WPC&K &79BD/cը~b8E@~3%(|)p̄* =kt UZ2@9:FBMVI>'zrJZ=!!('?DzȄ;#ċ"N6}kX7d:/A񀄔_' {œ*E蛭*u( Qip5uxY' 0' 0( 0q) 0S* 05+ 0, 0, 0- 02. 0. 0:/ 0Y/ 0_F0 0 0 01 013 B*75 D/a5 D+5 05 D/7 07 068 08 0:9 0^6: 0<: 1e:U65;U?>k;U*; 1u; 72H< z<< 0wb= 0= 0c> 0? 0? 0~@ 0YA 0DHB 1C 72DZGD BE 0DE F F *FbFFU:pI 04InIIIIIIIIIIIII LJLJLJLJLJLJ^ ^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J^J 0jJHP LaserJet 1200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$vOXXUSUS.,z0:i+003|xU*+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *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  0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  (;$2 e  0  .3  0  (O$<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*CODEKH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7=(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?J%2A`Arial?  SI\  `&Times New RomanS7>(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d<)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7@(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?J%2A`Arial?  SI\  `&Times New RomanS7>(X75+ ` hp x 5  <)2dxd0KS.SampleKH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKH<6X9`(Courier NewKSI\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ki)FN;B0098http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24june20041200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1632.pdf(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# (OPQRSTUywAGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets ListWV P Y$cXXUSUS.,    1  XlXc  _ԀAllfurtherstatutoryreferencesaretothePenalCode,unlessotherwiseindicated.  Referencesto rulesaretotheCaliforniaRulesofCourt. d(#$  0  SDU_41StarPageciteas((Cite as: 530 U.S. 466, *490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, **2363)- -  ' 4J. Bradley O'Connell40J. Bradley O'Connell .   ,@E Z"Book Antiqua &c$""0 http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-478.ZS.htmlSDU_17}0 (MG2Y$ !#XXUSUS.,      0  X4X# !cXXUSUS.,  _    Dc_8lXdd8AMAZINGSTORIES:  Ѐ_Blakely_Ԁv.WashingtonandCaliforniaDeterminateSentences  : #c Dk#_  J.BradleyOConnell,StaffAttorney,FirstDistrictAppellateProject $t June27,2004  " r   XlXc  Lastweek,inacasewhichhadnotbeen ontheradarformostofus,theU.S.Supreme  p Courtsignificantlyexpanded4c )O  5  _Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey6)O$  7 R(2000)530U.S.466,inawaywhichcasts  \ seriousdoubtontheconstitutionalityofCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLawand,inparticular,  H onthevalidityofmostuppertermsbasedonaggravatingcircumstancesotherthanrecidivism.  4  (4N )O  5  _Blakely_Ԁv.Washington6()O<  7 jԀ(June24,2003;021632)542_U.S_Ԁ___,2004WL1402697,04_C.D.O.S._   5539,2004DailyJournal_D.A.R._Ԁ7581[slip_opn_.onSupremeCourtswebsite].)Thismemorandum   representssome verypreliminary thoughtsontheapparentimplicationsof_Blakely_forCalifornia   sentences.Weexpecttosupplementorupdatethesecommentsinthecomingdaysandweeksand   mayalsopostsample _Blakely_argumentsastheybecomeavailable.     Asoutlinedbelow,_Blakely_holdsthat,wherestatelawestablishesapresumptivesentence \ foraparticularoffenseandauthorizesagreatertermonlyifcertainadditionalfactsarefound H (beyondthoseinherentinthepleaorjuryverdict),theSixthAmendmententitlesthedefendantto 4 jurydeterminationofthoseadditionalfactsbyproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.Becausethemiddle  p termisthepresumptivesentenceunderCaliforniasDeterminateSentenceLawandadefendantmay  \ onlyreceiveanuppertermif aggravatingcircumstancesarefound,thesentencingschemeappears H toviolate_Blakely_.AswiththeWashingtonregimereviewedin_Blakely_,itisthejudge,ratherthan 4 thejury,whomakesthefindingsofaggravatingcircumstancesandthejudgeappliesonlya   preponderancestandard.    THEWASHINGTONSENTENCINGSCHEMEANDTHEREASONINGOF_BLAKELY_.     _Blakely_Ԁpledguiltytoseconddegreekidnapingandalsoadmittedafirearmenhancement. p Asa classBfelony,seconddegreekidnapingwassubjecttoanabsolutemaximumof10years. \  However,the standardrangeforseconddegreekidnapingwithafirearmwas49to53months. H! Washingtonlawprovidedthatacourtcouldimposeasentencegreaterthanthe standardrange(but 4" stillwithinthe10yearcap)onlyifitfound substantialandcompellingreasonsjustifyingan  #p  exceptionalsentence.Thestatuteprovidedalistof aggravatingfactorswhichcouldjustifysuch  $\! a departurefromthe standardrangeanddescribedthelistedfactorsas illustrativeratherthan $H " exhaustive.(_Blakely_,supra,slip_opn_.,atpp.23.)Thetrialcourtimposedan exceptional %4!# sentenceof90months!37monthsabovethestandardrange!baseduponthejudgesfindingthat & "$ _Blakely_Ԁactedwith deliberatecruelty,oneoftheenumeratedaggravatingfactors. ' #%   TheSupremeCourtheldthatthetrialcourtsfindingofthataggravatingfactorviolated )$' _Apprendi_sruleentitlingadefendanttojurydeterminationofanyfactexposingadefendantto *%( greaterpunishmentthanthe maximumotherwiseallowablefortheunderlyingoffense.The l+&) _Blakely_Ԁmajority(ledbyJusticeScalia)rejectedthestatesassertionthattherelevant maximum  wasthe10yearcapfora classBfelony.Instead,themajoritytreatedthetopendofthe standard  range(53months)astherelevant statutorymaximum,becausethatwasthegreatestsentence  _Blakely_Ԁcouldreceivebasedsolelyonthefactsadmittedbyhisplea: t S` G(03K?+ ` hp x X?IXlXXXl8  Ourprecedentsmakeclear,however,thatthe"statutorymaximum"for#XlXXIXl#IXlXXXl_Apprendi_#XlXXIXl`#IXlXXXl  purposesisthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimpose#XlXXIXl#IXlXXXlsolelyonthebasisofthe   factsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant.#XlXXIXl[#IXlXXXlԀ[Citations.]#XlXXIXl#IXlXXXlԀInother   words,therelevant"statutorymaximum"isnotthemaximumsentenceajudgemay w  imposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,butthemaximumhemayimpose#XlXXIXl_#IXlXXXlwithout#XlXXIXlk#IXlXXXlany c  additionalfindings.Whenajudgeinflictspunishmentthatthejury'sverdictalone O   doesnotallow,thejuryhasnotfoundallthefacts"whichthelawmakesessentialto ;  thepunishment,"[citation]#XlXXIXl#IXlXXXl,andthejudgeexceedshisproperauthority.