WPC KeVHtUG3B&dJ?mBq[BKၘ*5WR RcI)`qP醐8I vYjOtYAhO  ж^~XZO  Y> |ëW,v #)p)VSۆo0ÞP[{1 1z<@ٽ;׵)i#l,94Aq';6N?h'57'F!3䕶|O{%GOu[/IjG!t&[_0% DLA@EP70ư=f\,&a~,ˡ 0vBOq9*)KVt@zDyF0Q^L 죸geb CKB 6ۗJϿe\@cQXceA!J3( #UbN % 0yNXwZ4^r m 0U 0 0 0! 0V" 0# 0# 0o$ 0% 0% 0|& 0M' 0( 0( 0T) 0) 0* 0%+ 0+ 0t, 0B- 0- 0. 0@/ 0/ 0v0 01 01 0D2 03 0>3 03 04 05 06 07 0~8 0`9 0: 02: 0; 0:< 0VT< 0_< 0  = 0> 0? B*A D/A D+A 0B D/%D 0TD 06"E 0XE 0:`F 0^F 0<F 1e4GU6GU >GU* H 1u7H 72H 0cH 1AIAI 0HIBJ 0 RK 0 DLSLZNluQkSRLU BUEU^Wl^Y 72ZZ 0w\{R]^ 1s` 72aU @8axaQdCeTYffU NPhFhkh 0<Oj 0jG{kn 0cprpRjqqsu w^ x@x4 {FT}}yA+kRPPPFkRSSsF..ttttttttttttttttttttttttDN΋Brother MFC-6800 USB,,,,,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(Q$  USUS.,U\6:i+003|xU*+ (_2623  ..*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*CODEKF<6X9`(Courier NewKSG\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6M4Hyperlink<:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KF<6X9`(Courier NewKSG\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KF<6X9`(Courier NewKSG\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7;(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?H%2A`Arial?  SG\  `&Times New RomanS7<(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d:)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7>(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?H%2A`Arial?  SG\  `&Times New RomanS7<(X75+ ` hp x 5  :)2dxd0KS.SampleKF<6X9`(Courier NewKSG\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKF<6X9`(Courier NewKSG\  `&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)Ii)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  0?OU[agmsyLettersLettersA.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(,$ 8 P$ XXUSUS.,    17    _TheSupremeCourtsauthoritytograntreviewisgovernedbyrule8.512(b)(1)  (petitionforreview)and(c)(1)(courtsownmotion).(m(3$ !  XXUSUS.,      0  (#$  0    P$ XXUSUS.,    10    _E.g.,Millerv.Florida(1987)482U.S.423;Marksv.UnitedStates(1977)430  U.S.188,191;Bouiev.Columbia(1964)378U.S.347;Peoplev.Morante(1999)20  Cal.4th403,431432;Peoplev.King(1993)5Cal.4th59,80. P P$ XXUSUS.,    3    _Thecourtdidcaution: Petitionermakesnoseparate,subsidiary,standardof  proofclaimswithrespecttohissentencing,perhapsbecauseheadmittedhisrecidivism..  ..Accordingly,weexpressnoviewonwhethersomeheightenedstandardofproofmight  applytosentencingdeterminationswhichbearsignificantlyontheseverityofsentence.  (AlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates,supra,523U.S.atpp.247248.)BlackIIfinds  preponderancetobeanappropriatestandard.(Peoplev.Black,supra,41Cal.4th799,   820,fn.9.) b P$ XXUSUS.,    11    _ADIaddressedthisissueextensivelyintheopeningandreplybriefsinPeoplev.  Pardo,S148914,whichatthispointremainsintheSupremeCourt;thosebriefsand  othersareavailableontheFDAPwebsiteat4iN,  5  http://www.fdap.org/blakely4.shtml6N,  7. a P$ XXUSUS.,    14    _4V N,  5  http://www.adi-sandiego.com/manual.html.6N,P  7 >Ԁhttp://www.adi-sandiego.com/manual.html. d ; P$ XXUSUS.,    2    _Peoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238(findingCaliforniaDSLconformswith  Blakely;laterdisapprovedinCunningham). T P$ XXUSUS.,    7    _Jonesv.UnitedStates(2000)526U.S.227(toavoidseriousquestionsof  constitutionality,federalcarjackingstatutereadasdefiningthreedistinctoffenses  requiringchargesinindictmentandjuryfindings,ratherthanasinglecrimewithachoice  ofthreemaximumpenalties,twoofthemdependentonsentencingfactorsexemptfrom  thoserequirements). b P$ XXUSUS.,    23    _4f N,  5  http://www.adi-sandiego.com/articles.html6N,P  7 ԀL  P$ XXUSUS.,    8    _hChapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,24#hǛ#Ԁ(ifreviewingcourtfindsfederal  constitutionalerror,itmustreverseunlessconvincedbeyondareasonabledoubttheerror  didnotcontributetotheoutcome).(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(# q P$ XXUSUS.,    24    _4p N,  5  http://www.fdap.org/CunninghamDecided1-23-07.shtml#retro6N,P  7 Ԁ  P$ XXUSUS.,    20    _Anypartymayfileasupplementalbriefwithin15daysoftheSupremeCourts  order;theopposingpartysresponseisduewithin15daysoftheinitialsupplemental  brief.(Rule8.200(b)(1).)TheCourtofAppealmayorderadifferentschedule.337=CIOW_eI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)`1)(A Z(Times New Roman   P$ XXUSUS.,    27    _Finalitycanoccuralsoinotherways,aswhenthetimeforfilingapetitionfor  revieworgrantingreviewexpires(rules8.500(e),8.512(b)&(c)),butinthatsituationthe  federalissuewilllikelybeprocedurallydefaultedforfailuretopresentittotheCalifornia  SupremeCourt.