatheftortakingofanautomobileand  havingsufferedapriorseriousorviolentfelonyundertheThreeStrikesLaw.Asaresult,  hissentenceontheoffenseitselfhadtobetwo,threeorfouryearsdoubledbecauseofthe   priorconviction.(Pen.Code,#͆>a#͆666.5,667,1170.12.)#a##͆c#f #  11      ׀Accordingly,thesentence   authorizedbythejurysverdict,withoutmore,wasthemidtermofthreeyears,doubledto   six.Theupperlimitofatermthatcouldbeimposedwithafindingofadditional   aggravatingfactorswastheuppertermoffouryears,doubledtoeight.   ` Thateightyeartermwastheouterlimitofthepotentialsentenceonthe  countforwhichappellantwasconvictedandwascomparabletothe10yearsthatwasthe  absolutemaximumavailabletothesentencingcourtinBlakely.InBlakely,thesentencing  courtdidnotsentencetotheabsolutemaximumsentenceoftenyears,butitexceededthe  maximumavailablesentenceauthorizedbytheverdictbymorethanthreeyears.(͆͆Blakely  v.Washington,supra,#͆͆h#Ԁ540U.S.at___[124S.Ct.at2543;159L.Ed.at420].)h #  12        %#   8͆͆88͆TheCourtobservedinBlakely, Themaximumsentenceisnomore10yearsherethanit  was20yearsinApprendi(becausethatwaswhatthejudgecouldhaveimposedupon  findingahatecrime)ordeathinRing(becausethatiswhatthejudgecouldhaveimposed  uponfindinganaggravator).(Id.,at___[124S.Ct.at2538;159L.Ed.2dat414].)   Similarly,theuppertermnomoreconstitutesthemaximumsentenceforanunderlying   crimeinCaliforniathandidthe10yearsinBlakely,the20yearsinApprendiordeathin   Ring.#8Yi##͆xi#Ԁ    ` Here,thecourtimposedtheabsolutemaximumsentenceavailableforthe  substantiveoffense,whichexceededthemaximumauthorizedbythejurysverdictbytwo  years.Thissentencewasbaseduponthedisputedfindingthatappellantunlawfully  terrifiedthevictim(RT2416),afindingthatwascontrarytothejurysverdictacquitting  appellantofcarjackingandeveryothercountallegingassaultiveorthreateningconduct  towardthevictim.GiventhesesimilaritiesbetweenthesituationinBlakelyandthe  situationhere,itisapparentthattheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtwouldconcludethat:   ^"#$%&'()(03aT+ ` hp x  X` X%#[T8  8` !! TheFramerswouldnothavethoughtittoomuchtodemand   that,beforedeprivingamanof[two]moreyearsofhisliberty, ! theStateshouldsufferthemodestinconvenienceofsubmitting " itsaccusationtotheunanimoussuffrageoftwelveofhis # equalsandneighbours,[citation],ratherthanaloneemployee $  oftheState.(͆͆Blakelyv.Washington,supra,#͆͆or#Ԁ540U.S.at___ %!! [124S.Ct.at2543;159L.Ed.at420].)&""` `   '## Asaresult,theCaliforniaschemeforimpositionoftheuppertermindeterminateterm  casesoffendsthefederalconstitutionandviolatedappellantsrightstoajurytrialand  proofofguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt.c #  13      ׀  ^s    `  D.0 TheErrorofImposingtheUpperTermBasedUponFactorsNot   FoundBytheJuryBeyondaReasonableDoubtRequires   Reversal   s# s#  u! ` XX! ` BecausetheStatessentencingproceduredidnotcomplywiththeSixth   Amendment,petitionerssentenceisinvalid.(͆͆͆Blakelyv.Washington,supra,540U.S.at   ___#v##͆w#[159L.Ed.2dat415;124S.Ct.at2538].)Withoutmakingfurthercommentastothe    standardofprejudicetobeconsidered,theCourtreversedthepetitionerssentenceand  remandedthecasetoWashington.IthaddonethesameinApprendi.(Apprendiv.New  Jersey,supra,530U.S.at497.)   v0 `  1.0 ` s#` s# TheCourtsFindingthatAppellantsCrimeWasAggravated   BecauseHeTerrorizedtheVictimMustBeReversed umy  s# s#  `   a.0  TheErrorIsStructuralandRequiresPerSeReversal umuz  @x!  @x!  @x!  s#s#  ` TheCaliforniasentencingschemeviolatesadefendantsrighttoajury   determinationofelementalfacts͆͆Ԁbaseduponproofbeyondareasonabledoubtinmultiple   ways.Bypermittingthetrialcourtalonetodeterminesentencingfactorsbaseduponany   evidencefromwhateversourceincludingthehearsayfoundinprobationreports,evidence  ofdismissedcounts,evidenceotherwiseexcludedbaseduponthetraditionalrulesof  evidenceandevidencerejectedbythejuryinfindingguilt,theCaliforniaschemedeprives  thedefendantofnotice,ajurydetermination,proofbeyondareasonabledoubt,andproof  bycompetentevidence.SuchapervasiveviolationofSixthAmendmentrightsmakesa  determinationthatthejury(oranytrieroffact)wouldhavefoundguiltbeyonda  reasonabledoubtimpossible.Theerrorisstructuralandrequirespersereversal.(See   Arizonav.Fulminante(1991)499U.S.279,309310;Chapmanv.California(1967)386 " U.S.18,23;Nederv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1,79;Sullivanv.Louisiana(1993) $  508U.S.275,278281.) &!"  ` Structuralerrors deprivedefendantofbasicprotectionswithoutwhicha (#$ criminaltrialcannotreliablyserveitsfunctionasavehiclefordeterminationofguiltor *%& innocence...andnocriminalpunishmentmayberegardedasfundamentallyfair.  [Citation](Nederv.UnitedStates,supra,527U.S.#͆͆{#͆͆Ԁat89;seealso#͆͆#͆͆ԀRosev.Clark(1986)  478U.S.570,578,n.6[structuralerrorsarethosethat necessarilyrenderatrial  fundamentallyunfair;they#͆͆ւ#͆͆Ԁabortthetrialprocessordenyitaltogether];Arizonav.   Fulminante,supra,499U.S.at309310#͆͆ك#͆͆Ԁ[structuraldefectsinthetrialmechanism#͆͆#͆͆Ԁdefy   harmlesserroranalysis;theyaffecttheentireconductofthetrialfrombeginningtoend].)   They#͆͆# containadefectaffectingtheframeworkwithinwhichthetrialproceeds,rather   thansimplyanerrorinthetrialprocessitself.[CitingFulminante](͆͆Nederv.United  States,supra,527U.S.#͆͆#͆͆Ԁat8#͆͆4#.)   ` Structuralerrorisdistinguishedfrom trialerrorwhichcanbesubjectedto  aharmlesserroranalysis.Trialerroris errorwhichoccurredduringthepresentationof  thecasetothejury,andwhichmaythereforebequantitativelyassessedinthecontextof  otherevidencepresentedinordertodeterminewhetheritsadmissionwasharmlessbeyond  areasonabledoubt.(͆͆Arizonav.Fulminante,supra,499U.S.at307308;seealso#͆͆r# ͆͆People  v.#͆ ͆#͆͆Flood(1998)18Cal.4th470,492504.)#͆͆h#    ` TheerrorcreatedbyCaliforniassentencingscheme affect[s]the " frameworkwithinwhichthetrialontheaggravatingcircumstancesproceeds.Underthe $  Californiaplan,thesentencinghearingisanentirelyseparateproceedingatwhichnew &"" allegationsareconsidered.Theseallegationsofaggravatingfactorsarenotformallymade ($$ andmightappearinaprobationreport,inaprosecutorsstatementinaggravation,athird *&& partysstatement,intheprosecutorsoralargumentorinthejudgeshead.(SeePen.Code,  ͆͆#͆͆#Ԁ1170subd.(b)[ 8͆͆eitherpartyorthevictim,orthefamilyofthevictimifthevictimis  deceased,maysubmitastatementinaggravationormitigationtodisputefactsinthe  recordortheprobationofficer'sreport,ortopresentadditionalfacts.].)#͆8͆#ԀTheyareproved   atahearingbeforethejudgealone,whodeterminestheirprobabletruthbasedupona   preponderanceoftheevidencestandard.(See͆͆͆Cal.RulesofCourtrule4.420(b),(d)###͆#.)   Moreover,additionalevidenceispresentedthatisunrestrainedbytraditionalrulesof   evidenceortheConfrontationClauseoftheSixthAmendment.(SeePen.Code,͆͆#͆͆|#Ԁ1170  subd.(b)[ 8͆͆thecourtmayconsidertherecordinthecase,theprobationofficer'sreport,  otherreportsincludingreportsreceivedpursuanttoSection1203.03andstatementsin  aggravationormitigationsubmittedbytheprosecution,thedefendant,orthevictim,orthe  familyofthevictimifthevictimisdeceased,andanyfurtherevidenceintroducedatthe  sentencinghearing.#͆8͆#].)   ` Thus,itpermitsthefactstobefoundunderthewrongstandardofproofby  thewrongentitybasedupunreliableevidenceandwithoutnotice.Thisrendersthe   proceedingfundamentallyunfair.(SeeSullivanv.Louisiana,supra,508U.S.at281.)It " fitsthedescriptionJusticeScaliapresentedoftheschemereplacedinApprendiinwhich, $   adefendant,withnowarningineitherhisindictmentorplea,wouldroutinelyseehis &"" maximumpotentialsentenceballoonfromaslittleasfiveyearstoasmuchaslife ($$ imprisonment[citation],basednotonfactsprovedtohispeersbeyondareasonabledoubt, *&& butonfactsextractedaftertrialfromareportcompiledbyaprobationofficerwhothe  judgethinksmorelikelygotitrightthangotitwrong.(͆͆Blakelyv.Washington,supra,#͆͆ȗ#  540U.S.at___[124S.Ct.at2542;159L.Ed.at418419].)   ` Thesituationisconsiderablydifferentfromthosethathavebeenfound   susceptibletoaharmlesserroranalysis.InNeder,theCourtheldthattheharmlesserror   analysiscouldbeappliedwherethetrialcourthadexcludedanelementofthecrimefrom   thejurysconsideration.Insodoing,theCourtnotedthat, Nederwastriedbeforean   impartialjudge,underthecorrectstandardofproofandwiththeassistanceofcounsel;a  fairlyselected,impartialjurywasinstructedtoconsideralloftheevidenceandargument  inrespecttoNedersdefense....Thefailuretochargethejuryononeelementdidnot  renderthetrial fundamentallyunfair.(͆͆Nederv.UnitedStates,supra,527U.S.#͆͆#Ԁat9.)  TheCourtadditionallyobservedthattheelementwasuncontestedattrialandwouldnot  likelybecontestedonretrial;aretrialwouldbefocusedonthesameissuesthathad  alreadybeenproperlytried.