WPCa a؆"j  TPnK I70h/iϲ:0r |5d'> AA)+=Օ|ALx|V3Z4ZobDƩB-5nYXy\ zyN6FdLe ]ɾ"i,T\sMwV&>FIq^mML=r]ZS EnZӱ䋰ʀS5@ă e>ThC0J$B{ ͧ="L@ eNu/In<9<ke4djdMQ qFK,o^E^R\RqԠq"s` -^ 1lB汣EP\Zd_ZLrP콾" \Q1>-y`va8͡!:Mvkժ{#UN % 0(^ w 4#2 m4NKK 0M 0Dv y"" " 0U# 0|i# # 0# 0$ 0% 0R& 0 ' 0' 0k( 0) 0) 0x* 0I+ 0+ 0, 0P- 0- 0. 0!/ 0/ 0p0 0>1 01 02 0<3 03 0r4 05 05 0@6 06 0>7 07 08 09 0: 0; 0z< 0\= 0> 02> 0? 0:@ 0YP@ 0_@ 0 A 0B 0C B*E D/E D+E 0F D/$H 0SH 06!I 0WI 0:_J 0^J 0<J 1e3K 0NKU6KU>LU*ZLZL 1uL 72L B+M+M+M+M+M HM ]M 0*lM M M 0TM 0hN 0=zN NN $VO zOzOzOzOzOU>OOOOOOOOOO `P PQbQbQbQ 5R PR zeR jRRR "ISISISISISISISISkS zsT jTTTTTT ,WUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUWUU @VTV zhW jWLX z5Y jYZ z![ j[\ z\ jg]] n^ ^ _g_ zw` j`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````;[aBrother MFC-6800 USB,,,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($˲63 fO1P26j3|x U (8(2}$ !   `   0  (#$  0   STONUM dnnAPPEALABILITYMigealcohabitant subdpresentence attyZanyaeCALJIC suasponte R.T.PerrisZoloftGurganiousLansford S.Ct T]heRickyGarrettSalvatoIn InboxcutterHalbert EvidspousalWoodardLeMonsFalsettaCastellanosR]apeBerrymanBlanoEwoldtMcKinneyGarceauWoodfordrevdSmallwoodO]nceBurkhartI]mproperRelifordHannonRodriguesStinsonOzunaFiguieredoRolonSedenoValadezBrevermanKronemyerSowdersDonnellyDeChristoforo L.EdMcGreenCal.AppWilcotBuffumZerilloNichols   ' AFD0AFD .    o !  _ˏXX28#XtXˏ+#28RULES*+ (_2623  ..(T$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# 28*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7G(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?U%2A`Arial?  ST\  `&Times New RomanS7H(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dF)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7J(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?U%2A`Arial?  ST\  `&Times New RomanS7H(X75+ ` hp x 5  F)2dxd0KS.SampleKS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$%&' 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Wi) d`CASES`US($`CAL`CALJIC(,!$0  0` (#(#  (@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# ` ($0 `PENAL CODE v !  _ˏXX28(b)(1)#XtXˏ+#g28(b)(1) RULES28(b)(1) \  `&Times New Roman !  _nXtXXXnˏXnXtPeoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238#ˏnˏ.##XtXˏM#wPeople v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238 CASESPeople v. Black (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1238  !  _{XXNewJerseyv._Natale_Ԁ(N.J.8/2/05)2005N.J.Lexis938#XX{.#`EVIDENCE`RULESzNew Jersey v. Natale (N.J. 8/2/05) 2005 N.J. Lexis 9CASESNew Jersey v. Natale (N.J. 8/2/05) 2005 N.J. Lexis 9273.5, subd. (a) !  _{XX_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington(2204)542U.S.296[124S.Ct.2531,159_L.Ed_.2d403]#XX{.#Blakely v. Washington (2204) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct.CASESBlakely v. Washington (2204) 542 U.S. 296 [124 S.Ct.Fourteenth Amendment  !  _nXtXXXnˏXnXt6th,#ˏnˏ+##XtXˏJ#6th,US  !  _ XXOSullivanv._Boerckel_Ԁ(1999)526U.S.838,844845[119S.Ct.1728,144_L.Ed_.2d1]#X X .#OSullivan v. Boerckel (1999) 526 U.S. 838, 844-845 CASESOSullivan v. Boerckel (1999) 526 U.S. 838, 844-845  !  _ XXSullivanv.Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275[113S.Ct.2078,124_L.Ed_.2d182]#X X .#Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275 [113 S.Ct.CASESSullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275 [113 S.Ct. !  _ XXArizonav._Fulminante_(1991)499U.S.279[111S.Ct.1246,113_L.Ed_.2d302]#X X .#Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279 [111 S.Ct.CASESArizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279 [111 S.Ct. !  _ XXChapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,24[87S.Ct.824,17_L.Ed_.2d705]#X X .#Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [87 S.CCASESChapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [87 S.C !  _ˏXXPeoplev._Sengpadychith_(2001)26Cal.4th316#XtXˏ+# People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316CASES People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316  !  _{XX_Almendarez_ԄTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224,226227[118S.Ct.1219,140  L.Ed.350]#XX{.#Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 2CASESAlmendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 2page page chapter volume footnote endnote  !  _8XXXdd8   XX   @   PETITIONFORREVIEWFOLLOWINGTHEUNPUBLISHED  DECISIONOFTHECOURTOFAPPEAL,FOURTHAPPELLATE  DISTRICT,DIVISION___,AFFIRMINGTHEJUDGMENT    ` TOTHEHONORABLERONALDGEORGE,CHIEF   JUSTICE,ANDTOTHEHONORABLEASSOCIATEJUSTICESOF   THESUPREMECOURTOFCALIFORNIA:     ` Pursuanttorule    28oftheCaliforniaRulesofCourt,defendantand   petitionerNAMEpetitionsthiscourtforreviewoftheunpublisheddecision   oftheCourtofAppeal,FourthAppellateDistrict,Division___,filed   DATE,affirmingthejudgment.TheCourtofAppealsopinionisattached  tothispetitionasAppendix A.   ` [ApetitionforrehearingwasfiledonDATENopetitionfor  rehearingwasfiled.]   `  @!  QUESTIONSPRESENTED        ` 1.Whetherimpositionoftheuppertermandaconsecutiveterm  violatedpetitionersfederalconstitutionalrightstojurytrialandproofbeyond   areasonabledoubt.  "  @   NECESSITYFORREVIEW  }    ` Pursuanttorule h  i 28(b)(1)oftheCaliforniaRulesofCourt,theissues  presentedhereinmeritSupremeCourtreviewtosettleimportantissuesoflaw  andtosecureuniformityofdecisionamongtheappellateandtrialcourts.    ` Astowhethertheuppertermandconsecutivetermsentencingviolated   petitionersjurytrialguarantee,thiscourtshouldgrantreviewtoreconsiderits   decisionin x Peoplev. y Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238( y Black). y Blackappearsto   bewronglydecided.Since y Black,atleastonestate,withasentencingscheme   verymuchlikeCalifornias,hascalled y Blackintoquestion,byfinding  sentencesaboveapresumptivestatutorytermbasedonjudicialfactfinding  violatesthejurytrialguarantee.(_  _NewJerseyv.  _Natale_Ԁ(N.J.8/2/05)2005N.J.  Lexis938,*12,*4446.)   @[[   STATEMENTOFTHECASE      ` [Setforthproceedings.]   ` TheCourtofAppealaffirmedthejudgmentinitsentiretyinanopinion  issuedonDATE._  _       @!STATEMENTOFFACTS  ,      ` [SetforthfactsoradoptfactsinCourtofAppealopinionforpurposes   ofthepetitionforreviewonly].    @..& ARGUMENTS    I.  ] X XTHISCOURTSHOULDGRANTREVIEWTO  RECONSIDERITSDECISIONINPEOPLEV. y BLACK   (2005)35CAL.4TH1238.     X X ` Relyinguponfouraggravatingfactors,thecourtsentencedpetitioner   totheuppertermoffouryears(doubledtoeightyearsunderthestrikeslaw)   astotheprincipalcount,inflictionofcorporalinjuryonacohabitant.(C.T.p.   148;R.T.pp.679680.)Thecourtalsoimposedsentenceastotheterrorist   threatconviction,consecutivetotheprincipalcount,eithergivingnoreasons  orobliquelyrelyinguponthesamereasonsasthoseusedtoimposethe  aggravatedterm.(C.T.pp.145,149;R.T.p.680.)However,noneofthese  factorswerefoundtruebythejuryoradmittedbypetitioner.   ` Onappeal,petitionerarguedthattheimpositionoftheaggravatedterm  andtheconsecutivesentencingviolatedhisrightstojurytrialandproof  beyondareasonabledoubtunderthefederalconstitution(  6th,  14thAmends.)   andUnitedStatesSupremeCourtprecedent(  _Blakely_Ԁv.Washington(2004)542 " U.S.296[124S.Ct.2531,159_L.Ed_.2d403](  _Blakely_).(Appellants $  SupplementalOpeningBrief.)Wherestatelawestablishesapresumptive &!" sentenceforanoffenseandauthorizesagreatertermonlywherethereisa (#$ findingofcertainadditionalfacts(beyondthoseinherentinthejuryverdictor *%& admittedintheguiltyplea),anyfindingastothoseadditionalfactsmustbe  determinedbyajuryonproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.(5  42U.S.atp.___  [124S.Ct.atp.2537].)   ` TheCourtofAppealrejectedpetitionersclaims,findingthatthis   courtsrecentdecisioninPeoplev. y Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238( y Black)   foreclosedhisarguments.(Typed_opn_.,p.24.)In y Black,thiscourtheldthat   thereisnofederalconstitutionalrighttoajurytrialonfactfindingrelatingto   aggravatingfactorsusedtoimposeanuppertermunderCalifornias  DeterminateSentencingLaw.( y Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1238.)   ` However, y Blackappearstobewronglydecided.Since y Black,theNew  JerseySupremeCourtissuedanopinionexaminingitssentencingscheme  aschemeverymuchlikeCaliforniasinlightof  _Blakely_.(NewJerseyv.    _Natale_Ԁ(August2,2005)2005N.J.LEXIS938,*4446[imprisonmentchoice  isfromarangeofyearswithastatutorilyprescribedpresumptiveterm  approximatelyhalforthreequartersofthemaximum;courtmustimposethe   presumptivetermunlessaggravatingormitigatingfactorsweighinfavorof " higherorlowertermwithinthestatutoryrange].)Thecourtheldthata $  sentenceabovethepresumptivestatutoryterm,basedsolelyonajudicial &"" findingofaggravatingfactors,violatesadefendantsjurytrialguarantee.(Id. ($$ at*  12.)TheNewJerseySupremeCourtevennotedthatCalifornias *&& determinatesentencinglawappearedtobeindirectconflictwiththefederal  constitution.(Id.a  t*24.)   ` LikethesentencingschemeinNewJersey,theCaliforniasentencing  rangeforeachoffenseisarangeofyears.Specifically,fortheoffenseatissue   here(inflictionofcorporalinjuryonacohabitant),therangeistwo,three,or   fiveyears(  273.5,subd.(a)).Thepresumptivetermthetermwhichmust   beimposedabsentajuryfindingofaggravatingfactorsisthreeyears.Here,   therewasnofactfindingbythejuryastoanyaggravatingfactors.Therefore,  themaximumpermissiblesentencewasthepresumptivemiddletermofthree  years.Instead,thecourtimposedfiveyears,atermlongerthanthe  presumptiveterm,basedonaggravatingfactorsitfoundbyapreponderance  oftheevidence.  