(See28U.S.C.1257(a)[certiorarijurisdiction];OSullivanv.Boerckel  (1999)526U.S.838#`#Ԁ[federalhabeascorpus].) P$ XXUSUS.,    15    _Finalityisgovernedbyrule8.264(b)(1).Mostdecisionsarefinalin30days.  AOB S.CtGovan YimSandovalNederTowneAmons FDAPunadjudicatedBouieApprendiBlakelyAEDPAAlmendarezhttp://www.adi-sandiego.com/articles.html  P$ XXUSUS.,    1    _Apprendiv.NewJersey(2000)530U.S.466;hBlakelyv.Washington(2004)542  U.S.296;#h#Cunninghamv.California(2007)549U.S.__[127S.Ct.856].(A Z6Times New Roman Regularhttp://www.fdap.org/blakely4.shtml a P$ XXUSUS.,    26    _4q N,  5  http://www.adi-sandiego.com/manual.html.6N,P  7 >Ԁ<:Default Para<V^:footnote tex  KF<6X9`(Courier NewKSG\  `&Times New RomanS   = P$ XXUSUS.,    21    _E.g.,parole/probationstatusorperformance!Peoplev.Hernandez,S148974,  Peoplev.Pardo,S148914,andPeoplev.Towne,S125677;PenalCodesection654and  fullstrengthconsecutivesentencesunderPenalCodesection667.6!Peoplev.Mvuemba,  S149247;guiltyplea!Peoplev.French,S148845.Thebriefinginthesecasesis  availableontheFDAPwebsiteat48N,  5  http://www.fdap.org/blakely4.shtml6{N,  7P.  P$ XXUSUS.,    16    _Petitionsforrehearingareduein15days.(Rule8.268(b)(1).)Forgoodcause,  beforethedecisionisfinal,thepresidingjusticemayrelieveapartyfromfailuretofilea  timelypetition.(Rule8.268(b)(4).)(m3j $ !  XXUSUS.,  http://www.fdap.org/CunninghamDecided1-23-07.shtml#retrohttp://www.adi-sandiego.com/manual.html.  P$ XXUSUS.,    18    _Thetimeforfilingapetitionforreviewisspecifiedinrule8.500(e)(1).Forgood  cause,theChiefJusticemayrelieveapartyfromfailuretofileatimelypetitionifthe  courtstillhasjurisdictiontograntreviewonitsownmotion.(Rule8.500(e)(2).)  P$ XXUSUS.,    5    _Rule4.421(b)(4): Thedefendantwasonprobationorparolewhenthecrimewas  committed.Rule4.421(b)(5): Thedefendantspriorperformanceonprobationor  parolewasunsatisfactory.Rule4.421(b)(3): Thedefendanthasservedapriorprison  term.  P$ XXUSUS.,    4    _Peoplev.McGee(2006)38Cal.4th682(defendantnotentitledtojury  determinationofwhetheranoutofstatepriorqualifiesasaseriousfelonyforpurposesof  sentenceenhancement).  P$ XXUSUS.,    9    _SenateBill40,Stats.2007,ch.3,amendingPenalCodesection1170,  subdivisions(b)and(c),amongotherthings.ItbecameeffectiveMarch30,2007.  Relatedsentencingrules4.405through4.452wereamendedeffectiveMay23,2007.  ' 7  6 P$ XXUSUS.,    25    _ThedoctrineofstaredecisisasitappliesinCaliforniaisexaminedintheADI  CriminalAppellatePracticeManual,supra,chapter7,h TheEndGame:Decisionsby  ReviewingCourtsandProcessesAfterDecision,#h;#Ԁ7.b5#b#Ԁetseq. * P$ XXUSUS.,    6    _Peoplev.Hernandez,S148974,Peoplev.Pardo,S148914,andPeoplev.Towne,  S125677.ThebriefsinthosecasesareavailableontheFDAPwebsiteat  4yN,  5  http://www.fdap.org/blakely4.shtml6hN,|  7.http://www.fdap.org/blakely4.shtml  P$ XXUSUS.,    19    _Unlessthecourtsoorders,theredoesnotseemtobeanyreasonforcounselto  submitadditionalpleadingstotheSupremeCourtdiscussingBlackIISandoval.Check  withADIifyourcaseposesaspecialsituation. o P$ XXUSUS.,    22    _DirectreviewconcludeswhenacertioraripetitiontotheUnitedStatesSupreme  Courtisdeniedorthetimeforfilingsuchapetitionexpires.Acertioraripetitioninthe  UnitedStatesSupremeCourtisduewithin90daysafterthedaytheCaliforniaSupreme  Courtdeniesordismissesreview,ordecidesthecase,ordeniesrehearingafteradecision.  (U.S.SupremeCt.Rules,rule13.) ! P$ XXUSUS.,    12    _Astatuteispresumptivelyprospectiveonly.(Pen.Code,3: Nopartof[the  PenalCode]isretroactive,unlessexpresslysodeclared.)Sandovalnotessomedoubton  theretroactivityofSB40butfindsitunnecessarytodecidethequestion.(Peoplev.  Sandoval,supra,41Cal.4thatpp.845846.) a P$ XXUSUS.,    28    _4 N,  5  http://www.adi-sandiego.com/manual.html.6N,P  7 >Ԁhttp://www.adi-sandiego.com/manual.html.http://www.fdap.org/blakely4.shtml a P$ XXUSUS.,    31    _4 N,  5  http://www.adi-sandiego.com/manual.html.6N,P  7 >Ԁhttp://www.adi-sandiego.com/manual.html.  X  i P$ XXUSUS.,    13    _Seebriefsat4 N,  5  http://www.fdap.org/blakely4.shtml6N,  7.http://www.fdap.org/blakely4.shtml  X  : P$ XXUSUS.,    29    _Thecrucialdateforstartingthe90dayperiodisthefilingofthestatehighcourt  orderoropinion,notitsfinalityunderstatelaw.However,sincethestatedecisionmust  befinalinorderfortheUnitedStatesSupremeCourttohavejurisdiction,apetitionfor  certiorarifiledbeforethestatedecisionbecomesfinalispremature.  D P$ XXUSUS.,    30    _AntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyActof1996.(28U.S.C.2241et  seq.#Ǚ#) !  XXUSUS.,  _9 8Xdd8     , /V/V BLAKELYCUNNINGHAM# .,#&+%AFTER#&+s#, ԀBLACKII# .,#, SANDOVAL# ., #  &+%ByElaineA.Alexander,ExecutiveDirector  AppellateDefenders,Inc.  