(Id.,at15.)Otherthanhavingcounselandanimpartialjudge,  appellantwasaffordednoneoftheotherenumeratedprotectionsthatmadeNederstrial   fair. "  ` Moreover,while͆͆͆theaggravatingcircumstanceshererequiretrialbyjuryand $  proofbeyondareasonabledoubtbecausetheirabilitytoincreaseadefendants &"" punishmentrendersthem elementsofahigherlevelofcrime,theyarenotequivalentto ($$ theomitted elementinNederortheothercasesonwhichNederrelied#͆##͆͆l#Ԁinvolving *&& misinstructionoruseofapresumptiononasingleelementofanoffense.(See,e.g.,Yates  v.Evatt(1991)500U.S.391;Carellav.California(1989)491U.S.263;Popev.Illinois  (1987)481U.S.497;Rosev.Clark,supra,478U.S.570.)Unlikeincasesinvolvingan  elementthatmayhavebeenomittedorthesubjectofpresumptions,thetrialonthebasic   elementsofacrimewillnotnecessarilyinvolvethepresentationofevidencerelatingtothe   specificaggravatingfactor,andthejuryfindingsastoguiltwillnotnecessarilyshedlight   onthejurysdeterminationastofactsrelatingtothem.(Compare,e.g.,Rosev.Clark,   supra,478U.S.at580[ Whenajuryisinstructedtopresumemalicefrompredicatefacts,  itstillmustfindtheexistenceofthosefactsbeyondareasonabledoubt....[fn.8]   Becauseapresumptiondoesnotremovetheissueofintentfromthejurysconsideration,  itisdistinguishablefromotherinstructionalerrorsthatpreventajuryfromconsideringan  issue[Citation](emphasisadded)].)   ` Moreover,asnotedabove,nobodyinvolvedintheprocess,neitherthetrier  offactnortheparties,conductsthe trialontheaggravatingcircumstanceswithan  awarenessoftheproperstandardofprooforoperatedundertheusualrulesofevidence.   Additionally,thedefendantisgivenlimitednoticeastowhatfactorshemayhaveto " defend,andthus,haslessofanopportunitytodoso.Thesefactorsaloneundermineany $  confidenceonemighthaveinanappellatecourtsabilitytopredictwhatajurymayhave &"" foundatapropertrialontheissue.Assuch,theerrorhereismoreakintothatinSullivan ($$ v.Louisiana,supra,508U.S.at281282,wheretheCourtconcludedthattheimproper *&& reasonabledoubtinstructioninfectedeveryjuryfindingandwasastructuraldefectinthe  constitutionofthetrialmechanismdefyingharmlesserroranalysis.   ` ThisCourthaspreviouslyheldthatApprendierrorwassubjecttoa  Chapmanstandardofharmlesserror( ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆#Sengpadychith(2001)26Cal.4th316,   326),butdidsoinacontextthatisinappositehere.InSengpadychith,theerrorwasthe   failuretoinstructthejuryproperlyastotheprimaryactivitieselementofthecriminal   streetgangenhancement.PriortoApprendi,thisCourthadheldthatthefailuretoinstruct   onelementsofsentencingenhancementswasnotfederalconstitutionalerrorandthuswas  subjecttotheharmlesserrortestof ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆a#Watson,supra,46Cal.2d818.(See ͆͆People  v.#͆ ͆#Wims(1995)10Cal.4th293,315.)Sengpadychithacknowledgedthat,inlightof  Apprendi,thisholdingwaswrongastoenhancementsthatincreasedthedefendants  maximumpunishment.( ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆A#Sengpadychith,supra,26Cal.4thatpp.324328.)  Becausetherehadbeenajurytrialontheenhancement,andtheonlyerrorwasthe  improperinstructiononasingleelementoftheenhancement,thisCourt,consistentwith  Neder,heldthataChapmanharmlesserroranalysisapplied.(Ibid.;seealso ͆͆Peoplev.   Breverman(1998)19Cal.4th142,178179.)Thus,itdidnotdisposeoftheissue " presentedhereinvolvingstructuralerrorintheproceedingssurroundingthedetermination $  offactorsthatmustbeprovedtothejurypursuanttotheholdingsofApprendiand &""  Blakely.#͆ ͆# ($$  ` Astheerrorhereinfectedthestructuralunderpinningsofthedetermination   ofthetruthoftheaggravatingcircumstancesusedtoimposetheupperterm,theerror  requirespersereversal.(͆͆Arizonav.Fulminante,supra,499U.S.at309310;Chapmanv.  California,supra,386U.S.at23;Nederv.UnitedStates,supra,527U.S.at79;Sullivan   v.Louisiana,supra508U.S.at278281.)#͆͆#ԀThus,thefindingthatappellantimproperly   terrorizedthevictimmustbestricken.    0 ` 0 ` s#` s#  b .0 s# s#AssumingaChapmanStandardofPrejudiceApplies,the  ErrorRequiresReversal p s#s#  al% ` Under͆͆Chapmanv.California,supra,386U.S.#͆͆#Ԁ18,theStatemust  demonstratebeyondareasonabledoubtthatthefederalconstitutionalerrordidnot  contributetothefindingobtained.