(_Blakely_, 'w  supra,slip_opn_.atp.7,emphasisinoriginal.)c      Drawingtogetherthelessonsof_Apprendi_,Ringv.Arizona(2002)536U.S.584(thecase ;  whichapplied_Apprendi_todeathpenaltyaggravatingfactors),and_Blakely_itself,themajority ' commented:#XlXXIXl#  SR?+ ` hp x X?IXlXXXl    8  Whetherthejudge'sauthoritytoimposeanenhancedsentencedependsonfindinga R specifiedfact(asin#XlXXIXl #IXlXXXl_Apprendi_#XlXXIXl #IXlXXXlԀ),oneofseveralspecifiedfacts(asin#XlXXIXlT!#IXlXXXlRing#XlXXIXl!#IXlXXXlԀ),or#XlXXIXl "#IXlXXXlany > #XlXXIXlX"#IXlXXXlaggravatingfact(ashere),itremainsthecasethatthejury'sverdictalonedoesnot * authorizethesentence.Thejudgeacquiresthatauthorityonlyuponfindingsome  additionalfact.% M #XlXXIXl"#%M#Ԁ[Fn.](_Blakely_,supra,atp.9,emphasisinoriginal.)   -     Inthecourseofrespondingtothedissenters,the_Blakely_majorityspokeof ourcommitment  to_Apprendi_inthiscontextand theneedtogiveintelligiblecontenttotherightofjurytrial. v (Ibid.)Themajoritydescribed_Apprendi_asa brightlineruleandrejectedthenotionthatthejury b trialrightshoulddependonsomeassessmentofthede_gree_Ԁofjudicial_factfinding_Ԁinthesentencing N process,suchaswhetherthestatutoryschemewent toofarorallowed thetailtowagthedog. : (Id.atp.12.) As_Apprendi_held,everydefendanthastherighttoinsistthattheprosecutorprove &v tothejuryallfactslegallyessentialtothepunishment.(Id.atp.17,emphasisinoriginal.)While  b themajorityrejectedthenotionthatitsholdingwouldimperiltheveryconceptof determinate  N sentencing,theopinionimpliesthat,topassmuster,adeterminatesentencingschememustrely !: uponjuryfactfinding. "&  S$e#?+ ` hp x X?IXlXXXl8  Determinatejudicial_factfinding_Ԁschemesentaillessjudicialpowerthan $e! indeterminateschemes,butmorejudicialpowerthandeterminate#XlXXIXl}*#IXlXXXljury#XlXXIXl+#IXlXXXlԄ_factfinding_ %Q " schemes.Whether#XlXXIXl+#IXlXXXl_Apprendi_#XlXXIXlk,#increasesjudicialpoweroveralldependsonwhatStates %=!# withdeterminatejudicial_factfinding_Ԁschemeswoulddo,giventhechoicebetween &)"$ thetwoalternatives.(Id.atp.13,emphasisinoriginal.)'#%     Finally,theopinionmakesclearthat,aswiththerighttojurytrialontheunderlyingoffense )$' itself, nothingpreventsadefendantfromwaivinghis_Apprendi_rights!eitherby _stipulat[ing_]to *%( therelevantfactsor[by]_consent[ing_]tojudicial_factfinding_.[Citations.](Id.atp.14.) u+&) Ї _BLAKELY_SIMPLICATIONSFORCALIFORNIAS_DSL_.    W(OPQRSTUV(wAy0G  ThestructureofCaliforniadeterminatesentencingandtheapparentapplicabilityof  _Blakely_. Thethresholdquestion,ofcourse,iswhether_Blakely_hasanypotentialapplicationto t Californiadeterminatesentencing.Itstruethat,onitsface,theWashingtonsentencingscheme, d withitsnomenclatureof standardrangesand departuresfor exceptionalcircumstances,may P  beargreaterresemblancetothefederalsentencingguidelinesthantochoicesamong lower, <   middleand uppertermsunderCaliforniassentencingscheme.(Inafootnote,the_Blakely_ ( x majorityinsistedthat, TheFederalGuidelinesarenotbeforeus,andweexpressnoopinionon  d them.(_Blakely_,supra,slip_opn_.atp.9fn.9.)But(asreflectedintheextensivediscussionof  P  _Blakely_overthepastday)itswidelyassumedthat_Blakely_willapplyto upwarddeparturesunder  <  thefederalguidelines.)But,inviewofthebreadthofthe_Blakely_majorityopinionandits (  characterizationof_Apprendi_asa brightlinerulerequiringjuryfactfindingofanymatters   essentialtoimpositionofagreatersentence, commitmentto_Apprendi_inthiscontext(id.atp.9)   shouldalsorequirejurydeterminationof aggravatingcircumstancesforaCaliforniadeterminate   sentence.     Thestateislikelytoarguethat,totheextentthereisanyanalogybetweentheWashington ` andCaliforniasentencingschemes,thetriadoflower,middle,anduppertermsprescribedforan L offense(e.g.,234)isthefunctionalequivalentofthe standardrange(49to53months)forthe 8 kidnapingoffensein_Blakely_.Underthattheory,an exceptionalsentencefindingjustifyinga $t  departurefromthe standardrangewouldbeconsideredcomparabletoaCaliforniaenhancement ` imposedontopofthebaseterm.ButacloseexaminationofCaliforniasentencinglawthroughthe L prismof_Blakely_revealsadifferent!andsomewhatcounterintuitive!picture.In_Apprendi_/_Blakely_ 8 terms,themiddletermisthetrue statutorymaximum,becauseanuppertermrequiresadditional $ findings!i.e., aggravatingcircumstances!beyondthoseinherentintheoffenseitself.    Californiastatutes,courtrules,andcaselawunequivocallyprovidethat,unlessthereisa  findingofatleastoneaggravatingcircumstances,acourtcannotimposetheupperterm: When  ajudgmentofimprisonmentistobeimposed,thecourtshallorderimpositionofthemiddleterm, p unlesstherearecircumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime.(Pen.Code1170(b), \  emphasisadded;accordCal.RulesofCourt,rule4.420(a)&(b);Y [#  1      ׀cf.,e.g.,Peoplev._Piceno_(1987) H! 195_Cal.App_.3d1353,1360.)Aswiththe standardrangein_Blakely_,themidtermisthe 4"  presumptivesentence.And,aswiththe exceptionalsentencein_Blakely_,aCaliforniacourtlacks  #p! statutoryauthoritytoimposeanuppertermunlessitfinds aggravatingcircumstancesbeyondthe  $\" elementsinherentintheoffenseitself. $H #   LiketheWashingtonstatutes,theCaliforniarulesprovidealistofenumeratedaggravating & "% circumstances(rule4.421),butthelistis notexclusiveandacourtmayrelyuponannon ' #& enumeratedcircumstance reasonablyrelatedtothesentencingdecision.(Rule4.408(a);seee.g., (#' _Peoplev.Garcia(1989)209Cal.App.3d790,794795[rapistsknowledgeofhisherpesinfection];  compareBlakely,supra,atp.3[listedaggravatingfactors illustrativeratherthanexhaustive].)As  withtheWashingtonscheme,thecourtmustmakeexplicitfactualfindings.(1170(c);rule  4.420(e)[ aconcisestatementoftheultimatefactsdeemedtoconstitutecircumstancesin t aggravation];compareBlakely,supra,atp.3[Washingtonjudge mustsetforthfindingsoffacts ` andconclusionsoflawsupportingan exceptionalsentence].) L        Californias dualuseruleunderscoresthenecessityoffindingadditionalfacts,foracourt $ t cannotbaseanuppertermonafactwhichiseitheranelementoftheunderlyingoffenseoristhe  ` basisforanenhancement.