WPCd ^V0q#VQc1ݖ?̤Xvo#]Q7SɽCg+ѹpAjęqCy1E1D[-C& >kܥAb\5)5ކH[սW7CYw/ryѣˆI:T]^/DW 5=WCZu-r?1# 4ebEi8o%0~gRtV]C8u6[r$tD^Je#) Yj_)>ah%=ةς""33&xxD[ސb ]s1z[(b#}V[-q4iY  0l 0D " hT \/ Z h** " \30 Z+ j6 " jAA b&&&&& :.  hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh B) zIH z  nBrother MFC-6800 USB,,,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($l63 fO1:i+003|xU\  `&Times New Roman y  $    1    _4 XX 4  4Althoughthecourtdidnotexpresslystatewhatstandardofproofitreliedupon,  thestandardapplicableatthetimewasapreponderanceoftheevidence.#4   4r#(Cal.Rulesof  Ct.,rule  4.420(b);  Ԁ  Peoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331,349. 4  4)#4   4# 4  4Ԁ#4   45#((3$ !      0  (#$  0  4.420(b)RULESBlakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. ___ [124 S.Ct u !  _wXX4.420(b)#XpXw+# People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331CASES !  _wXXPeoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331#XpXw+#People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331CASESBlakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. ___ [124 S.Ct4.420(b)RULES u !  _wXX4.420(b)#XpXw+# People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331CASES !  _wXXPeoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331#XpXw+# !  _wXXPeoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331#XpXw.#People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331CASES !  _wXXPeoplev.Scott(1994)9Cal.4th331#XpXw.#Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275 [113 S.Ct. u !  _wXX4.420(a)#XpXw+#94.420(a)RULESApprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 [120 !  _wXXPeoplev._Leung_Ԁ(1992)5_Cal.App_.4th482#XpXw.#@People v. Leung (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 482CASES !  _wXX1170,_subd_.(b)#XpXw+#G1170, subd. (b)PENAL CODE1170, subd. (b) d  !  _O XXSullivanv.Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275    [113_S.Ct_.2078,124_L.Ed_.2d182]#XX O.#mSullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275 [113 S.Ct.CASES ? !  _wXXArizonav._Fulminante_(1991)499U.S.279    [111_S.Ct_.1246,113_L.Ed_.2d302]#XpXw.#pArizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279 [111 S.Ct.CASES !  _wXXPeoplev._Sengpadychith_    (2001)26Cal.4th316#XpXw+#z People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316CASES !  _TRX3'Avery 5163 ShippingX3' Letter3'Avery 8160 Ink Jet AddresX3' Letter3'LetterT ^aXX   8Xdd8POSTBLACKBLAKELYAOB   #XX ^a#` `    IMPOSITIONOFANUPPERTERMSENTENCEVIOLATED & APPELLANTSFEDERALCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSTO  AJURYTRIALANDPROOFBEYONDAREASONABLE  DOUBTUNDERTHESIXTHANDFOURTEENTH   AMENDMENTSANDBLAKELYV.WASHINGTON(2004)542   U.S.296[124S.CT.2531,159L.ED.2D403],DESPITETHE r  CALIFORNIASUPREMECOURTSDECISIONINPEOPLE ^  V.BLACK(2005)35CAL.4TH1238. XXXX 4 X X J   ` a` S r  [Setforthfactsrelatingtosentencing(andadmissionrelatingtoguiltypleaif 4  applicable)onthisissuee.g., Thecourtimposedtheuppertermofthreeyearsastothe 4  seconddegreerobberyconviction,findingtheaggravatingfactorsoutweighedthe 4 mitigatingfactors.Thecourtfound,basedonapreponderanceoftheevidence  #  1      # XX  4# 4 X X#4   4}# 4  4,thatthere 4 weretwoaggravatingfactors,planningandvictimvulnerability(C.T.p.112;_R.T._Ԁpp. 4 389391.)#4   4l##XX 4*#4 XX 4  4However,thesetwofactorswerenotfoundtruebyajurybeyondareasonable 4 doubtoradmittedbyappellant.] 4   Theimpositionoftheaggravatedtermviolatedappellantsrightstojurytrialand 4 proofbeyondareasonabledoubtunderthefederalconstitution(6th,14thAmends.)and 4 UnitedStatesSupremeCourtprecedent(_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296[124 4! S.Ct.2531,159L.Ed.2d403](_Blakely_)).Wherestatelawestablishesapresumptive 4# sentenceforanoffenseandauthorizesagreatertermonlywherethereisafindingof 4% ! certainadditionalfacts(beyondthoseinherentinthejuryverdictoradmittedintheguilty 4'"# plea),anyfindingastothoseadditionalfactsmustbedeterminedbyajuryonproof  beyondareasonabledoubt.