(Id.,at2426;Nederv.UnitedStates,supra,527U.S.  at15.)InNeder,theCourtconcludedthatareviewingcourtcouldassesswhetherthe  failuretohaveajurymakeafindingofanelementoftheoffensebeyondareasonable  doubtwasharmless.(Ibid.)Inmakingthisassessment,thereviewingcourtmust conduct  athoroughexaminationoftherecord.If,attheendofthatexamination,thecourtcannot ! concludebeyondareasonabledoubtthatthejuryverdictwouldhavebeenthesameabsent # theerror!forexample,wherethedefendantcontestedtheomittedelementandraised %!! evidencesufficienttosupportacontraryfinding!itshouldnotfindtheerrorharmless. '##  (Id.,at19[emphasisadded].) )%%  ` Inthesituationwherethetrialcourtalonehasmadefindingofanelemental   factorbyamerepreponderanceoftheevidence,baseduponevidencenotpresentedtothe  juryandpossiblyonunreliableevidence,andwithoutnoticeastotheelementalfactors  beingasserted,thereviewingcourtstaskwillbedifficult.Itsreviewoftherecordwill   havetobelimitedtoonlytheevidenceproperlyadmittedbeforethejuryduringthe   determinationofguilt.Itwillhavetothendeterminewhatthejurydidfind,thatis,what   findingswereencompassedbythejurysverdict,orthosethatwouldnecessarilyhave   beenfoundgiventhenecessaryfindingsmadebythejury,orthosethatwereadmittedby  thedefense,orthosethatwereuncontestedandsupportedbyoverwhelmingevidence.(See  Id.,at1519;Carellav.California,supra,at270273(conc.opn.Scalia,J.);Rosev.  Clark,supra,478U.S.atpp.580581;Yatesv.Evatt,supra,500U.S.at402411;see  also ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆#Flood,supra,18Cal.4that504507.)   ` Inthiscase,itisclearthattheerrorwasnotharmlessbeyondareasonable  doubtbecausethejurysverdictdemonstratesthatit infactdidnotfind thefactsrelied  uponbythecourtbeyondareasonabledoubt.Thejuryhereacquittedappellantof   carjacking,kidnaping,robbery,grandtheftautomobile,criminalthreats,kidnapingfor " carjacking,andkidnapingtocommitrobbery.(CT170183)Thejuryconvictedappellant $  ofunlawfulstealing,takingordrivingofanautomobile.(CT184)Thus,thejuryhada &"" reasonabledoubtthatappellantcommittedanyoffensethatrequiredafindingthathe ($$ committeditbymeansofforceorfear,anyoffensethatwouldrequireafindingthat *&& appellantunlawfully terrifiedAranaorthatArana ͆͆  ͆ leftthecarinthat[terrified,afraid  forhislife]stateofmindleavingappellantin possessionofthecaragainst[Aranas]  willasthecourtdescribedthecrime,makingitnot justasimple10851(a).(RT2416)# U##͆t#  Additionally,thecasewaspresentedtothejuryasastraightcredibilitycontest,withthe   prosecutorarguingexclusivelythatappellantwasaliaranddefensecounselarguingthat   Aranawastheliar.(RT15091582)Thejuryconvictedappellantoftheonlycountthathe   admittedbyhisowntestimonyasarguedbyboththeprosecutoranddefensecounsel.(RT   1524,1557,1564)Thus,itresolvedthecredibilityissueinappellantsfavor.  Accordingly,itcannotbesaidonthisrecordthatthejuryeitherdid,orwouldhave,found  theaggravatingfactorofappellantshavingunlawfullyterrifiedAranaincommittinghis  violationofPenalCodesection10851.Therefore,theerrorwasnotharmlessbeyonda  reasonabledoubt.(͆͆Chapmanv.California,supra,386U.S.#͆͆#Ԁat2426;Nederv.United  States,supra,527U.S.at1519.)   ` Accordingly,whetherastandardofpersereversibleerrorappliesorthe  federalharmlesserrorstandarddoes,thetrialcourtsfindingoftheaggravatingfactorthat   appellantterrifiedAranaandmadehimfearforhislifemustbereversed. "  `   2. 0  TheImpositionoftheUpperTermMustBeReversed # &""s#s#  ` Becausetheuseofthisjudiciallyfoundaggravatingfactortoimposethe ($$ uppertermwasfederalconstitutionalerror,theharmlesserrorstandardofChapmanalso *&& appliestothedeterminationofwhethertheuseofthefactortoimposetheuppertermwas  harmless.(See͆͆Chapmanv.California,supra,386U.S.#͆͆#Ԁat21; ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆J#Sengpadychith,  supra,26Cal.4that324328͆͆;#͆͆# ͆͆Peoplev.Breverman,supra,19Cal.4that178179.#͆ ͆+#)Thus,  thesentencemustbereversedunlesstheprosecutioncandemonstratebeyondareasonable   doubtthattheerrordidnotcontributetothesentencechosen.(See͆͆Chapmanv.California,   supra,386U.S.#͆͆}#Ԁat24.)    ` Here,thecourtexplainedatlengththattheviolationinthiscasewasnot a   simple[PenalCodesection]10851(a)(RT24152417) Ibelievethatitisanaggravated  situationbasedonwhatIhavejustdescribed.