(1170(b);rules4.420(c)&(d).)Thus,theaggravatingcircumstances  L  authorizinganuppertermarealmostnecessarilyfactsbeyondthosedeterminedbythejurysoffense  8  verdictsandenhancementfindings(unlessthecourtelectstostrikeanenhancementandinsteaduse $  theenhancingfactstoimposetheupperterm(rule4.420(c))).Putanotherway,wheretheonly   aggravatingcircumstancesarethosewhichoverlapeithertheoffenseoranyenhancement,themiddle   termisthe maximumsentenceadefendantmayreceive.Itisonlyafindingofsomeadditional   nonoverlappingaggravatingcircumstancewhichcan exposeadefendanttoanupperterm. The   judgeacquiresthatauthority[toimposeanupperterm]onlyuponfindingsomeadditionalfact. p [Fn.](Blakely,supra,atp.9.)Consequently,undertheSixthAmendmentreasoningofBlakelyand \ Apprendi,adefendantisentitledtojurydeterminationofanysuchaggravatingcircumstanceused H toimposeanupperterm.Additionally,thosefindingsmustbesubjecttoareasonabledoubt 4 standardofproof(id.atpp.5,15),ratherthanapreponderancestandard,asCalifornialawcurrently  p provides(rule4.420(b)).  \   WhilethemostobviousfieldforapplicationofBlakelyisthedeterminationofaggravating 4 circumstancesusedtoimposeanupperbaseterm,itsreasoningshouldalsoapplytothose   enhancementswhichprovideatriadofpossibleenhancementterms.(E.g.,12022.5(a)[3,4,   or10yrenhancementforfirearmuse],12022.3(a)[3,4,or10yrenhancementfordeadlyweapon  useduringsexoffense],12022.7(e)[3,4,or5yrenhancementforinflictionofGBIduring  domesticviolenceoffense].)Aswiththeselectionofthebasetermfortheoffenseitself(  1170(b)),therulesprovide, Whenthedefendantissubjecttoanenhancementthatwaschargedand l foundtrueforwhichthreepossibletermsarespecifiedbystatute,themiddletermshallbeimposed X  unlesstherearecircumstancesinaggravationormitigation...(Rule4.428(b).)Aswiththechoice D! ofanuppertermfortheunderlyingoffense,thecourtmustselectthemiddletermenhancement 0"  unlessthereareaggravatingcircumstances.Consequently,justasApprendirequiresjury #l! determinationofthefactsnecessarytoestablishtheenhancementitself(e.g.,weaponuse,GBI), $X" underBlakelythejuryshouldalsodetermineanyadditionalaggravatingfactswhichareusedto $D # supportanuppertermontheenhancement,ratherthanthepresumptivemiddleterm. %0!$ Ѐ  Limitedtoaggravatingcircumstancesexposingdefendanttoanupperterm. 󀀀Assuming '#& thatBlakelydoeshavesomeapplicabilitytoCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLawbasedonthe (#' structuralconsiderationsdiscussedabove,whatisthescopeoftherightto IXlXXXldeterminate#XlXXIXlzV#IXlXXXljury#XlXXIXlV# )$( factfinding(Blakely,supra,atp.13)?Thatis,whichspecificDSLdeterminationspotentiallycome *%) withinBlakely?ThosequestionsrequireconsiderationsofsomeofthecruciallimitstheSupreme l+&* CourthasplacedonthescopeofApprendiinothercontexts.    First,theSupremeCourthaslimitedtheApprendirights(jurytrial,proofbeyondreasonable  doubt,etc.)tofactualfindingsnecessarytoexposeadefendanttoasentencegreaterthanthe t maximumtermotherwiseprovidedfortheunderlyingoffense.Ithasrefusedtoextendthoserights ` tofactswhichtrigger mandatoryminimumsorwhichotherwisefixthelengthofthesentence,but L  whichdonotincreasethemaximumallowablesentence.(Harrisv.UnitedStates(2002)536U.S. 8  545.) IXlXXXlJudicialfactfindinginthe% \ #XlXXIXl[#%\B[IXlXXXlcourseofselectingasentencewithintheauthorizedrangedoes $ t notimplicatetheindictment,jurytrial,andreasonabledoubtcomponentsoftheFifthandSixth  ` Amendments.(Id.atp.558.)Thus,forexample,wherethestatuteauthorizesarangeofpotential  L  prisontermsforaparticularoffense,afindingwhichrendersadefendantineligibleforprobationor  8  whichsomehowincreasestheminimumavailabletermwouldnotcomewithinApprendi.(See $  McMillanv.Pennsylvania(1986)477U.S.89,whichHarrisreaffirmed.)   SO  #XlXXIXl[# G(0yW(OPQRSTUV?+ ` hp x X?8  IXlXXXlWhenajudgesentencesthedefendanttoamandatoryminimum,nolessthanwhen O  thejudgechoosesasentencewithintherange,thegrandandpetitjuriesalreadyhave ;  foundallthefactsnecessarytoauthorizetheGovernmenttoimposethesentence. ' (Harris,supra,536U.S.atp.565.)#XlXXIXlP_#IXlXXXlԀ   G  .....  Ja  8  Thefactualfindingin#XlXXIXl`#IXlXXXlApprendi#XlXXIXla#IXlXXXlԀextendedthepowerofthejudge,allowinghimorher  toimposeapunishmentexceedingwhatwasauthorizedbythejury.Thefindingin  #XlXXIXl"b#IXlXXXlMcMillan#XlXXIXlc#IXlXXXlԀrestrainedthejudge'spower,limitinghisorherchoiceswithinthe s authorizedrange.Itisquiteconsistenttomaintainthattheformertypeoffactmust _ besubmittedtothejurywhilethelatterneednotbe.(Id.atp.565.)K     WhileBlakelymayalterourunderstandingofthe authorizedrangepermittedbythejurys #s findings!i.e.,inCalifornia,themiddletermshouldbeconsideredthe maximumunlesstherehave _ beenfindingsofaggravatingcircumstances!itdoesnotseemtoaffectthebasiclessonsofHarris. K ThefocusofApprendianditsprogenyremainsonfindingswhicharenecessarytoincreasethe 7 sentencebeyondthemaximumotherwiseallowedbythejurysverdict.Consequently,itislikelythat # Blakelyappliesonlytodeterminationofaggravatingfactorswhichexposeadefendanttoapotential  upperterm,butnottomitigatingfactors.󀀀Ifthereisnorighttojurydeterminationofafactwhich   actuallyalterstheavailablerangeofsentencingbyincreasingthelowertermorbyprecluding ! probation,itisdifficulttoseehowApprendicouldapplytocriteriawhichoperatelessrigidlyand "  simplyguidethesentencingcourtsdiscretioninchoosingatermwithintherangealreadyauthorized o#! bythejurysverdict.Significantly,thepresenceofoneormoremitigatingcircumstancessimply [$" allowsasentencingcourttoimposeamiddleterm;theydonotentitleadefendanttoalowerterm G% # orprecludeimpositionofamiddleorupperterm. 3&!