WPCP )GK[{ѳ KZ^M; nP׶rsgS6=Rf?Ac3gU,^GUh:u Oˀrȴ/40$`"A)5%hBb?R:5KIb_Ct#1./Z 0<w~6PW 2(#O狔TOPyP˴UOzTI،D_N'f!kʻ4~dcn)rta+jWt9f}RuAʿi_H fN!bh;{F{yGt,5я==0dqx-sUR[nȈ'lI ^Ao:9^YNPI&~$Dy9x oʅ熗Ա3gmoOn=b#^rW3pWa*I`늓L#zUNC % 0(U>U@U8=Nu^ ww4 mA 0D Brother MFC-6800 USB,,,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($\  `&Times New Roman(I Z(Times New Roman (\  ` TmsRmn 8ptS2763 fO1:i+003|xU  7 '  _(3$ !  !  _XX    XXXXXX  Ifthe_Blakely_issuehasbeenraised,counselshouldconsiderfilingeitheraletter X citingsupplementalauthority(citingnewcaselawasopposedtoaraisinganewissueor X makingadditionalargument)orasupplementalletterbrief. X  SupplementalAuthorityLetter  X _@*_Ԉ  Onceacaseisfullybriefed,eachdivisionhasitsownpolicyastoacceptanceofa V supplementalauthorityletter.__ V    DivisionOne 󄄀 Thecourtencouragesletterswiththecitationofnewauthority. V   Thelettershouldsummarizetheholdingofthecaseandtheissuetowhichitrelates. Z   Addingargumenttothelettercreatesdueprocessissuesfortheopposingpartyand Z   shouldbeavoided. Z    DivisionTwo  Beforethetentativeopinionissues,thereisnoformalpolicyon Z whethersuchbriefingisacceptedorrejected.Theletterwillgotothechamberswhere ^ thecasehasbeenassigned,andthechamberswilldecidetoacceptorreject.Some ^ justicesarelessinclinedtoacceptsuchaletterifitcontainsargument. ^   Thecourtwillgenerallynotacceptaletterfollowingtheissuanceofthetentative ^ opinion.Mattersmustthenbeaddressedinapetitionforrehearingoncethefinalopinion ^ issues. ^   DivisionThree 󄄀  Thecourtshouldalwaysbeadvisedofsignificantnewauthority, ^ whetherbeforeorafteroralargument.However,thelettershouldmerelytellthecourt b  whichissuetheauthoritypertainstoandcitethecase.Iftheletterarguestheauthority b  anditsapplicationtotheinstantcaseanditsfacts,thecourtwillgenerallynotacceptit.If b  suchargumentisnecessary,thecourtconsidersitanewargument,andtheattorney b  shouldaskthecourtforpermissiontofileasupplementalletterbrief,whichmayormay b  notbeaccepted.#e#  b  SupplementalLetterBrief `!   Ifasupplementalletterbriefisfiled,arequestforleavetofileitisrequiredunder \#!! CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule13(a)(4).Asamplesupplementalletterbrieffor \$"" _Blakely_/Blackfollows. \%##   \&$$   SAMPLESUPPLEMENTALLETTERBRIEF X LETTERHEAD V @@*NqkNq#k ## #  [Date]    CourtofAppeal  FourthAppellateDistrict,Division[Number]  Attn:[ClerksName]   [Address]    0  Re:RequesttoFileSupplementalBriefandSupplementalOpeningBriefinPeoplev.   [Name],CourtofAppealNo.[Number] (#(# Dear[ClerksName]:     [Briefsummaryofcasesproceduralstatuse.g., OnMay20,2005,thereplybrief  wasfiled,andbriefinginthiscasewascomplete.]    Appellantrespectfullypetitionsthiscourt,p##ursuanttorules13(a)(4)and43ofthe  CaliforniaRulesofCourt,topermit[himorher]tofileasupplementalopeningbriefandto  acceptthisletterasthesupplementalopeningbrief.Afterthefilingofthe[replybrief],the  CaliforniaSupremeCourtissuedadecisionaffectingArgument[I]oftheopeningbrief.  Ѐ  Inthebriefing,appellantraisedtheissueofwhetherthejudicialfactfindingreliedon  forimpositionoftheuppertermviolated[his/her]federalconstitutionalrightstoajurytrial  andproofbeyondareasonabledoubt,undertheSixthandFourteenthAmendmentsand  _Blakely_Ԁv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296[124_S.Ct_.2531,159_L.Ed_.2d403](_Blakely_).  OnJune20,2005,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtdecidedPeoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th  1238(Black),holdingthatthereisnofederalconstitutionalrighttoajurytrialonfactfinding  relatingtoaggravatingfactorsusedtoimposeanuppertermunderCaliforniasDeterminate  SentencingLaw.AppellantacknowledgesthiscourtisboundbytheSupremeCourtsruling   inBlackunderAutoEquitySales,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1962)57Cal.2d_450._________________________________ !    However,thisacknowledgmentisnotaconcessionastothemeritsofappellants #!" argument.Appellantcontinuestomaintainthatthesentencingviolatedhisfederal $"# constitutionalrights.(See,e.g.,NewJerseyv._Natale_Ԁ(August2,2005)___N.J.___,2005 %#$ N.J.LEXIS938,*24[findingsentencingschemeverylikeCaliforniasviolates_Blakely_and &$% rejectingCaliforniasapproachinBlackbecauseitappearstobeindirectconflictwith '%& _Blakely_];accordasto_Blakely_violations,Lopezv.People(Colo.2005)113P.3d713,728; (&' Statev.Hughes(2005)154_Wn_.2d118[110P.3d192]_Smylie_Ԁv.State(Ind.2005)823 )'( N.E.2d679,681685;Statev._Dilts_Ԁ(2004)337Ore.645,654[103P.3d95];Statev._Shattuck_ *() (Minn.2004)689N.W.2d785(per_curiam_Ԁorder);Statev.Brown(2004)209Ariz.200,202 +)* 204[99P.3d15];butseeStatev.Gomez(Tenn.2005)163S.W.3d632,658).[He/she]also ,*+ continuestourgethiscourttocorrecttheconstitutionalviolation.(SeeOSullivanv. -+,  _Boerckel_Ԁ(1999)526U.S.838,844845[119_S.Ct_.1728,144_L.Ed_.2d1][stateprisoner .,- seekingfederalhabeascorpusreliefmustgivestatecourtafairopportunitytoacton   claims].)##    Respectfullysubmitted,   [AttorneyName]   StateBarNo.[number]   AttorneyforAppellant   [AppellantsName]#G #