(RT2416)Thus,thecourtreliedonthe  infectedfindinginassessingthecrimeasaggravated.Moreover,itexpresslyreliedonthe  findinginimposingtheupperterm: thecourtis ͆͆  ͆consideringthetrialasittookplace  beforethecourt,theconvictiononthe10851(A),thefactthatyouhavealengthyhistory  inchoosingthehightermoffouryears.(RT2417)Therefore,despitethefactthatthere  wasanotherpotentialfactorinaggravation,atleasthalfofthereasonforchoosingthe  uppertermwastheunconstitutionalfactorthatmustbestricken.Underthe   circumstances,thisCourtcannotconcludethatthetrialcourtsrelianceonitwasharmless " beyondareasonabledoubt.(# -##͆L#͆͆Chapmanv.California,supra,386U.S.#͆͆0#Ԁat24.)͆ԀItmust $  thereforebereversed.(Ibid.)#͆# &""   ($$  `  E.0 TheSentenceMustbeReversedBecausetheUseoftheFactsof  theAcquittedCountsViolatedtheDoubleJeopardyClauseofthe  FifthAmendment # s# s#  n ` TheDoubleJeopardyClauseoftheFifthAmendmentbarsretrialonthe  samechargesafteranacquittalandappliestothestatesthroughtheFourteenth   Amendment.(SeeGreenv.UnitedStates(1957)355U.S.184,188;Bentonv.Maryland   (1969)395U.S.784,794795;seealso ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆(#SuperiorCourtofLosAngeles(Marks)   (1991)1͆͆Cal.4th#͆͆#Ԁ56,71,fn.13.)CaliforniacourtsandtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt   haveheldthataverdictofacquittaldoesnotbarasentencingcourtfromconsidering  conductunderlyingthatoffenseasasentencingfactor.(See ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆#Levitt,supra,156  Cal.App.3dat515;UnitedStatesv.Watts(1997)519U.S.148,157.)Bothrulesreliedon  thenotionthatsentencingfactorsareproperlydeterminedbythecourtaloneundera  preponderanceoftheevidencestandard.( ͆͆Peoplev.#͆ ͆#Levitt,supra,156Cal.App.3dat515;  UnitedStatesv.Watts,supra,519U.S.at156.)   ` Therule,however,cannotapplytoelementalaggravatingfactors,whichare  subjecttotherightstoajurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.UnderBlakely   andApprendi,theaggravatingfactorbecomesan elementofthegreateroffenseofthe " crime simpliciterplussomefactorthatmakesitworsethaninitsbasicform.(See $  Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.at494;AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates &""  (1988)523U.S.224,249(dis.opn.ofScalia,J.).)Thus,ajuryacquittalofthosefactors ($$ doestriggerdoublejeopardyprotections.(SeeMongev.California(1998)524U.S.  721,737741(dis.opn.ofScalia,J.).)    ` InhisdissentinMonge,JusticeScaliaexplained,basedonthereasoninghe  laterappliedinBlakely,thatthesentencingenhancementsinCalifornia(includingtheone   forrecidivismatissueinMonge)werelikenewcrimesbecausetheycausedadefendants   maximumsentencetoincrease.(Ibid.)Heconcluded,therefore,thatan acquittalofthe   enhancementshouldbarretrialofitondoublejeopardygrounds.(Ibid.)    ` Inthiscase,appellantwasacquittedoftheelementalaggravatingfactorsof  havingunlawfullyterrifiedAranaandmadehimafraidforhislifewhenthejuryfound  himnotguiltyofanychargedoffenseinvolvingviolenceorthreats.Thetrialcourts  commentsatsentencingdemonstratethatitignoredthiskeycomponentofthejurys  determinationthefactthat,byacquittingappellantofalloftheseriousandviolent  felonieschargedagainsthiminthiscase,thejurydeterminedthattheevidencedidnot  showbeyondareasonabledoubtthatappellantwastheaggressororthatthefearthathe  engenderedinthevictimwastheresultofappellantshavingmadeunlawfulthreatsor   usedunlawfulforce.(SeeCT114176[instructionsgiven];Richardsonv.Marsh(1987) " 481U.S.200,211[jurypresumedtofollowinstructions];Peoplev.Lawson(1987)189 $  Cal.App.3d741,748[same].)Thesentencingcourtslaterconclusiontothecontraryand &"" impositionofpunishmentonthebasisofthemwasthereforeaviolationoffederaldouble ($$ jeopardy.(SeeGreenv.UnitedStates,supra,355U.S.at188;Bentonv.Maryland,supra, *&& 395U.S.at794795;seealsoUnitedStatesv.Dixon(1993)509U.S.688,705[collateral  estoppeleffectattributedtotheDoubleJeopardyclausemaybarlaterprosecutionwhere  thegovernmentlostinanearlierprosecution];Ashev.Swenson(1970)397U.S.436,445  446.)    ` ForthereasonsdiscussedinSubpartD,theimpermissibleuseofafactorin   violationofDoubleJeopardycannotbedeemedharmlesshere.        ͆͆͆@,,%  CONCLUSION    or ` UnderPenalCodesection1170subdivision(b),aCaliforniadefendant,  uponconviction,beforethesentencingcourthasmadefindingsinaggravation,mustbe   sentencedtothemiddletermforthecrimeofwhichhewasconvicted.Therefore,the   additionalaggravatingfactorslaterfoundbythejudgewhenimposinganuppertermare   essentialtothatincreaseinthesentenceandare elementswithinthemeaningofthe   holdingsinApprendiandBlakely#͆#͆##.Accordingly,impositionoftheuppertermbasedon  thesejudiciallyfoundfactorsviolatesfederaldueprocessandjurytrialprotections.   ` Additionally,whenthosefactorsareelementsofoffensesofwhichthe  defendanthasbeenacquitted,federaldoublejeopardyprotectionsarealsoviolated.  Furthermore,asamatterofpolicy,toprotectstateandfederaljurytrialrights,thefactsof  acquittedcountsshouldnotbeusedtoaggravateacriminalsentence.   ` Appellantwassentencedtotheuppertermbaseduponfactsthatwerenot  onlynotfoundbythejury,butwererejectedbythejuryinitsverdictsofacquittalofall   countsinvolvingviolenceandbehaviornotadmittedbyappellant.Accordingly,his " sentencemustbereversed. $  DATED:August30,20040  0hs#s#0hs#hs#RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTED###͆#&""s#s#  `     h   CALIFORNIAAPPELLATEPROJECT ($$  `     h   JONATHENB.STEINER, )%%  `     h   ExecutiveDirector *&&  `     h   __________________________________ -))  `     h   SUZANE.HIER,StaffAttorney .**  `     h   AttorneysforAppellate  /++ 5pOY@" TABLEOFCONTENTS    Ds#Page(s)  oro  jVm  jVm0 `    APPELLANTSBRIEFONTHEMERITS###Js#.tt)` s#` s##1jVm݌   Ќ  jVm  jVm0 `    QUESTIONSPRESENTED###Js#.^^` s#` s##1jVm݌   Ќ  jVm  jVmh0 `    STATEMENTOFTHECASE###Js#.66` s#` s##2jVmh݌    Ќ  jVm  jVm-0 `    STATEMENTOFFACTS###Js#. ` s#` s##5jVm-I݌   Ќ  ! X` X!0    s#s#   A.0 ` TheFactsoftheOffense###Js#.,` s#` s##5   jVm  jVm0       B.0` s#s#TheCourtsReasoningatSentencing###Js#.7` s#` s##7jVm݌  Ќ  jVm  jVm0     ARGUMENT###Js#.x x s#s##9jVm݌  Ќ  jVm  jVm]0       THETRIALCOURTABUSEDITSDISCRETIONANDVIOLATED  APPELLANTSSTATEANDFEDERALCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSTO  DUEPROCESS,AJURYTRIALANDAGAINSTDOUBLEJEOPARDYBY  SENTENCINGHIMUNDERCALIFORNIASUNCONSTITUTIONAL  SENTENCINGSTATUTETOANUPPERTERMBASEDUPONFACTORS  THATWERENOTFOUNDBYTHEJURYANDWERENECESSARILY  REJECTEDBYTHEJURYSVERDICTACQUITTING###Js#.8s#s##9jVm]y݌  Ќ    A.0 ` Introduction###Js#. ` s#` s##9  jVm  jVmh0       B.0` s#s#TheTrialCourtsUseofCountsofWhichtheDefendantWasAcquittedto ! ImposetheUpperTermShouldBeReversedUnderCaliforniaLaw#""Is#.n n R` s#` s##10jVmh݌ " Ќ  jVm  jVm0       C.0` s#s#UnderBlakelyv.Washington,PenalCodesection1170isUnconstitutional $  InsofarasitPermitstheImpositionoftheUpperTermBasedonRequired % ! FindingsofAggravatingFactorsFoundOnlybytheJudgebya &!" PreponderanceoftheEvidence#""Is#.1` s#` s##21jVm݌ '"# Ќ     ` 1.CaliforniasSentencingScheme""Is#.NN622 )$% jVm  0  0` s#s#jVmR0 ` s#` s# `   2.ApprendiandBlakelyandtheFederalDueProcessRightstoajVmR݌+&' s# s# Ќ  0  0` s#s#JuryTrialandProofBeyondaReasonableDoubt#""Is#.G` s#` s##25 ,'( 0  0` s#s# ` s#` s#    /*+ pOY7 p p     ` 3.BlakelyandItsPredecessorsAppliedtoCalifornias  0  0` s#s#0 ` s#` s# ` SentencingScheme:PenalCodesection1170isUnconstitutional s# s#    ` AsItPermitsImpositionofaSentenceGreaterthanthat  0  0` s#s#0 ` s#` s# ` AuthorizedbytheVerdictAloneBasedSolelyonFactsFoundby s# s# ЀtheJudgebyaMerePreponderanceoftheEvidence""Is#.^^X33  jVm  jVmB 0       D.0` s#s#TheErrorofImposingtheUpperTermBasedUponFactorsjVmB ^ ݌ ` s#` s# Ќ     ` NotFoundBytheJuryBeyondaReasonableDoubtRequires      ` Reversal""Is#.T T 38   jVm  jVm 0        ` 1.TheCourtsFindingthatAppellantsCrimeWasAggravatedjVm  ݌ s#s# Ќ     ` BecauseHeTerrorizedtheVictimMustBeReversed""Is#.rrJ39   jVm  jVmf 0        `  a.TheErrorIsStructuralandRequiresPerSeReversal#""Is#.llPs#s##39jVmf  ݌   Ќ     `  b.AssumingaChapmanStandardofPrejudiceApplies,the  0  0` s#s#0 ` s#` s#ErrorRequiresReversal#""Is#.5 s# s##45  jVm  jVm|0        ` 2.TheImpositionoftheUpperTermMustBeReversed#""Is#.Is#s##47jVm|݌  Ќ  jVm  jVmz0       E.0` s#s#TheSentenceMustbeReversedBecausetheUseoftheFactsofthe  AcquittedCountsViolatedtheDoubleJeopardyClauseoftheFifth  Amendment#""Is#. ` s#` s##49jVmz݌  Ќ  jVm  jVm0     CONCLUSION#""Is#. s#s##52jVm݌  Ќ     9iY@  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES    Ds#Page(s)  ?+ ` hp x X?  FEDERALCASES      2%#XAlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates(1988)    X 2%#2%#523U.S.224""Is#.| | 51    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XApprendiv.NewJersey(2000)    X 2%#2%#530U.S.466,s#.