August23,2007#&+l#  t   Thismemo,preparedafterconsultationamongtheappellateprojectsandadapted L  inpartsfromadraftbytheFirstDistrictAppellateProject,analyzestheCalifornia L  SupremeCourtsJuly19,2007,decisionsinPeoplev.Black(2007)41Cal.4th799 L  (BlackII),andPeoplev.Sandoval(2007)41Cal.4th825.ItsurveysApprendiBlakely L   Cunninghamg Q#  1      issuesafterthosedecisionsanddiscussesproceduresavailableatvarious L  stagesoftheprocess. L   `(33I"K3"  K32  I  .3  0    ISSUES!RESOLVEDANDUNRESOLVED K3݌L (#(# Ќ    WeidentifyheretheissuesthataredecidedbyBlackIIandSandovalandalso J someofthoseleftopenforpurposesoftheCaliforniacourtsafterthosedecisions.We J alsodiscussthepossibilityoffederalreliefonvariousgrounds. J  &  0  A.0` (#(#Forfeiture/Waiver H` (#` (#   InBlackIISandoval,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtsquarelyrejectsthe'Attorney F Generalsforfeiture/waiverargumentsbasedondefensecounselsfailuretoassertthe F claimsatsentencing,ifatthattimetheapplicablelawwasunforeseeableorindoubt. F (Peoplev.Black,supra,41Cal.4th799,810812;Peoplev.Sandoval,supra,41Cal.4th F 825,837,fn.4.)InBlackIIsentencingoccurredbeforeBlakely,andinSandovalitwas F intheintervalbetweenBlackIX Q#  2      ׀andCunningham.Ineachinstance,raisinganApprendi F typeclaimwouldhavebeenfutileinlightofCalifornialawatthetime.Thecourthasnot F  yetaddressedwhetherforfeiture/waivermightapplytosentencinghearingsinthewindow F! betweenBlakelyandBlackI.SeesectionIIA,post,onproceduresavailabletoassertthe F" BlackIISandovalforfeiturerulingsinpendingcases. p  F# &    B. ` SingleValidFactor  F% !   Anextremelyconsequentialaspectofthesedecisionsistheholdingthatthereisno D'"# '+^constitutionalviolationsolongasthesentencingcourtreliedonatleastone valid D(#$ /V X9   aggravatingfactor!one thatwaseitherBlakelycompliant(juryfindingorwaiver,or  admission)orBlakelyexempt(recidivistexception).Asingle validfactormakesthe  defendanteligibleforanuppertermandthereforesatisfiesBlakely,evenifthejudgealso  cited invalidfactorsthatwereneithercompliantnorexempt.(Peoplev.Black,supra,  41Cal.4th799,810816.)BlackIIdoesnottreatthisasaquestionofharmlesserror:it  concludesthatthereisnoconstitutionalerroratallifthereisatleastone validfactor.   Insuchasituationthereviewingcourtsinquiryends,anditdoesnotreachthequestion   whetherthesentencingcourtwouldhaveimposedthesametermifithadconsideredonly    validfactors.     ItisdisputablewhetherBlackIIreadsBlakelyCunninghamcorrectly,andwe   expectthatacertioraripetitionwillbefiledinBlackII,challengingthe singlefactor   rationale.Untilthatisresolved,counselshouldpreservetheissueincaseswherethe   courtreliedonmixed validand invalidfactors,byarguingtherewasconstitutional   errorandapplyingaprejudiceanalysis.SinceBlackIIisbindingonCaliforniacourts,  thatargumentshouldbemadesuccinctlyinboththeCourtofAppealandapetitionfor  review.   &    C.0 ` ScopeofthePriorConvictionException ` (#` (#   BlackIIaddressesaspectsofthe priorconvictionexceptiontoApprendi  'BlakelyCunningham,basedonAlmendarezTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224.  AlmendarezTorresheldastatuteimposinganenhancedtermforreturningtotheUnited  Stateswithoutpermissionafteradeportation subsequenttoaconvictionforcommission  ofanaggravatedfelonyisapenaltyprovision,notaseparatecrime,andthusdoesnot  havetobechargedintheindictment.Itfoundthestatuteisnotunconstitutionalfor  treatingsuchaprovisionasapenaltyratherthananelement,subjecttoindictmentand  jurytrial:recidivismhaslongbeenatraditionalsentencingconsideration.S Q#  3      ׀While  expressingreservationsaboutthatdecision,ApprendididnotrenounceAlmendarez   Torresandconcludedthat, Otherthanthefactofapriorconviction,anyfactthat ! increasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbe " submittedtoajury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Apprendiv.NewJersey, # supra,530U.S.atp.490,emphasisadded.)Thecourthasreiteratedthatexceptioninits $  laterholdings. % ! Ї&     ` 1. Numerousorincreasinglyseriouspriors     BlackIIholdsthatApprendiBlakelyCunninghamrightsdonotapplytothe  'aggravatingfactorof numerousor increasinglyseriouspriorconvictions(Cal.Rules  ofCourt,rule4.421(b)(2)).(Peoplev.Black,supra,41Cal.4th799,818820.)Itgivesa  broadreadingtotheAlmendarezTorresexception: AswerecognizedinMcGee,[t Q#  4      ]   numerousdecisionsfromotherjurisdictionshaveinterpretedtheAlmendarez-Torres   exceptiontoincludenotonlythefactthatapriorconvictionoccurred,butalsoother   relatedissuesthatmaybedeterminedbyexaminingtherecordsofthepriorconvictions.   (BlackII,atp.819.)      AlthoughBlackIIwillprecludealowercourtfromreconsideringthe   numerous/increasinglyseriousnessconvictionsexception,thereareprospectsforfederal   relief.