$   Thisisamatterwhichmaywellberevisitedinthefuture.IftheinitialBlakelychallenges  ([#& tofindingsofaggravatingfactorsaresuccessful,itmaybepossibletobuilduponthosecases, (G$' especiallyifanycourtsdescribeBlakelysprinciplesinbroadtermswhichcouldconceivablyapply )3%( tomitigatingfactors.But,atleastforthe firstroundofBlakelyappeals,itdoesnotappearrealistic *&) todemandjurydeterminationofmitigating_factors. + '* Ї  _Factfinding_Ԁnotdiscretion. Sentencingdecisionstypicallyinvolvetwodifferentkindsof  determinations!findingsoffacts(e.g.,weaponuse)andtheexerciseofdiscretionorjudgmentas  tothemostappropriatesentence._Apprendi_and_Blakely_appeartofocusstrictlyontherighttojury  determinationoffacts,whichexposeadefendanttothepossibilityofasentencegreaterthanthe x maximumallowedbythejurysfindings.The_Apprendi_/_Blakely_majorityhasnoquarrelwith d judicialsentencingdiscretion,providedthatjurorshavemadeallthepurelyfactualfindings P  necessarytoauthorizeamaximumsentence.Asthe_Blakely_opinionnoted: <  8  #XlXXIXlcc#Nordoesitmatterthatthejudgemust,afterfindingaggravatingfacts,makea  d judgmentthattheypresentacompellinggroundfordeparture.Hecannotmakethat  P  judgmentwithoutfindingsomefactstosupportitbeyondthebareelementsofthe  <  offense.WhetherthejudiciallydeterminedfactsIXlXXXlrequire#XlXXIXls#IXlXXXlasentenceenhancementor (  merely#XlXXIXl[s#IXlXXXlallow#XlXXIXls#it,theverdictalonedoesnotauthorizethesentence.(_Blakely_,supra,   atp.9fn.8,emphasisinoriginal.)      Thatfootnoteimpliesthat determinatejury_factfinding_(id.atp.13)willbeargreater   resemblancetojuryfindingsonconventionalenhancementsthantothejurysroleinthepenalty t phaseofaCaliforniacapitaltrial.Thatis,underthe_Blakely_sconstructionoftheSixthAmendment ` thejury,notthejudge,mustfindtheexistenceofanyaggravatingfacts(suchasthoseenumerated L inrule4.421(a)),whichareusedtosupportanupperterm(subjecttotherecidivismlimitation 8 discussedbelow).But(incontrasttoacapitaljurysroleinchoosingbetweendeathand_LWOP_) $t _Blakely_wouldnotappeartoentitleadefendanttojurydeterminationofthechoicebetweenamiddle ` andupperterm.Thatnormativeordiscretionaryjudgment!includingtheweighingofaggravating L factorsfoundbythejuryandthebalancingofthosefactorsagainstmitigatingcircumstances!would 8 likelyremainwiththesentencingjudge. $   Notapplicabletorecidivistaggravatingfactors.Oneglaringanomalycontinuestoplague  allaspectsof_Apprendi_practice.Twoyearsbefore_Apprendi_,theCourtruled(54)thattherewas  norighttojurytrial(orproofbeyondareasonabledoubt)onapriorconvictionallegationevenwhere  thepriorconvictionsignificantlyincreasedthemaximumallowablesentence.(_Almendarez_ԄTorres p v.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224IXlXXXl.)The_Apprendi_majorityopiniondidnotoverrule_Almendarez_Ԅ \  Torres,butpurportedtodistinguishit(evenwhileacknowledging #XlXXIXl|#IXlXXXlitisarguablethat#XlXXIXl}#IXlXXXl_Almendarez_Ԅ H! Torres#XlXXIXl1~#IXlXXXlwasincorrectlydecided).(_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.atp.489.) #XlXXIXl~#?+ ` hp x X?Boththe 4"  certaintythatproceduralsafeguardsattachedtoanyfactofpriorconviction,andtherealitythat  #p! _Almendarez_ԄTorresdidnotchallengetheaccuracyofthatfactinhiscase,mitigatedthedueprocess  $\" andSixthAmendmentconcernsotherwiseimplicatedinallowingajudgetodetermineafact $H # increasingpunishmentbeyondthemaximumofthestatutoryrange.[Fn.](_Apprendi_,supra,atp. %4!$ 488.)Consequently,asreiteratedin_Blakely_,thecoreholdingof_Apprendi_is: IXlXXXlOtherthanthefact & "% ofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyond% ] #XlXXIXl#%]V% ^ %^IXlXXXltheprescribedstatutory ' #& maximummustbesubmittedtoajury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Id.atp.490, (#' emphasisadded;_Blakely_,supra,atp.5.) )$(   JusticeThomashadbeeninthemajorityin_Almendarez_ԄTorres,butswitchedsidestoprovide l+&* thecrucialfifthvotein_Apprendi_.Inhisseparateconcurrencein_Apprendi_,JusticeThomasindicated  thatheregrettedhis_Almendarez_ԄTorresvoteandmadeplainthathesawarighttojurytrialonany  factincreasingthemaximumsentence,includingapriorconviction.(_Apprendi_,supra,530U.S.at  pp.520521(Thomas,J.,concur.).)Consequently,thereshouldbe5votestooverrule_Almendarez_Ԅ t Torres!the4originaldissentersplusThomas(thesame5whocomprisedthemajorityinboth ` _Apprendi_and_Blakely_).Nonetheless,theSupremeCourtdidnotactuallydosoin_Apprendi_,and,by L  itscert.denialsovertheintervening4years,ithaspassedupotheropportunitiestorevisit 8  _Almendarez_ԄTorres.Consequently,bothCaliforniaandfederalcourtshaveruledthat_Almendarez_Ԅ $ t Torresremainsthelawand,pendinganyfurtherwordfromtheSupremeCourt,thereisnorightto  ` jurydeterminationofapriorconvictionorpriorprisontermenhancement.(E.g.,#XlXXIXl#Peoplev.IXlXXXlԀ_Epps_  L  (2001)25#XlXXIXl#Cal.4th19,23;UnitedStatesv._Yanez_Ԅ_Saucedo_(9thCir.2002)295F.3d991,993.)  8    Aswith_Apprendi_challengestolackofjurytrialon strikesandotherpriorconviction   enhancements,counselmaystillwanttoraisea_Blakely_/_Apprendi_challengetojudicialdetermination   ofrecidivistaggravatingfactorsinordertoensurepreservationoftheclaimintheeventtheU.S.   SupremeCourtgrantscert.toresolvetheissuesometimeinthenearfuture.Buttheremainderof   thisdiscussionwillassumethat_Almendarez_ԄTorresisstillgoodlawandthat,assuggestedby p _Blakely_squotationof_Apprendi_,thereisnorighttojurydeterminationof_DSL_Ԁaggravating \ circumstanceswhichconsistof thefactofapriorconviction.However,thatstillleaves H considerabledoubtastowhichpreciseaggravatingcircumstancescomewithinthe_Apprendi_/_Blakely_ 4 righttojurytrialandwhichwithinthe_Almendarez_ԄTorresexceptionforpriorconvictions.  p   Evenwithinthemoretraditionalcontextofenhancementsand strikes,thereisuncertainty H overwhetherthereisarighttojurytrialonsomeaspectsofrecidivistallegations.TheCalifornia 4 SupremeCourtrecentlygrantedreviewtoconsiderwhether_Apprendi_requiresdeterminationof   additionalfactsnecessarytoprovethatanoutofstatepriorconvictionqualifiedasa strike(where   theleastadjudicatedelementsoftheoutofstaterobberyfellshortofCaliforniasdefinitionofthe  offense).(Peoplev.McGee(2004)115_Cal.App_.4th819,reviewgranted,Apr.28,2004(S123474).)  ЀThereisalsocontinuingdebateoverwhetherapriorjuvenileadjudicationallegedasa strike  properlycomeswithinthe_Almendarez_ԄTorresexceptionsince(incontrasttoanadultconviction) l thedefendantneverhadtherighttojurytrialinthejuvenilecase.(Comparemaj.&dissenting X  opinionsinPeoplev.Lee(2003)111_Cal.App_.4th1310;alsocompareUnitedStatesv._Tighe_ D! (9thCir.2001)266F.3d1187.) 0"    Applyingtheelusive_Apprendi_/_Almendarez_ԄTorresdistinctiontoCalifornias_DSL_ $X" aggravatingfactorsmayproveevenmoredifficultthanthesimilarquestionssurrounding $D # enhancementsandstrikes.Assumingthat_Blakely_appliestotheCalifornia_DSL_Ԁstructureinthefirst %0!