| | 11,21,27,29,30,32,33,34,     X %#2%#Ӏ ! !D%#40,51   ?+ ` hp x %#? 2%#XArizonav.Fulminante(1991)    X 2%#2%#499U.S.279  As#.| | 41,42,46    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XAshev.Swenson(1970)   X 2%#2%#397U.S.436""Is#.| | 52   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XBentonv.Maryland(1969)   X 2%#2%#395U.S.784W!W!Es#.| | 50,52   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XBlakelyv.Washington(2004)   X 2%#2%#540U.S.___[159L.Ed.2d403]oo2s#.-1,10,22,28,30,38,40   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XCarellav.California(1989)   X 2%#2%#491U.S.263 ! !D%#.| | 44,48   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XChapmanv.California(1967)   X 2%#2%#386U.S.189s#.  41,46,47,49,50    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XDuncanv.Louisiana(1968) "  X 2%#2%#391U.S.145W!W!Es#.| | 10,18 #  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XGreenv.UnitedStates(1957) % !  X 2%#2%#355U.S.184  As#.| | 10,50,52 &!"  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XHarrisv.UnitedStates(2002) (#$  X 2%#2%#536U.S.545W!W!Es#.| | 31,33 )$%  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XJonesv.UnitedStates(1999) +&'  X 2%#2%#526U.S.227W!W!Es#.| | 31,32 ,'(  X 2%#2%#McMillanv.Pennsylvania(1986)   X 2%#2%#477U.S.79  As#.  29,30,33   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XMongev.California(1998)   X 2%#2%#524U.S.721""Is#.| | 51   X 2%#2%#Nederv.UnitedStates(1999)    X 2%#2%#527U.S.11s#. 41,42,44,46,47,48,49    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPopev.Illinois(1987)    X 2%#2%#481U.S.497""Is#.| | 44    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XRichardsonv.Marsh(1987)    X 2%#2%#481U.S.200""Is#.| | 52    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XRingv.Arizona(2002)   X 2%#2%#536U.S.584=s#.| | 11,29,31,32   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XRosev.Clark(1986)   X 2%#2%#478U.S.570=s#.| | 41,44,45,48   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XSullivanv.Louisiana(1993)   X 2%#2%#508U.S.275=s#.| | 41,43,45,46   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv.Dixon(1993)   X 2%#2%#509U.S.688""Is#.| | 52   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv.Watts(1997)   X 2%#2%#519U.S.148W!W!Es#.| | 50,51    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XWilliamsv.NewYork(1949) "  X 2%#2%#337U.S.2419s#.| | 29,30,33,39,40 #  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XInreWinship(1970) %!!  X 2%#2%#397U.S.358""Is#.| | 27 &""  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XYatesv.Evatt(1991) ($$  X 2%#2%#500U.S.391W!W!Es#.| | 44,48 )%%  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? ,((   STATECASES      2%#XInreGaryB.(1998)   X 2%#2%#61Cal.App.4th844""Is#. !16   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Arauz(1992)    X 2%#2%#5Cal.App.4th663""Is#.D D 23    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Bermurdez(1984)    X 2%#2%#157Cal.App.3d619""Is#. !15     X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Betterton(1979)    X 2%#2%#93Cal.App.3d406""Is#.t t 39    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Bowen(1992)    X 2%#2%#11Cal.App.4th102W!W!Es#. !24,36   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Breverman(1998)   X 2%#2%#19Cal.4th142W!W!Es#.  46,49   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Castorena(1996)   X 2%#2%#51Cal.App.4th558  As#. !16,24,36   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Cheatham(1979)   X 2%#2%#23Cal.3d829""Is#. 25   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Coelho(2001)   X 2%#2%#89Cal.App.4th861W!W!Es#. !10,18   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Fields(1996) !  X 2%#2%#13Cal.4th289""Is#.  18 "  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Flood(1998) $   X 2%#2%#18Cal.4th470W!W!Es#.  42,48 % !  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Fulton(1979) '"#  X 2%#2%#92Cal.App.3d972W!W!Es#.t t 14,15 (#$  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Garcia(1995) *%&  X 2%#2%#32Cal.App.4th1756W!W!Es#."24,36 +&'  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? ,'(  2%#X STATECASESCONTD   Peoplev.Gragg(1989)   X 2%#2%#216Cal.App.3d32""Is#.t t 15   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Hall(1994)    X 2%#2%#8Cal.4th950""Is#. 