(Seesection3,below.)Theissuecanbebriefedsummarilyandthenraisedagain   inapetitionforreview,forfederalexhaustionpurposes.   &     ` 2. Otherrecidivistfactors     Otherrecidivistfactors!includingparole/probationstatusorperformanceand  priorprisonterms Q#  5      ׀!'>#remainanopenquestion.Theyareatissueinseveralbriefedlead  casesxX  Q#  6      ׀andinnumerousgrantandholdcases.TheCourtsofAppealhavesplitonthe  questionwhetherthesefactorscomewithintheAlmendarezTorresexception.Some  courtshavefoundtheydonot,becausetheyrequirethedeterminationofadditionalfacts  beyondthebarefactofapriorconviction.(E.g.,Peoplev.Govan(2007)150  Cal.App.4th1015,reviewgrantedJuly18,2007(S153330)[probationstatusand  performance],andPeoplev.Guess(2007)150Cal.App.4th148,reviewgrantedJune27,  2007(GGXXGS152877#GXGXi(##GJ(#); caution : thesecasesarenotcitable [rules8.1110(e)(1),8.1115(a)].)  Othercourtshaveheldtothecontrary.(E.g.,Peoplev.Velasquez152Cal.App.4th1503,  1515,andPeoplev.Thomas(2001)91Cal.App.4th212,222223[priorprisonterm];   Peoplev.Yim(2007)152XXCal.App.4th#XXM*#Ԁ366,369[parolestatusandperformance];Peoplev.  Morton(2007)152XXCal.App.4th#XX+#Ԁ323,336337[various].)    CounselshouldbriefinfulltherecidivistfactorsnotresolvedbyBlackII.There  areprospectsforafavorablestateholding,aswellasfederalrelief(seefollowing  section).Apetitionforreviewisnecessarytopreservetheissueforfederalreview.   &     ` 3. Federalizingrecidivistissues      Thefactorsofnumerous/increasinglyseriousnessconvictions,parole/probation    ' ,statusorperformance,andpriorprisontermremainpotentiallyviablefederalissuesand   shouldbepreserved.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasreadthepriorconviction   exceptionasa narrowone.(Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.atp.490;see   Shepardv.UnitedStates(2005)544U.S.13,16[toavoidApprendi-JonesY Q#  7      ׀problems   arisingfromjudicialfactfinding,underArmedCareerCriminalAct,whichimposes   penaltiesforfirearmpossessionifdefendanthasspecifiedpriors,determinationofnature  ofpriorsis generallylimitedtoexaminingthestatutorydefinition,chargingdocument,  writtenpleaagreement,transcriptofpleacolloquy,andanyexplicitfactualfindingbythe  trialjudgetowhichthedefendantassented].)Cunninghamitselfdeclinedtodrawa  distinctionbetweenoffenserelatedaggravatingcircumstances(rule4.421(a))and  offenderrelatedones,suchasrecidivism(rule4.421(b)).(Cunninghamv.California,  supra,127S.Ct.856,869,fn.14.)   &    D.0 ` ConsecutiveSentences ` (#` (#   AsithadinBlackI,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtinBlackIIholdsthe  '>"D3determinationofanyfactssurroundingthediscretionarydecisiontoimposeconsecutive  ratherthanconcurrenttermsisnotsubjecttoBlakelyCunningham.Itconcludesthat  CunninghamdidnotundermineBlackIsanalysisoftheconsecutivesentencingissue.   (Peoplev.Black,supra,41Cal.4th799,820823.)Thereisnostatutorypresumptionin ! favorofconcurrentsentencing,noristherearequirementthatthecourtmakeparticular " factualfindingsasapreconditiontoaconsecutiveterm.(Id.atp.822.) #   &!" &     E.0 ` PrejudiceAnalysisunderSandoval ` (#` (#     '7CounselshouldpaycloseattentiontoSandovalsprejudicetest,whichisdifferent  fromandlessfavorablethanthatwhichmostappellatecourtshaveemployed.Asnoted  above,underBlackIIanappellatecourtwillreachthequestionofprejudiceonlyifallof  thesentencingfactorswere invalid.Insuchcases,thereviewingcourtmustapplythe   Chapman\ Q#  8      ׀standardtoeachofthecitedaggravatingfactorsandremandonlyiftheerror   wasprejudicialastoeverycitedfactor.(Peoplev.Sandoval,supra,41Cal.4th825,838   839.)Thus, ifareviewingcourtconcludes,beyondareasonabledoubt,thatthejury,   applyingthebeyond-a-reasonable-doubtstandard,unquestionablywouldhavefoundtrue    atleastasingleaggravatingcircumstancehaditbeensubmittedtothejury,theSixth   Amendmenterrorproperlymaybefoundharmless,eveniftheerrorwasprejudicialasto   everyotherfactor.(Id.atp.839.)     WhetherSandovalcorrectlyreadsBlakelyCunninghamissubjecttoquestion,and   atthispointcounselmaypreservetheissue,arguingthecorrecttestiswhetherthe  appellatecourtcansaybeyondareasonabledoubtthesamesentencewouldhavebeen  imposedintheabsenceoftheconstitutionalerror.    Sandovalitselffindsprejudicialerrorastoeachfactorthetrialcourtcited.  (Peoplev.Sandoval,supra,41Cal.4thatp.841843.)Itsreasoningcanbeusedinother  contexts.Forexample,itappliestheanalysisofNederv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.  