$ place,allthe factsrelatingtothecrimelistedinrule4.421(a)shouldcomesquarelywithinthe &"% _Apprendi_categoryofenhancingfactssubjecttotherighttojurytrialandproofbeyondareasonable '#& doubt.Buttheconverseisnottrue.The factsrelatingtothedefendantlistedinrule4.421(b)do (#' allarisefromadefendantscriminalrecord.Butitwouldnotbeappropriatetowithhold_Apprendi_ )$( protectionfromallrule4.421(b)determinationsonthetheorythat_Almendarez_ԄTorresbroadly |*%) exemptsall _redicivist_factsfromtheserights. h+&* Ї  Rule4.421(b)(3)( priorprisonterm)doesprobablycomewithinthe_Almendarez_ԄTorres  exception,justasthecomparablesection667.5(b)enhancementdoes.Rule4.421(b)(2)findings  ( priorconvictions...numerousorofincreasingseriousness)willprobablycomewithin_Almendarez_Ԅ  Torresratherthan_Apprendi_inmostcaseswherethecourtisrelyingonlyupon thefactofaprior t conviction,suchasthesheernumberofpriorsorthe increasingseriousnessevidentfromthe ` sequenceofstatutoryoffenses(e.g.pettytheft,grandtheft,robberywithgunuse).Butprobation L  reportstypically,thoughnotalways,providebriefblurbsonthefactsofprioroffenses(usually 8  drawnfrompolicereports).Totheextentacourtbasesafindingof increasingseriousnessupon $ t detailsbeyondtheleastadjudicatedelementsofprioroffenses,thatdeterminationposespotential  ` _Apprendi_problemssimilartoacourtsfindingofextrinsicfactsnecessarytobringapriorwithinthe  L   strike/ seriousfelonydefinition(anissuependingbeforetheCaliforniaSupremeCourtinPeople  8  v._Mcgee_,supra,S123474).Similarly,totheextentarule4.421(b)(3)determinationrestson $  juvenileadjudications,itraisesthesameissuesasuseofsuchadjudicationsas strikes.(Cf.United   Statesv._Tighe_,supra,266F.3d1187.)     Theprobationandparolerelatedfactorsalsopresentamixedpicture.Thebarefactofa   defendantsprobationorparolestatusatthetimeofthecurrentcrime(rule4.421(b)(4))appears p analogoustoapriorprisonterm(andthusprobablyexemptfrom_Apprendi_)becauseitisasimple \  objectivedeterminationoflegalstatus,shownbyjudicialandcorrectionalrecords.But H unsatisfactoryperformanceonparoleorprobationisanothermatter,especiallyifitrestsonlyupon 4 theparole/probationofficerscharacterizationofadefendantscomplianceratherthanonarecord  p offormalviolationfindingsandrevocations.Moreover,eveniftherewereformalrevocations,  \ thoseshouldnotbegiventhesamepassaspriorconvictionsbecausetheywerenotattendedby H similarproceduralsafeguards(acriticalcomponentofthe_Almendarez_ԄTorresrationale)"neither 4 ajurytrialnorproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.     Finally, violentconductwhichindicatesaseriousdangertosociety(rule4.421(b)(1))may  bethemostproblematicofalltherule4.421(b),becauseitmaynotnecessarilybetetheredtoany  priorformaladjudication.Itmayrestupon_unadjudicated_Ԁaspectsofthecurrentcase(whichwould  bringitsquarelywithin_Apprendi_),upon_unadjudicated_Ԁaspectsofsomepriorcase(whichwould l arguablypresentan_Apprendi_problem),orevenuponpriorarrestsorothermatterswhichnever X  resultedinapriorconviction. D!   Inshort,applicationof_Blakely_and_Apprendi_torule4.421(b)_aggravators_Ԁwilllikelyrequire #l! veryclosecasebycasedissectionofthespecificfactsunderlyinganassertedfactor.Arecidivism $X" relatedaggravatingfactorfallscleanlyintothe_Almendarez_ԄTorrescolumnonlywherethe $D # circumstanceconsistedofthebare factofapriorconviction(orprisonterm),ratherthanany %0!$ extrinsicfacts.Inallotherinstances,thereisatleastapotentialissue. &"%   Distinguishing IXlXXXlfactsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant.#XlXXIXl# 󀀀As (#' quotedearlier,thecoreholdingof_Blakely_is IXlXXXlthatthestatutorymaximumfor#XlXXIXl#IXlXXXl_Apprendi_#XlXXIXl#IXlXXXlԀpurposes )$( isthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimpose#XlXXIXl#IXlXXXlsolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthejury *%) verdictoradmittedbythedefendant.#XlXXIXl{#IXlXXXlԀ#XlXXIXl4#Ԁ(_Blakely_,supra,atp.7,emphasisinoriginal.)Therewill l+&* _nodoubtbemanycasebycasedisputesoverwhetherparticularaggravatingcircumstances,beyond  theminimumstatutoryelementsofanoffense,weresomehow reflectedinthejuryverdictor  admittedbythedefendantinhisplea.    Itwouldbedangeroustoconflatethisstandardwiththe factualbasisforapleaorverdict. ` ЀThefocusofBlakely(anditsprecursors,ApprendiandRing)isonthejurysfindingsorthe L  defendantsadmissions.Inthecaseofaplea,thatshouldbethepleawaiverformoranyotherplea 8  agreementexecutedbythedefendantandthedefendantsownstatementsandreponsesduringthe $ t pleacolloquy.Thosearetheonlyfactstruly admittedbythedefendant.Thecourtsdutyto  ` ensurethereisa factualbasisforanegotiatedplea(1192.5)isacreatureoflegislativelimitations  L  onpleabargainingandshouldnotbeconfusedwiththemorelimitedscopeofadefendantsown  8  admissions.Thus,forexample,theattorneysstipulatationthatthecourtmaylooktothepreliminary $  hearingtranscriptorapolicereportasa factualbasisforsection1192.5purposesisnottantamount   toanadmissionbythedefendantofeverythingassertedinthosedocuments.     Similarly,inthecaseofjuryverdicts,thefocusmustbeonthejurysactualfindings.Itis   fairtolooktothejuryinstructions,aswellastheverdictsandanyenhancementfindings,to p determinewhichfactsthejurorsnecessarilyfound.Butitwouldnotbeappropriatetolookto \ additionalmattersseeminglyapparentfromthetrialtranscriptwhichwerenotthesubjectof H instructionsandverdicts.Itbearsemphasisthat,underthetermsofthemajorityopinion, Blakely 4 errorissimplyoneformofApprendierror.Consequently,weshouldsubjectanaggravating  p circumstancewhichwasnotthesubjectofaspecificjuryfindingtothesamescrutinyasimposition  \ ofanenhancementwhichwasneversubmittedtothejury.Noonewoulddisputethatimposition H ofaweaponorGBIenhancementwouldrepresentApprendierrorifthoseenhancementswerenot 4 submittedtothejury,evenifthetrialrevolvedentirelyaroundidentityissuesandtherewasnever   anytruedisputeaboutweaponuseorGBI.Similarly,atleastforpurposesofthe error   determination,theinquiryshouldfocusstrictlyuponacomparisonofthejuryinstructionsand  verdictswiththeaggravatingcircumstanceslatercitedbythecourt.    