26    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Hawk(1979)    X 2%#2%#91Cal.App.3d938W!W!Es#.t t 24,36     X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Hernandez(1998)    X 2%#2%#19Cal.4th835""Is#.  19    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Langevin(1984)    X 2%#2%#155Cal.App.3d520""Is#. !23   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Lawson(1987)   X 2%#2%#189Cal.App.3d741""Is#. !52   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Levitt(1984)   X 2%#2%#156Cal.App.3d500-s#. !11,12,16,17,25,37,50,51   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Lewis(1991)   X 2%#2%#229Cal.App.3d259  As#. !10,16,25   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Lobato(2003)   X 2%#2%#109Cal.App.4th762""Is#."24   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Lobaugh(1987) !  X 2%#2%#188Cal.App.3d780""Is#. !23 "  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Lopez(1982) $   X 2%#2%#131Cal.App.3d565""Is#. !15 % !  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Myers(1983) '"#  X 2%#2%#148Cal.App.3d699""Is#. !23 (#$  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Nelson(1978) *%&  X 2%#2%#85Cal.App.3d99""Is#.  39 +&'  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? ,'( iY< iw9 i   2%#X STATECASESCONTD   Peoplev.Quinones(1988)   X 2%#2%#202Cal.App.3d1154W!W!Es#.LL"24,36   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Reyes(1987)    X 2%#2%#195Cal.App.3d957""Is#. !15    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Richards(1976)    X 2%#2%#17Cal.3d614W!W!Es#. 10,19     XPeoplev.Carbajal(1995)   !  2%#!  10Cal.4th1114,1126W!W!Es#.$10,19   B+ ` hp x  B 2%#XPeoplev.Santamaria(1994)    X 2%#2%#8Cal.4th903""Is#. 19   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Sengpadychith(2001)   X 2%#2%#26Cal.4th316  As#.  45,46,49   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Spencer(1996)   X 2%#2%#51Cal.App.4th1208W!W!Es#."17,18   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.SuperiorCourt(Marks)   X 2%#2%#(1991)1Cal.4th56W!W!Es#. "19,50   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.SuperiorCourt(Romero)   X 2%#2%#(1996)13Cal.4th49##Js#.#3   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Takencareof(1981) !  X 2%#2%#119Cal.App.3d492  As#. !10,13,18 "  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Watson(1956) $   X 2%#2%#46Cal.2d818  As#. 21,37,46 % !  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Wells(1983) '"#  X 2%#2%#149Cal.App.3d721W!W!Es#. !16,17 (#$  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Wims(1995) *%&  X 2%#2%#10Cal.4th293  As#.  19,20,46 +&'  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Wright(1982) -()  X 2%#2%#30Cal.3d705  As#. 23,24,25 .)*  X?+ ` hp x 2%#?  STATESTATUTES      2%#X CaliforniaConstitutionArticleIsection:   ! %#2%#!  16""Is#.10  B+ ` hp x %#B 2%#X EvidenceCodesection:    ! %#2%#!  115""Is#.LL25   B+ ` hp x %#B 2%#X PenalCodesections:    ! %#2%#!  17/"/"Gs#.3,7       18""Is#.22   B+ ` hp x %#B! %#X!  190""Is#.LL36    193""Is#.LL26  B+ ` hp x %#B  209""Is#.LL @` 36  ?+ ` hp x X?! %#X!  215##Js#.LL@""I%#.LL2  B+ ` hp x %#B! %#X!  264""Is#.LL26  B+ ` hp x %#B! %#X!  288.5""Is#.26  B+ ` hp x %#B! %#X!  666.5  @s#.2,3,7,37   B+ ` hp x %#B! %#X!  667##Js#.LL2 " 0  667.5###Js#.s#s##2 $  $ %#%#$  10851""Is#.$ $ @M"M"H%#49 &!" ̀0  1170# Ds#.s#s##. @` passim (#$ Ѐ%#%#J%# )$% B+ ` hp x %#B  1170.3""Is#.Z Z  @ 24 *%& ! %#X!  1170.12!!Fs#. 2,37 ,'(   .)* STATESTATUTESCONTD     1170.71170.78""Is#. 25    1170.811.70.89""Is#.  25  B+ ` hp x %#B  1202.4##Js#.Z Z 3     1202.45##Js#.  @ 3   ?+ ` hp x X?  1385##Js#. @ 3     2900##Js#.3     4019##Js#. @` 3   ?+ ` hp x X?  2%#XVehicleCodesection:   ! %#2%#!  10851.1 1 A%#.Z Z 2,37,46  B+ ` hp x %#B CaliforniaRulesofCourtrules:     4.405""Is#. @` 25  ?+ ` hp x X? 2%#X! %#2%#!0  4.408 ! !D%#.25,36s#s# 0   s#s# 0  4.420==8%#.22,24,25,36,43 s#s# 0   s#s#   4.421M"M"H%#.25 " 0   s#s# 0  4.423M"M"H%#.21$ s#s# % 2%#%#?j%?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X?+ ` hp x 2%#??+ ` hp x X?