1,17,whichheldthatomittedinstructiononanelementofthecrimewasharmless   whereareviewingcourtconcludesbeyondareasonabledoubtthattheomittedelement  wasuncontestedandsupportedbyoverwhelmingevidence,suchthatthejuryverdict  wouldhavebeenthesameabsenttheerror(Sandoval,atp.838);thisisahighstandard  forthestatetomeetandleavesitopentoargueprejudiceincaseswithalessershowing  ofharmlessness.Sandovalalsorecognizesthatdoubtmayarisebecausethepartiesdid  notviewaggravatingfactsasamatterfortrialadjudication:G [A]reviewingcourtcannot   alwaysbeconfidentthatthefactualrecordwouldhavebeenthesamehadaggravating ! circumstancesbeenchargedandtriedtothejury.(#GǕB#Id.GԀatp.840.)#GǴC#ԀFinally,Sandoval " notesmanysentencingfactorstendtoemployimpreciseorsubjectivecriteria(e.g., #  particularlyvulnerable, largequantityofcontraband, greatmonetaryvalue,etc.); $  thismayleaveroomfordoubtwhetherjurorswouldnecessarilyhavefoundthefactor % ! true.(Ibid.) &!"   '"# &   0  F.0` (#(#SandovalRemedy` (#` (#    Forthecasesthatrequireremand,SandovalfollowstheexampleofBookerv.  UnitedStates(2005)543U.S.220andadoptsasystemmakingsentencingfactors  discretionaryrathermandatory.TheSandovalremedyismodeledontheamendmentsto  theDeterminateSentencingLawenactedinSB40andrelatedamendmentstotheRules   ofCourtonsentencing.u Q#  9      ׀' EԀ(Peoplev.Sandoval,supra,41Cal.4th825,846847.)Under   thatsystem,thetrialcourtmayinitsdiscretionimposethelower,middle,orupperterm   uponafindingofguilty. Thetrialcourtwillberequiredtospecifyreasonsforits   sentencingdecision,butwillnotberequiredtocitefactsthatsupportitsdecisionorto    weighaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances.(Ibid.)Astatementofreasonsisnow   requiredevenifthemiddletermisselected.Thereasons,however,nolongermust    includeaconcisestatementoftheultimatefactsthatthetrialcourtdeemedtoconstitute   circumstancesinaggravationormitigation.Thetrialcourtssentencingdecisionwillbe   subjecttoreviewforabuseofdiscretion.(Id.atp.847.)   &     ` 1.0 CunninghamchallengetoSandovalremedyandSB40  (# (#   ItispossibletoarguethattheSandovalremedyandSB40failtocurethe  constitutionaldefect'>sLfoundinCunninghamandthatthereformed/amendedsentencing  regimenstillallowssentencingonthebasisofimpermissiblefactfindingbythecourt  underapreponderancestandardratherthanbyajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.The  argumentshoulddistinguishtheSandovalremedyorSB40fromthesystemimposedby  theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinBooker,supra,forthefederalsentencingguidelines.    Theissuemayberaisedinpendingappealsrequiringresentencingandalsoin  caseswherethedefendantwassentencedforthefirsttimeunderoneortheotherofthose  revisionstotheDSL.Ifresentencingisrequired,federalreviewwouldbeprematureuntil  thatoccursandthesubsequentstateappellateprocessisover,becausethecaseisnotyet   final. !  &     ` 2.0 Dueprocess/expostfactochallengetoretroactive # applicationoftherevisedsentencingstandards$  (# (#    SandovalrejectstheargumentthatapplyingthereformedDSLtocasesinwhich &!" 'B*Qthecriminalactoccurredbeforethedateofreformation(ultimately,July19,2007)would '"# violatetheprinciplesofdueprocessakintotheprohibitionagainstexpostfactolaws.R Q#  10      ׀  Theargumentwasthat,incomparisonwiththelawatthetimeofthecrime,therevised  schemewouldimpermissiblymakeiteasierforthecourttoimposeanupperterm,by  eliminatingthepresumptivemiddletermandtheneedtofindfactorsinaggravationand  reducingtheburdenofproofforimposingtheuppertermfromanunconstitutionallylow  preponderancestandardtonothing,andwouldincreasethepotentialpunishmentforthe   bareoffensealonefromthemiddletotheupperterm.T Q#  11      Sandovalfindstherevisedsystem   doesnotsubstantiallydisadvantageadefendantincomparisonwiththeformerone.It   alsonotesthedueprocessprinciplesgoverningretroactiveapplicationofjudicial   decisionsaredifferentfromexpostfactoprohibitions,whichapplytolegislative   enactments.(Peoplev.Sandoval,supra,41Cal.4th825,853857.)     IfatrialcourtimposessentenceonadefendantunderSB40foractsoccurring   beforetheeffectivedateofthestatute(March30,2007),expostfactoissuesbasedonthe   samegroundsasthedueprocessobjectionstoSandovalwouldarise.|X Q#  12          TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdidnotmentiondueprocess/expostfacto  considerationswhenitchangedthesentencingguidelinesinBooker.Theissueappears  openforfederalreview,althoughasnotedinSandovalsomelowerfederalcourtshave  rejectedadueprocess/expostfactoargument.(SeePeoplev.Sandoval,supra,41  Cal.4thatpp.856857.)Ideally,fromapracticalandpsychologicalperspective,suchan  argumentshoulddistinguishBookerfromSandoval,sothatthefederalcourtwouldnot  needtofindthedecisioninBookerviolativeofdueprocessinordertoacceptthe  argument.    AchallengetoapplicationoftherevisedDSLtoacriminalactoccurringbefore  therevision!Sandovalondueprocessgroundsand/orSB40onexpostfactogrounds!  