Uponanalysisof thefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant,some l uppertermswillprobablybesecurefromchallengebecausetheaggravatingcircumstancesrested X  uponfactseitheradmittedorfoundelsewhereinthecase.Forexample,manyprobation D! disqualifyingallegationsaretriedtoajury;asentencingcourtsrelianceuponthe largequantityof 0"  contrabandasanaggravatingcircumstance(rule4.421(a)(10))wouldprobablynotoffendBlakely #l! ifthejuryhadalreadyreturnedadrugquantityfindinginsomeothercontext.Similarly,ifthere $X" weremultipleconvictions(eitherbypleaorverdict)andthedefendantreceivedconcurrentterms, $D # acourtcouldlegitimatelyrelyonthoseothercountsasabasisforanuppertermontheprincipal %0!$ count.(Rule4.421(a)(7).) &"%  LITIGATINGBLAKELEYCLAIMS.  (#'   Retroactivity. 󀀀AsstatedinanotherApprendirelatedopinionissuedthesamedayasBlakely |*%) (andalsoauthoredbyJusticeScalia): WhenadecisionofthisCourtresultsinanewrule,the_rule l+&* appliestoallcriminalcasesstillpendingondirectreview.[Citation.](_Schiro_Ԁv._Summerlin_(June  24,2004;03526)542U.S.___,2004WL1402732atp.*3.)Aswithcalculationofthe finality  dateofastateconvictionforpurposesofthefederalhabeasstatuteoflimitations,acaseis  considerednonfinal"andthusentitledtothebenefitofany newrule"fortheentiretimeitis t actuallypendingondirectappealinthestatecourtsandupuntilthelastdayonwhichthedefendant ` couldhavefiledatimelycert.petitionintheU.S.SupremeCourt(90daysfromtheCalifornia L  SupremeCourtsdenialofapetitionforreviewinthedirectappeal).(Iftherewasnopetitionfor 8  review,therelevantfinalitydateisthelastdayonwhichthedefendantcouldhavefiledsucha $ t petition.)  `   Underthosestandards,_Blakely_unquestionablyappliesto:(a)alldirectappealscurrently  8  pendingintheappellatecourts(atwhateverstage),(b)alldirectappealsinwhichpetitionsfor $  reviewarecurrentlypending,and(c)alldirectappealsinwhichtheCaliforniaSupremeCourtdenied   reviewonorafterMarch26,2004.     Underthestrictretroactivitylimitsof_Teague_Ԁv.Lane(1989)489U.S.288,_Blakely_almost   certainlydoesnotapplytocaseswhichbecamefinalpriortoJune24,2004.In_Schiro_Ԁv._Summerlin_ p supra,2004WL1402732,themajorityfoundthatRingv.Arizona(extendingthejurytrialrightto \ capitalpenaltyfindings)didnotcomewithin_Teague_sexceptionfor watershedrulesofcriminal H procedureimplicatingthefundamentalfairnessandaccuracyofthecriminalproceeding.Ring 4 concernedsimilar_Apprendi_questionsofjudicialvs.jury_factfinding_Ԁ"butinthelifeordeath  p contextofcapitaltrials.IfRingdidnotqualifyasa watershedrulefor_Teague_purposes,then  \ plainly_Blakely_wonteither. H   Despitetheapparent_Teague_bartoitsretroactiveapplication,JusticeOConnorsdissentin   _Blakely_raisesthe_spectre_Ԁthatthedecisionmayjeopardizethousandsofalreadyfinalcases   throughoutthecountry: [_A]ll_Ԁcriminalsentencesimposedunderthefederalandstateguidelines  since_Apprendi_wasdecidedin2000arguablyremainopentocollateralattack.(_Blakely_,supra,  OConnor,J.,dissenting_opn_.atp.11.)Thatseemsunlikely.Since_Blakely_cannotbeconsidered  a watershedruleforpurposesof_Teague_sexception(_Schiro_Ԁv._Summerlin_),a_Blakely_claimcould l onlyavoidthe_Teague_Ԅbarif_Blakely_werenotviewedasa newrule,butsimplyasa X  straightforwardapplicationof_Apprendi_.AsquotedinJusticeOConnorsdissent, acase D! announcesanewruleiftheresultwasnotdictatedbyprecedentexistingatthetimethedefendants 0"  convictionbecamefinal.(_Teague_Ԁv.Lane,supra,489U.S.atp.301.)Evenassumingthat_Blakely_ #l! isalogicalapplicationof_Apprendi_sprinciplestoadifferentsentencingscheme(asthemajority $X" opinionstates),itishardtosaythat_Apprendi_ dictatedthisoutcome.Indeed,asreflectedinthe $D # astonishedreactionamongboththedefenseandprosecutionbars,noonesawitcoming.Asnoted %0!$ elsewhereinJusticeOConnorsdissent,everysinglefederalcircuithadrejected_Apprendi_ &"% challengestothefederalsentencingguidelines,andonlyasinglecourt(theKansasSupremeCourt) '#& hadsustainedsuchachallengetoastateguidelinesregimen.(_Blakely_,supra,OConnor,J., (#' dissenting_opn_.atp.7fn.1.) )$(   Inshort,theputativethreattosentenceswhichbecamefinalduringthe_Apprendi_Ԅ_Blakely_ h+&* windowseemstobemoreacaseofadissentsexaggerationoftheimplicationsofamajority  opinion,thanarealisticpossibility.    Waiver. Asentencingcourtsimpositionofanuppertermbasedonanaggravating t circumstancenot reflectedinthejurysverdictoradmittedbythedefendantshouldnotcome d withintheusualScottrulerequiringacontemporaneousobjectiontopreserveappellatereviewof P  defectsinsentencingreasons.Inseveralcasesoverthepastdecade,theCaliforniaSupremeCourt <  hasheldthatafailuretoobjectcannotwaive certainfundamentalconstitutionalrights,suchas ( x doublejeopardyandtherighttojurytrial,eventhoughthatomissionmayforfeitappellatereview  d ofrelatedstatestatutoryclaims.InPeoplev.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580,theCourtappliedthat  P  distinctiontoadefendantsfailuretoobjecttothedischargeofthejury,priortotheadjudicationof  <  chargedpriors.Thatomissionforfeitedtherighttocontesttheprematuredischargeasaviolation (  ofthestatestatutoryprovisionsrequiringthesamejurytodetermineboththecurrentlychargedcrime   andanyallegedpriors(1025,1164)(seeid.atpp.589592),butnottherighttoraisethemore   fundamentalclaimsofdoublejeopardyandjurytrial.󀀀 Defendantsfailuretoobjectalsowouldnot   precludehisassertingonappealthathewasdeniedhisconstitutionalrighttoajurytrial.   [Citations.](id.atp.589fn.5;seealsop.592[sameholdingredoublejeopardyclaim];accord t Peoplev._Valladoli_(1996)13Cal.4th590,606[alsorefusingtofindwaiverofdoublejeopardy ` claimrepostverdictamendmentofaninformationtoaddpriorconvictions].)AstheCourt L summarizedinalateropinion: 8 8  IXlXXXlNotallclaimsoferrorareprohibitedintheabsenceofatimelyobjectioninthetrial ` court.Adefendantisnotprecludedfromraisingforthefirsttimeonappealaclaim L assertingthedeprivationofcertainfundamental,constitutionalrights.(See 8 #XlXXIXlA#IXlXXXlSaunders#XlXXIXl#IXlXXXl,#XlXXIXl#IXlXXXlsupra#XlXXIXlY#IXlXXXl,5Cal.4thatp.592[pleaofonceinjeopardy];#XlXXIXl#IXlXXXlPeoplev.Holmes#XlXXIXl# $ (1960)54Cal.2d442,443444[constitutionalrighttojurytrial];cf.IXlXXXlPeoplev.  