(542U.S.atp.___[124_S.Ct_.atp.2537].)  #4   4#  UnderCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLaw  ,ofthethreeavailableterms, the  courtshallorderimpositionofthemiddleterm,unlessaggravatingormitigating   circumstancesarefound.(Pen.Code, H 1170,_subd_.(b);Cal.RulesofCourt,rule    : 4.420(a); B Peoplev._Leung_Ԁ(1992)5_Cal.App_.4th482,508.)Theonlytermof   imprisonmentthatmaybeimposedbasedsolelyonthejurysverdictisthemiddle,or   presumptive,term.Thetermlongerthanthepresumptiveterm,theupperterm,cannotbe  imposedwithoutadditionalaggravatingfactors,whicharedeterminedsolelybythecourt,  basedonunswornreportsandstatementsbyprobationofficers,prosecutors,victims,and  theirfamilies( I 1170,_subd_.(b)),allmaterialneverpresentedtoorconsideredbythejury.#XX 4#4 XX 4  4  Californiasjudicialfactfindingrequiresonlyproofbasedonapreponderanceofthe  evidence.#4   4#(Cal.RulesofCt.,rule  4.420(b);  Ԁ  Peoplev.Scott,supra,9Cal.4th331,349. 4  4)#4   4d# 4  4# XX  4# 4 X X    #4   4##XX 4# XXXX 4 X XNonetheless,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthasheldthatthereisnofederal  constitutionalrighttoajurytrialonfactfindingrelatingtoaggravatingfactorsusedto   imposeanuppertermunderCaliforniasDeterminateSentencingLaw.(Peoplev.Black " (2005)35Cal.4th1238(Black).)Appellant#4   4o# 4  4# XX  4# 4 X Xacknowledgesthiscourtisboundbythe $  SupremeCourtsrulinginBlack,basedonAutoEquitySales,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt &"" (1962)57Cal.2d450(Auto_Equity).# XX  4# 4 X X#4   4F# 4  4_ ($$   However,thisacknowledgmentisnotaconcessionastothemeritsofappellants *&& argument,whichremainsviable.TheNewJerseySupremeCourthasrecentlyexamined  itssentencingschemeaschemeverymuchlikeCaliforniastodeterminewhetherit  violatedtheconstitutionalrightsenunciatedin_Blakely_.(NewJerseyv._Natale_Ԁ(August2,  2005)___N.J.___,2005N.J.LEXIS938,*4446[imprisonmentchoiceisfromarange   ofyearswithastatutorilyprescribedpresumptivetermapproximatelyhalforthree   quartersofthemaximum;courtshallimposethepresumptivetermunlessaggravatingor   mitigatingfactorsweighinfavorofhigherorlowertermwithinthestatutoryrange].)   Thecourtheldthatasentenceabovethepresumptivestatutoryterm,basedsolelyona  judicialfindingofaggravatingfactors,violatesadefendantsjurytrialguarantee.(Id.at  *12.)TheNewJerseySupremeCourtevennotedthatCaliforniassentencinglaw  appearedtobeindirectconflictwiththefederalconstitution.(Id.at*24.)Otherstate  courtshavealsofoundjurytrialguaranteeviolationsintheirsentencingschemes.(Lopez  v.People(Colo.2005)113P.3d713,728;Statev.Hughes(2005)154_Wn_.2d118[110  P.3d192]_Smylie_Ԁv.State(Ind.2005)823N.E.2d679,681685;Statev._Dilts_Ԁ(2004)337  Ore.645,654[103P.3d95];Statev._Shattuck_Ԁ(Minn.2004)689N.W.2d785(per_curiam_   order);Statev.Brown(2004)209Ariz.200,202204[99P.3d15];butseeStatev. " Gomez(Tenn.2005)163S.W.3d632,658.)#4   4# 4  4# XX  4# 4 X X $    DespiteAutoEquity,thiscourtshouldacttocorrecttheconstitutionalviolationin &"" thepresentcase.(SeeOSullivanv._Boerckel_Ԁ(1999)526U.S.838,844845[119_S.Ct_. ($$ 1728,144_L.Ed_.2d1][stateprisonerseekingfederalhabeascorpusreliefmustgivestate *&& courtafairopportunitytoactonclaims].)#4   4 # 4  4# XX  42!# 4 X X    Thesentencingrangefor[robbery]is[two,three,orfiveyears.(Pen.Code,213,  _subd_.(a)(2).)]Thepresumptivetermthetermwhichmustbeimposedabsentajury  findingaggravatingfactorsisthreeyears.Here,therewasnofactfindingbythejury.   