canberaisedinappealsrequiringresentencingandalsoincaseswherethedefendantwas  sentencedforthefirsttimeunderoneortheotherrevision.Aswiththepreceding   Cunninghambasedargument,ifresentencingisrequired,federalreviewwouldbe  prematureuntilthatoccursandthesubsequentstateappellateprocessisover,becausethe  caseisnotyetfinal.     G. ` OtherPossibleIssuesRaisedbyBlackIIandSandoval     BlackIIdoesnotaddressPenalCodesection654issues.Section654requires   specificfactualdeterminationsastotherelationshipbetweenoffensesandarguablyis   subjecttoBlakelyCunningham.(Cf.preBlakelycasesofPeoplev.Solis(2001)90Cal.   App.4th1002,10211022[Apprendidoesnotapply];Peoplev.Cleveland(2001)87    XXCal.App.4th#XXb#Ԁ263,269271[same],272282,dis.opinion.ofJohnson,J.[disagreeing].)     Similarargumentsmaybemadeinsuchfactdependentsituationsasthe   impositionoffullconsecutivesentencesforcertainsexoffensesunderPenalCodesection   667.6(seebriefinginPeoplev.Mvuemba,S149247 Q#  13      )andconsecutivesentencesunder   theThreeStrikesLaw(Pen.Code,667,subd.(c)(6)&(7),1170.12,subd.(a)(6)&  (7)).Inappropriatecasescounselshouldconsiderraisingtheseissues.    Anotherargumentmightbe,ifacourtimposedthemiddletermunderPenalCode  sectionXXԀ#XXEf#1170,subdivision(b)beforeSandovalorSB40,thatthecourtwouldnothave  beenawareithaddiscretiontoimposealowertermintheabsenceofmitigatingfactors  thatoutweighedaggravatingfactorsandthecaseshouldberemandedtoallowthetrial  courttoexercisethisdiscretion._ h     _    Theprojectswillkeeppanelattorneysinformedofanydevelopmentsontheseor  otherissuesandprovidesampleargumentsastheyarebriefed.   &  II.  PROCEDURES      A. ` CasesinCourtofAppeal  "   IfaBlakelyCunninghamissueisnotforeclosedforstatepurposesunderBlackII $  Sandoval'>#i,itshouldbebriefedfully.Ifitisforeclosedinstatecourt,butisstillpotentially % ! viableinfederalcourt,itshouldbebriefedinsummaryform!normallybyshort &!" boilerplatearguments,whichweexpecttobeavailableontheprojectwebsites, '"# supplementedbyanalysisrelevanttotheparticularcase;itshouldacknowledgethe (#$ bindingeffectofBlackIISandovalandexplicitlystatetheintentistopreservetheissue )$% forfederalpurposes.IfanissuecontrolledbyBlackIISandovalhaslittleprospectof *%& beingvieweddifferentlybythefederalcourts,counselmightconsidernotpursuingit. +&' Ї  Whetherfullorsummary,thebriefingmustbesufficienttosatisfytheneedsof  exhaustion.(ThistopicisexploredindetailintheADICriminalAppellatePractice  Manual,U Q#  14      ׀chapter5,h EffectiveWrittenAdvocacy:Briefing,at#hLJn#5.42etseq.,and  chapter9,h TheCourthouseAcrosstheStreet:FederalHabeasCorpus,#h0o#9.66etseq.)  Asalways,apetitionforreviewisrequiredtopreserveafederalissue;anabbreviated  exhaustionpetition(rule8.508)maybeusedifthatistheonlypurposeforthepetition.   Ѐ  TotheextentBlackIISandovalisfavorableonagivenpoint,suchasforfeiture,it   maybeassertedpreemptivelyorresponsively,inanopeningorsupplementalopening   brieforinareplyorsupplementalreplybrief,dependingontheissueandstageofthe   case.(Somecourtsmaypermitsupplementalbriefingtobeinletterform;checkwithus   ifyouhavequestionsaboutcontentorform.)IftheCourtofAppealhasresolvedsuchan   issueunfavorablyandthedecisionisnotyetfinalastothatcourt,d Q#  15      ׀apetitionfor   rehearingwouldbeinorder.nX Q#  16      ׀IfthecaseisfinalastotheCourtofAppealbutthe   SupremeCourtstillhasjurisdictiontograntreview,O  Q#  17      ׀apetitionforreviewwouldbe  possible.r  Q#  18         &    B.0 ` CasesCurrentlyPendinginCaliforniaSupremeCourt ` (#` (#   AfterCunninghamtheCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewinnumerous  casesinvolvingrelatedissues,mostonagrantandholdbasis(rule8.512(d)(2)).BlackII  andSandovalbecamefinal30daysafter'`$utheirfilingonJuly19,2007.(Rule8.532(b)(1).)  Ifitfollowsitsusualpractice,thecourtwillsoonbegindisposingofthegrantandhold  casesresolvedbyBlackIISandoval.z Q#  19        Ї  IftheCourtofAppealreachedadispositionconsistentwithBlackIISandoval,the  SupremeCourtmaysimplydismissreviewunderrule8.528(b),therebylettingtheCourt  ofAppealdecisionstand.Insuchacase,theCourtofAppealdecisionisfinal  immediatelyuponthatcourtsreceiptofthedismissalorder(rules8.528(b)(2),  8.532(b)(2)(B)).    IffurtherCourtofAppealproceedingsareneededtoconformthedecisiontoBlack   IISandoval,theSupremeCourtmayremandortransferthecasewithinstructions.(Rule   8.528(c)or(d).)Insuchasituation,supplementalbriefing,limitedtomattersarisingafter   thepreviousCourtofAppealdecision,ispossible._ Q#  20      ׀OncetheCourtofAppealhas   reachedadecision,counselmustagainseekreviewintheCaliforniaSupremeCourtfrom   thatdecision,inordertoensurefederalremediesarepreserved.Anabbreviated   exhaustionpetitionunderrule8.508maybeusedifthatisthesolepurposeofreview.     