Walker#XlXXIXl#IXlXXXlԀ[(1991)]#XlXXIXl>#IXlXXXl54Cal.3d[1013,]10221023[_nonconstitutional_Ԁnatureofclaimthat  trialcourtfailedtoadviseofconsequencesofguilty% p #XlXXIXl#%pXpleasubjectsdefendant'sclaim  torulethaterroriswaivedabsenttimelyobjection].)(Peoplev.Vera(1997)15  Cal.4th269,276277,emphasisadded.)p     BecauseaBlakelyclaimsconteststhedenialoftheSixthAmendmentrighttoajurytrialon H! theaggravatingfactorsnecessarytoexposeadefendanttoanupperterm,itshouldcomewithinthe 4"  SaundersVallodoliVerarule:Alackofobjectionshouldnotforfeitappellatereviewofadenialof  #p! this fundamentalconstitutionalright.  $\"   Thereareseveralothergroundsforresistingwaiverclaims.Theappellatecourtsgenerally %4!$ willnotinsistuponanobjectioninalowercourtwheresuchanobjectionwouldhavebeenfutileat & "% thetime(suchaswherethecourthasalreadyrebuffedsimilarobjections.(E.g.Peoplev.Hill(1998) ' #& 17Cal.4th800,820[prosecutorialmisconduct];Peoplev._Abbaszadeh_Ԁ(2003)106_Cal.App_.4th642, (#' 648649[judicialmisconduct].)Thefutilityexceptionshouldalsoapplywherethestatutoryorcase )$( lawbindingthelowercourtatthetimewouldhaveprecludedtheclaim.(Cf.Peoplev.Birks(1998) *%) aX% XXXl19Cal.4th108,116,fn.6[nowaiverwherelowercourtwasboundbyhighercourton l+&* issue].)#XlX XaX%r#ԀUntilJune24,2004,itwouldhavebeenpointlesstodemandajurytrialora_resonable_  doubtstandardon_DSL_Ԁaggravatingcircumstances,sinceCaliforniastatutoryandcaselaw  unequivocallyprescribedjudicial_factfinding_Ԁunderapreponderancestandard.Eveninthecontext  ofevidentiaryclaims(wherethecourtshavegenerallyenforcedwaiverrulesmoststrictly),the ~ CaliforniaSupremeCourthasallowedreviewofunraisedclaimsbasedonasignificantsupervening j changeinthelaw:IXlXXXl Thoughevidentiarychallengesareusuallywaivedunlesstimelyraisedinthe V  trialcourt,thisisnotsowhenthepertinentlawlaterchangedsounforeseeablythatitisunreasonable B  toexpecttrialcounseltohaveanticipatedthechange.[Citations.](Peoplev.Turner(1990)50 . ~ Cal.3d668,703#XlXXIXl#.)  j   Finally,inpostjurytrialappealsa_Blakely_claimmayalsobecognizable,withoutthe  B  necessityofanobjectionbelow,onthegroundthattheunderlyingerrorwasthefailuretoinstruct .  thejuryontheaggravatingfactor.Consequently,theclaimcouldcomewithinsection1259,   allowingappellatereviewofanyinstructionwhichaffectsthedefendants substantialrights.     Harmlesserror. 󀀀Thedispositionin_Blakely_wasaremandtotheWashingtonappellatecourt    forproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion.(_Blakely_,supra,atp.18.)Theopiniondidnot ~ addresswhethertheerrornecessarilyrequiredreversalofthesentenceorwassusceptibletoharmless j errorreview. V   Ideally,ofcourse,wewouldliketocharacterize_Blakely_errorasaformof structuraldefect, .~ notamenabletoharmlesserrorreview,onthetheorythatthewrongentity,thejudgeratherthanthe j jury,hasadjudicatedtheaggravatingfactorandhasappliedthewrongstandardofproof.(Cf. V Sullivanv_Louisana_(1993)508U.S.275.)Ifthe_aggravator_Ԁwereviewedascomparabletoadistinct B charge(suchasaseparatecount),thestructuraldefectargumentwouldcarrysomeweightbecause . therewasacompletedenialofjurytrialastothatcharge.But,inthecontextsofmoretraditional  enhancements,thecourtshavetendedtoviewenhancingfactsascomparabletoextra elementsof  theunderlyingoffense.Underthatanalogy,afailuretosubmitanenhancementtothejuryisanon  structuralerrorakintoomissionofanelementoftheoffensefromthejuryinstructionsandtherefore  subjecttoharmlesserror.(See_Neder_Ԁv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1.) z   BoththeCaliforniaSupremeCourtandthefederalcircuitshaveheldthatconventional R! _Apprendi_errorsonenhancementsaresubjecttotheChapmanstandard.(Peoplev._Sengpadychith_ >"  (2001)26Cal.4th316,324;Peoplev.Scott(2001)91_Cal.App_.4th1197,12091211;UnitedStates *#z! v.Garcia_Guizar_(9thCir.2000)234F.3d483,488489.)AlthoughtheCaliforniaSupremeCourts $f" opinionin_Sengpadychith_involvedanomissionofadiscreteelementofanenhancement(the %R #  primaryactivitieselementofthegangenhancement,186.22(b))ratherthanacompletefailure %>!$ tosubmittheenhancementtothejury,theCourtscharacterizationof_Apprendi_impliesthatitwould &*"% analyzethelatter,moregraveerror,underChapmanaswell: _Apprendi_treatedthecrimetogether '#& withitssentenceenhancementasthefunctionalequivalentofasinglegreatercrime. ($' (_Sengpadychith_,supra,atp.324.) )$(   Ofcourse,evenif_Blakely_errorsarenotconsidered structuraldefects,thisonlybegsthe v+&* _questionofhowexactlyChapmanreviewshouldoperateinthiscontext.Therehaslongbeena  tendencyofCaliforniacourtstoviewChapmanasmerelyalteringtheprobabilitystandardfor  prejudiceandpermittingafindingofharmlesserrorwheneverthereisassertedly overwhelming  evidenceofguilt(or,inthiscase,aggravatingcircumstances).But,atleastincontextof t instructionalerroraffectingtheelementsofoffensesandenhancements,theU.S.SupremeCourts ` casesactuallydemandafarmorerigorousformofChapmananalysis,focusingonwhatfactsthe L  jurorsnecessarilyfoundinrenderingtheirverdict.Inparticular,Nederv.UnitedStates,thevery 8  casewhichallowedharmlesserrorreviewofomissionofanelement,madeclear(orshouldhave $ t madeclear)thattheerrorcannotbefoundharmlessiftheomittedelementissusceptibletodispute:  ` 8  If,attheendofthatexamination,the[reviewing]courtcannotconcludebeyonda  8  reasonabledoubtthatthejuryverdictwouldhavebeenthesameabsenttheerror!for $  example,wherethedefendantcontestedtheomittedelementandraisedevidence   sufficienttosupportacontraryfinding!itshouldnotfindtheerrorharmless.(Neder,   supra,527U.S.atp.19,emphasisadded.)      EvenassumingthatBlakelyerrorswillbesubjecttoChapman(whichappearslikelyinlight p ofbothstateandfederaltreatmentofApprendi),itwillbeessentialforappellatedefensecounsel \ toinsistuponfidelitytotheNederformulationofChapmanreview,ratheruponthemoregeneric H  overwhelmingevidenceversionofChapmantowhichCaliforniacourtshavebeenproneinthe 4 past.  p   Blakelyerrormayalsorepresentoneformofappellateclaiminwhichthepostpleadefendant H maywellstandinabetterpositionthanadefendantwhowenttototrial.TheBlakelymajority 4 viewedthe extraordinarysentencethereasapunishmentgreaterthanauthorizedbyBlakelysplea.   