S ` Thus,unlikein  _Natale_,thiscourtsdecisionin y Blackisinconflictwith    _Blakely_ԀandtheUnitedStatesConstitution.Almostallotherstatecourts  examiningtheirsentencingstatuteshavereachedsimilarconclusions,finding   suchschemesviolatethejurytrialguarantee.n(Lopezv.People(Colo.2005) " 113P.3d713,728;Statev.Hughes(2005)154_Wn_.2d118[110P.3d192] $  _Smylie_Ԁv.State(Ind.2005)823N.E.2d679,681685;Statev._Dilts_Ԁ(2004)337 &""  Ore.645,654[103P.3d95];Statev._Shattuck_Ԁ(Minn.2004)689N.W.2d785 ($$ (per_curiam_Ԁorder);Statev.Brown(2004)209Ariz.200,202204[99P.3d  15];butseeStatev.Gomez(Tenn.2005)163S.W.3d632,658.)#n%#n   #n(# ` Thiscourtshouldgrantreviewtoreconsiderits y Blackdecision,acting  nowtocorrecttheconstitutionalviolationinthepresentcase.(See   _  _OSullivanv.  _Boerckel_Ԁ(1999)526U.S.838,844845[119S.Ct.1728,144   _L.Ed_.2d1][stateprisonerseekingfederalhabeascorpusreliefmustgivestate   courtafairopportunitytoactonclaims].)    ` Finally,althoughtheCourtofAppealdidnotreachtheissueof  prejudice,petitionerarguedthattheerrorwasstructural,requiringreversal  perse.(_  _  Sullivanv.Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275[113S.Ct.2078,124  _L.Ed_.2d182](  Sullivan);_  _Arizonav.  _Fulminante_(1991)499U.S.279[111  S.Ct.1246,113_L.Ed_.2d302];seealso,NewJerseyv.  _Natale_,supra,2005  N.J.Lexis938*67.)Inthealternative,petitionerarguedthatreversalwas  requiredbecausethegovernmentcouldnotshow,beyondareasonabledoubt,  under_  _  Chapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,24[87S.Ct.824,17   _L.Ed_.2d705],thattheerrordidnotcontributetotheresult.(Seealso,  ԀPeople " v.  _Sengpadychith_(2001)26Cal.4th316,324.) $   ` Here,itcannotbesaidthat,withouttheerror,thedecisionwouldhave &"" beenthesame.Noneoftheaggravatingfactorsinvolvedapriorconviction ($$ exceptionunder    _Almendarez_ԄTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224, *&& 226227[118S.Ct.1219,140L.Ed.350].Rather,alltheaggravatingfactors  werecircumstancessurroundingthecurrentcrime.Allwerethetypeof  factorstheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdisdainedin  _Blakely_(124S.Ct.atpp.  25392540),obviouslysubjectiveandmanipulableinthehandsofthe   judiciary,requiringprotectionbythejurytrialguarantee.Allfactorswere   subjecttodisputeduringthetrial,basedonconflictingevidence(seee.g.,as   tofactorinvolvingthreatofgreatbodilyharmorviciousness/cruelty,R.T.pp.   378379,384387,407410,426,429[_prosecutrix_Ԁsustainedonlysmall  bruisesonchest,shoulder,andhead,refusedtreatmentfromparamedics,and  neverwenttodoctororhospital].)   ` Thiscourtshouldgrantreviewtoreconsideritsdecisionin y Blackand  todeterminetheappropriatestandardofprejudice.     @% t[6  CONCLUSION t6    ` Forthereasonsgivenherein,petitionerrespectfullyrequeststhiscourt  grantreviewandconsidertheissuespresented.  Dated:0 0 0h  Respectfullysubmitted, h h   `     h APPELLATEDEFENDERS,INC.    `     h DianeNichols    `     h AttorneysforPetitionerandDefendant~7