Ifotherbriefedleadcasesorgrantandholdcasespresentissuesnotresolvedby  BlackIISandoval,m Q#  21      ׀theSupremeCourtmayorderbriefingand/orargumentinsomeor  allofthemorinalaterreviewgrantedcaseandcontinuetoholdothercasesthatpose  thoseissues.  &    C.0 ` PostAppealCases` (#` (#    Thehandlingofcasesthatarealreadyfinalforpurposesofdirectappeal{X  Q#  22      ׀'"will  dependonwhatcaseisconsideredthegoverningprecedentandwhenthecurrentcase  becamefinal,aswellaswhatspecificissuesthecasepresents.Counselshouldconsult  theassignedADIstaffattorneybeforetakinganypostappealsteps.      bIngeneral,Teaguev.Lane(1989)489U.S.288#b?#ԀandGriffithv.Kentucky(1987)  479U.S.314,322,providethatadecisionchangingorannouncingforthefirsttimea  proceduralruleoflawisapplicabletocasesnotyetfinalforpurposesofappellatereview  whenthenewdecisionwasfiled.Collateralrelief(habeascorpus)isnotavailablein  casesalreadyfinalatthattime.Exceptionstothatbarincludesubstantivechangesand  b watershedproceduralrules,fundamentaltotheintegrityofthefactfindingprocess;   theseare#bǰ#bfullyretroactiveandmaybethebasisforcollateralrelief.(See#bn#bBousleyv.   UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.614#b#b;#b|#bMichiganv.Payne(1973)412U.S.47,53,fn.6;   Ashev.Swenson(1970)397U.S.436,437#b#b,fn.1.)#b{#bԀCasesmerelyapplyingpreexisting   authoritydonotinvolve newlawatallandareretroactivetothedateoftheearlier   decisionthatannouncedtherule.#bLJ#b(E.g.,Yatesv.Aiken(1988)484U.S.211;seeSafflev.   Parks(1990)494U.S.484,489491.)#b׈#Ԁ     Forfurtherdiscussionofthegeneralrulesregardingretroactivity,seeADIsarticle   ontakingadvantageofchangesinthelawZ Q#  23      ׀andFDAPsmemoonchallengestoupper  termsentencesafterCunningham(Jan.23,2007).^ Q#  24         &     ` 1. Governingprecedent     Identifyingthegoverningprecedentissomewhattrickyinthiscontext.Itwould  'seemCunninghamisastraightforwardapplicationofpriorSupremeCourtprecedents;it  wouldbedifficulttoidentifyany newruleoflawannouncedinit.Nevertheless,Inre  Gomez(Aug.7,2007,B197980)___Cal.App.4th___holdsCunninghamannouncednew  law,becausetherehadbeen doubtaboutBlakelysapplicabilitytotheCaliforniaDSL,  anddenieshabeascorpusonthegroundthecasewasfinalbeforethatdecision.If  Cunninghamistheoperativeprecedent,collateralreliefwouldbeavailableonlyforcases  finalonorafterJanuary22,2007,thedateofthatdecision.(Seefollowingsectionfor  procedurestoavoidanypreclusiveeffectfromGomez.)    AssumingCunninghamismerelyanapplicationofBlakelyandBlakelyannounced ! a newlaw,theruleofBlakelyandCunninghamwouldapplytoanycasenotyetfinalon " directappealonJune24,2004,thedateBlakelywasdecided. #   AnargumentcanbemadethatBlakelyitselfwasmerelyastraightforward % ! applicationofApprendi!apositionbolsteredbyCunninghamsrepeatedreferencesto &!" Apprendi.IfApprendiisthegoverningprecedent,itsrule(andthoseofBlakely '"# Cunningham)wouldapplytocasesthatbecamefinalafterApprendiwasdecidedonJune (#$ 26,2000. )$% Ї  AnargumentmightbemadethattheruleofApprendiorBlakelyisa watershed  onethatisfullyretroactive,withoutregardtodateoffinality.Suchanargumentwould  havetodealwithSchrirov.Summerlin(2004)542U.S.348,findingRingv.Arizona  (2002)536U.S.584(akinofApprendiinthecapitalsentencingcontext)nottobea  watersheddecision,andwithlowerfederalcourtdecisions,aswellasInreConsiglio  (2005)128Cal.App.4th511andPeoplev.Amons(2005)125Cal.App.4th855,rejecting   suchapositionastoBlakely.    &     ` 2. Proceduresinstatecourt      IfthecaseisoneinwhichreliefisdirectlybarredunderBlackIIorSandoval,it   wouldseempointlessto' Gseekhabeascorpusreliefinthelowerstatecourts.Forpurposes   ofpreservingtheissueforfederalcourtreview,appellatecounselshouldconsiderfilinga   habeascorpuspetitionintheCaliforniaSupremeCourt,askingittorevisitthose   decisions.     IftheissuesarenotbarredbyBlackIISandoval,theremedyofchoicewould  normallyappeartobeahabeascorpuspetitioninthestatesuperiorcourt.Unlessand  untilGomez,supra,isdepublished,however,oracontraryCourtofAppealcaseis  published,asuperiorcourthabeascorpuspetitionbasedonCunninghammaybefutilebif  thecasewasfinalbeforeCunninghamwasdecidedonJanuary22,2007.(AutoEquity  Sales,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(1962)57Cal.2d450,455.)w Q#  25      #bm#ԀInsuchasituation,appellate  counselcouldfileahabeascorpuspetitionormotiontorecalltheremittiturunderrule  8.272(c)(2)intheCourtofAppeal,whichunlikethesuperiorcourthasthepowerto  disagreewithGomezandfindBlakelyorApprenditobethegoverningprecedent.    