ItwasasifBlakelyhadreceivedthesentencecorrespondingtoagreatercrimethantheonetowhich   hepled.ThereseemstobelittleroomforChapmananalysisinthatcontext.Ontheotherhand,  somepleasituationscouldposemoredifficultprejudicequestions"suchaswhereacourtrelies  onmultipleaggravatingcircumstances,someofwhichviolateBlakelyandsomeofwhichfall  outsideit(suchaspriorconvictionswithintheAlmendarezTorresexceptionorcurrentconduct l circumstancesadequatelysupportedbypleas,admissions,orjuryfindingsonothercountsor X  allegations).UnderoneviewofApprendiprejudiceanalysis(which,sadly,mayfindsupportinsome D! federaldecisions)thepresenceofonevalidaggravatingcircumstancemightbeviewedassufficient 0"  torenderApprendierroronanothercircumstanceharmlessbecauseonelegitimatelydetermined #l! aggravatingcircumstanceissufficienttoincreaseadefendantsmaximumexposuretoanupperterm. $X" Yet,iftheChapmananalysisistofocusontherelationshipbetweentheerrorandtheultimate $D # sentence,theinquiryshouldbewhetherthereisareasonabledoubtthecourtwouldhaveimposed %0!$ thesamesentenceifithadconfineditself &"%  MOREDISCLAIMERS. 󀀀 (#'   Havewementionedthattheseare PRELIMINARY thoughtsonBlakely?Thisposting *%) representsonestaffattorneysovertheweekendruminationsonthepossibleimplicationsofBlakely l+&* forCaliforniasDSL.Thereareseveralimportanttopicswhichthispreliminaryoutlineeitheromits  altogetherorcoversonlysuperficially.Hereareafewobviouscandidatesforfurtherresearchand  brainstorming:  bc  bc"0    MoreabouttheWashingtonsentencingstructure?Onequestionofparticularinterestisthe `  standardrangeforasentence(which,inBlakelyitselfwas49to53months).While L  BlakelyexplainstheWashingtonproceduresfor departingfromthe standardrangeand 8  imposingan extraordinarysentence,itdoesnotdiscussthestandardsgoverninghowa $ t Washingtoncourtselectsaspecifictermwithinthe standardrange.Isthatdetermination  ` lefttothejudgesdiscretion,withoutanyfurtherspecificationoffactualcriteria?As  L  discussedearlier,aBlakelychallengetoCaliforniasDSLproceduresdependsonthenotion  8  that(duetothestatutorypresumptionofamiddleterm,etc.)impositionofaCaliforniaupper $  termiscomparabletoanupwarddeparturefromthe standardrangeinWashington,   ratherthantoselectionofatermattheupperendofthatrange.Thatcomparisonmay   founderifitturnsoutthatWashingtoncourtsarerequiredtoemploycriteriasimilarto   Californiasaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesinselectingaspecifictermwithinthe    standardrange.bc݌p(#(# Ќ  bc  bc"0    AnylessonsfromKansasexperience?TheBlakelymajoritynotedthattheKansasSupreme H Court foundApprendiinfirmitiesinthatstatesdeterminatesentencingregime.(Blakely, 4 supra,atp.13,citingStatev.Gould(Kan.2001)23P.3d801.)(TheKansaslegislature  p apparentlyrespondedtothedecisionbyadoptingaformofdeterminatesentencing  \ employingjuryfactfinding.)ItcouldbeusefultoexaminewhethertheoriginalKansas H systemresembledCaliforniasDSLorinsteadfollowedaguidelinesanddeparturemodel 4 similartotheWashingtonstatuteorthefederalsentencingguidelines.bc݌ (#(# Ќ  bc  bcn!"0    Consecutivesentencing?Thesematerialshavefocusedonthechoiceofanupperterm.But  couldBlakelyconceivablyapplytofindingsusedtojustifyconsecutiveterms?Thisisa  moredifficultquestionbecausetheredoesnotappeartobeanystatutorypresumptionof  concurrentsentencingcomparabletosection1170(b)smandatethatacourt shallimpose l amiddletermunlessitfindsaggravatingormitigatingcircumstances.bcn!!݌X (#(# Ќ  bc  bc$"0     Harveywaiversandotherproblemsposedbypleaagreements?󀀀Evenwhereadefendant 0"  doesnotexplicitly admitadditionalfactsaspartofhisplea,othercommonprovisionsin #l! CalifornianegotiatedpleascouldposeproblemsforBlakelyarguments.Inparticular,could $X" adefendants Harveywaiverbeconstruedasconsenttojudicialfactfindingregardingthe $D # allegedconductunderlyingdismissedcounts?Forcurrentlypendingcases(i.e.,preBlakely %0!$ pleas)anysuch waiveror consentanalysiswouldseemunfairbecauseadefendant &"% cannotknowinglyandvoluntarilywaivearightwhichneitherhenorhisattorneyknewhe '#& hadinthefirstplace.bc$+$݌(#'(#(# Ќ  bc  bc'"0    Muchmoreresearchnecessaryonharmlesserror.󀀀Thoughthesubjectisplainlyofcritical |*%) importance,thismemorandumstreatmentofprejudice/harmlesserrorquestions_is h+&* superficialandspeculative.ItrestsupononlyafewapplicationsofChapmanto_Apprendi_  error closetohomeinCalifornia(andtheNinthCircuit).However,becauseCalifornia  statutesandcaselawrequiredjurytrialandproofbeyondareasonabledoubtofenhancement  allegations,evenbefore_Apprendi_,therearerelativelyfewcasesofoutright_Apprendi_error t inCalifornia"i.e.,completefailuretosubmitanenhancementtothejury.(California ` caseson_Apprendi_havegenerallyinvolvedless_grevious_Ԁerrors,suchastheincomplete L  enhancementinstructionsin_Sengpadychith_.)Thereismuchmorecaselaw outthere 8  assessing_Apprendi_errorswhichmaybemorecomparabletothoseimplicatedby_Blakely_, $ t butmostofthatcaselawisprobablyinthefederalcourtsandotherjurisdictions.However,  ` inordertoassessthelikelyprejudice/harmlesserrorframeworkfacing_Blakely_claims,itwill  L  beessentialtodevelopabetterinformedpictureofhowcourtsacrossthecountryhavedealt  8  with_Apprendi_errors.bc'(݌$ (#(# Ќ  bc  bc/"0    Meansofraising_Blakely_claims.Inanycasewhichisstillpendingondirectreviewinthe   appellatecourt,thisshouldposenodifficulty.Evenifthecasehasalreadybeenbriefed(or   evenargued),counselcanseekleavetofileasupplementalbrief.Butwhataboutcases   fartheralonginthepipeline?Asnotedearlier,_Blakely_appliestoallcasesnotyetfinalon p directreview,andacaseordinarilyisnotdeemedfinaluntilthetimeforpetitioningforcert. \ hasexpired.Butthatstillleavesthequestionofhowadefendantistoraisetheclaimifthe H caseisnolongerintheCourtofAppeal"suchaswhereapetitionforreviewispendingor 4 thecaseisinthe90day cert.windowfollowingadenialofreview.Isthedefendants  p onlyoptiontofileastatehabeascorpuspetition(and,ifso,inwhichcourtshouldhefileit)?bc//݌ \(#(# Ќ    **** 4 4  Again,thismemopresentsonlythemostpreliminaryandrudimentaryanalysisof_Blakely_s   implicationsforCalifornia.Morewillfollowinthecomingweeksandmonths.Goodluck.