Therefore,themaximumpermissiblesentencewasthepresumptivemiddletermof[three]   years.Instead,thecourtimposed[five]years,atermlongerthanthepresumptiveterm,   basedon[two]aggravatingfactorsfoundbythecourt,notbythejury.# XX  4## 4 X X#4   4y## 4  4ԀThiscourtshould   orderappellantssentencereducedtothepresumptivemiddletermof[three]years.    [NOTE:Ifanysentencingfactorinvolvedajudicialfindingofapriorcriminal  conviction,include: [One]ofthe[four]aggravatingfactorsthecourtfoundherewas  relatedto_recividism_.Theexceptiontotherighttojurytrialsetforthin_Almendarez_Ԅ  Torresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224[118_S.Ct_.1219,140_L.Ed_.2d350]doesnot  apply.Thatexceptionappliesonlytothemerefactofapriorconviction.(Shepardv.  UnitedStates(2005)125_S.Ct_.1254(plurality_opn_.).)Here,thecourtfoundappellants  convictions(wereofincreasingseriousness.(citetorecord.))Thistypeofrecidivist   factorgoesbeyondthemerefactofapriorconviction,requiringfindings,andthusfalls " outsidethe_Almendarez_ԄTorresexception.] $    #4   4&#Becausetheerrorinvolvesthefundamentalrighttoajurytrial,aswellasthe &"" applicationoftheappropriateburdenofproofastothefactualdetermination,theerroris ($$ astructuraloneandrequiresreversalperse.(_ n _Sullivanv.Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275 *&& [113_S.Ct_.2078,124_L.Ed_.2d182](Sullivan); q Arizonav._Fulminante_(1991)499U.S.279  [111_S.Ct_.1246,113_L.Ed_.2d302].)Althoughmostconstitutionalerrorsaresubjectto  harmlesserrorreview,someerrors,suchasstructuraldefectsinthetrialmechanism#XX 4&#4 XX,  woulddefysuchanalysis.(  Sullivan,supra,508U.S.atpp.279,306307.)#XX 4/#4 XXԀAsinthe   Sullivancase,wheretherewasnojuryverdictonthefactfindingatissue,here,the   factualdeterminationwascompletelyremovedfromthejuryandaloweredburdenof   proofwasusedbythecourt.Becausetherewasnojuryfactfindingandthusnofinding   toreview,itisimpossibletodeterminewhethertheerroraffectedfactfinding.Theentire  mechanismoffactfindingwaserroneous,ratherthansimplyanerrorinanotherwise  correctprocessoverall.(Seealso 4  4NewJerseyv._Natale_,supra,2005N.J.LEXIS938,  *67[reversalfor_resentencing_Ԁwithoutconsiderationofprejudice].)#4   453##XX 40#4 XX    EvenifprejudiceweretobeevaluatedunderChapmanv.California(1967)386  U.S.18,24[87_S.Ct_.824,17_L.Ed_.2d705],reversalisrequired#XX 4g4#4 XXbecausethegovernment  cannotshowbeyondareasonabledoubtthattheerrordidnotcontributetothe_result.#XX 45#4 XX_Ԁ  (Seealso#XX 46#4 XX ;  { Peoplev._Sengpadychith_(2001)26Cal.4th316,324.)  Hereitcannotbesaid   that,withouttheerror,thedecisionwouldhavebeenthesame.Ajuryconsideringthe " evidenceoftheaggravatingfactorsinappellantscaseislikelytohaveviewedthem $  differentlythanthecourtdid. &""   [Analyzethefactsofyourcaseforharmlesserrore.g., Interestingly,astothe ($$ firstfactorthreatofgreatbodilyinjuryorahighdegreeofcrueltyorviciousnessthat *&& factorisidenticaltothefactorstruckdownin  _Blakely_.Aspointedoutin_Blakely_,sucha  standardisobviouslysubjectiveandmanipulableinthehandsofthejudiciary;the  protectionagainstsuchstandardsisthejurytrialguarantee.(124_S.Ct_.atpp.25392540.)  Evenunderthe_prosecutrix_sunrecantedversionofevents,shereceivedthreeveryminor   injuriesapunchinthechestwhichleftathreetofourinchbruise,ahitontheshoulder   bladearea#XX 46#4 XXԀwhichleftaredbruise,andahitonthehead,whichleftaquartersizedbump.   (_R.T._Ԁpp.384387,426.)Theinjuriesweresominorsherefusedtreatmentfrom   paramedicsonthesceneandsubsequentlyneverwenttothehospitaloreventoadoctor  onherown.(_R.T._Ԁpp.407410,429.)Itisdifficulttoseehowareasonablejurywould  characterizethisasinvolvingahighdegreeofcrueltyorviciousness,higherthanthat  inherentinanyotherassaultiveinjuryona_cohabitant_.]  #XX 4<#4 XX  #XX 4?#4 XXItcannotbesaidtheerrorwasharmless.Reversalisrequired.#XX 4@#