Ingeneral,ADItakesthepositionitistheprimaryresponsibilityoftrialcounselto  handlefilingsinthesuperiorcourt.Ifthatistheappropriateremedy,appellatecounsel  shouldcommunicatewithtrialcounselandmonitorthecasetomakesuresomethingis   happeningandalsomaysupplyavailablesamplearguments.Ifforsomereasontrial ! counselcannot,willnot,ordoesnottakeappropriateaction,appellatecounselmaystep " in.Compensationtoappellatecounselwillberecommendedforfilingahabeascorpus # petitioninthesuperiorcourtifrequired,butcounselmustrequestappointmentbythat $  courtforfurtherproceedings,suchasanevidentiaryhearing. % !   Iftheinitialremedyisintheappellatecourt,suchasamotiontorecallthe '"# remittiturorhabeascorpusinCourtofAppealorSupremeCourt,appellatecounselhas (#$ thepresumptiveresponsibility. )$% Ї  Onceagain,counselshouldconsulttheassignedADIstaffattorneybeforeacting  inacasethatisalreadyfinal.  &    D. ` FederalReview     Topreserveanissueforfederalreview!certiorariorhabeascorpus!itis   'mnecessarytoraiseitproperlyintheCourtofAppealandthengivetheCaliforniaSupreme   Courtachancetoresolveit.FederalizingistreatedindepthintheADICriminal   AppellatePracticeManual,supra.j Q#  26      ׀(Chapter5,h EffectiveWrittenAdvocacy:Briefing,   at#hDZ#5.42etseq.,andchapter9,h TheCourthouseAcrosstheStreet:FederalHabeas    Corpus,#hZ#9.66etseq.)     OnceacaseisfinalastotheCaliforniacourts,considerationmaybegivento   seekingafederalremedy.Asrelevanthere,finalityusuallyoccurswhenthestate   SupremeCourtdeniesreviewordismissesreview,orifthecourthasgrantedreviewand   decidedthecase,30daysaftertheopinionisfiled.c Q#  27      ׀(Rule8.532(b)(1),(2)(A)&(B).)If  resentencingisrequiredinanygivencase,federalreviewwouldnormallybepremature  untilthatoccursandthesubsequentstateappellateprocessisover,becausethecaseisnot  yetfinal.(SeeADImanual,supra,chapter7,hԀ#h3#h TheEndGame:DecisionsbyReviewing  CourtsandProcessesAfterDecision,#hv#7.111.)    Asdiscussedabove,potentialfederalissuesunderBlakelyCunninghaminclude,  amongothermatters,thescopeoftheAlmendarezTorresexceptionforrecidivismbased  factors(whetherornotresolvedinBlackIISandoval),thesinglevalidfactoranalysis,the  testforharmlesserror,theadequacyoftheSandovalremedyunderBlakeyCunningham,  theproprietyofapplyingthereformedoramendedsentencinglawretroactivelytoacts  committedbeforetherevisions,andissuesnotaddressedinBlackIISandoval,suchas  PenalCodesection654or667.6orotherfactrelatedsentencingdecisions,ormidterm  sentences.     ! /V XX   &        ` 1. Certiorari     ThetopicofcertiorariintheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtistreatedintheADI  CriminalAppellatePracticeManual,supra,inchapter7,hԀ#h#7.100etseq.} Q#  28      ׀Asstated  'above,acertioraripetitionintheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtisduewithin90daysafter  theCaliforniaSupremeCourtdeniesordismissesreview,ordecidesthecase, Q#  29      ׀ordenies   rehearingafteradecision.(U.S.SupremeCt.Rules,rule13.)     Asalways,counselshoulddiscussacertioraripetitionwithADIandgetthe   approvaloftheexecutivedirectorbeforefilingone.(SeeADImanual,supra,chapter1,    h TheABCsofPanelMembership:BasicInformationforAppointedCounsel,1.22.)#hZ#Ԁ   Relevantconsiderationswouldbetheimportanceofthefederalissue,thesuitabilityofthe   caseasavehicleforresolvingit,theadequacyoffederalizationinthestatecourt,   prejudice,theexistenceofconflictinglowercourtdecisions,thependencyofother   petitionsraisingthesameissue,etc.Toconserveresources,wheneverappropriate   boilerplateargumentsshouldbeused.  &     ` 2. Federalhabeascorpus     FederalhabeascorpusreviewofBlakelyCunninghamclaimsmayofferprospects  forreliefinsomecasesafterBlackIISandoval.'Appellatecounselshouldassessthose  prospectsandadviseclients.Anyassistancecounselrendersinthepreparationoffederal  habeascorpuspetitionsraisingBlakelyCunninghamclaimsmustbeprobono,sincethe  stateappointmentdoesnotextendthatfar.    AfederalhabeascorpuspetitionbasedonBlakelyCunninghamwouldneedto  satisfyAEDPAX Q#  30      ##Ԁstandards.Normally,thepetitionmustbefiledwithinoneyearofthe  timethestatecourtdecisionbecamefinalondirectappeal.(28U.S.C.2244(d)(1).)#2#Ԁ   ThefederalstatuteoflimitationsisdiscussedextensivelyintheADICriminalAppellate   PracticeManual,supra,chapter9,h TheCourthouseAcrosstheStreet:FederalHabeas  Corpus,#hH#9.4##Ԁetseq. Q#  31           ThepetitionmustalsomeetAEDPAssubstantivestandardsanddemonstratethat  thestatecourtdecisioniscontraryto,orconstitutesanunreasonableapplicationof,  clearlyestablishedUnitedStatesSupremeCourtauthority.(28U.S.C.2254(d);   Williamsv.Taylor(2000)529U.S.362##;seealsoBellv.Cone(2002)535U.S.#z#685.   ThesestandardsareexaminedindepthintheADImanual,supra,chapter9,hԀ#hL#9.15#Ǖ#Ԁetseq.