WPC  h[l RKL[ pJ7] }ZKMv%ܿQBp=NB!H[], (&Y( !d:.#y$`~pB?&Ƣo"s\\"L!],W`͌,|o(~]ȶ~ث 񠊃GN?w?xQ)x$uE}I=9or8J~u:V ^?i[9N]և&֨MF|KZW\^A. BtT^66Vkl d<)&kNdQŐf{v""<&#rWNZ#UN % 0: NC ^ E wQ 4U i x mz  f a f a E B Brother MFC-7220 USB Printer,,,,0(A Z6Times New Roman Regular($USUS., d> /yv=p}.bk13|x U TABLE ATABLE A d !USUS.,  _ 7    INTHECOURTOFAPPEALOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  FOURTHAPPELLATEDISTRICT  DIVISION____________   *Yddd Xdd Xdd X  ,dd , dd +  #    #THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF  d CALIFORNIA,  d PlaintiffandRespondent,  d  vs. d  ̀ d  Ѐ, d DefendantandAppellant. ,Yd ,CourtofAppealNo.  d SuperiorCourtNo.-#!d   Y -W   APPEALFROMTHESUPERIORCOURTOF P ___________COUNTY  P +  Honorable_________________,Judge P AY) hdE hA P   0 @` APPELLANT'SMOTIONTORECALLTHE_REMITTITUR_Ԁ P ANDREINSTATETHEAPPEAL P    lx@*AY) hdE "hA߈ P!!  `     h      `     h     AttorneyName P$$ 0 ` 0 ` ` 0 0h  0h h 0  StateBarNo.P% %   0 ` 0 ` ` 0 0h  0h h 0  addressP&!&   0 ` 0 ` ` 0 0h  0h h 0  phonenumberP'"'   0 ` 0 ` ` 0 0h  0h h 0      0 ` 0 ` ` 0 0h  0h h 0  AttorneyforDefendantand P)$) Appellant P*%*   89dd8  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  FOURTHAPPELLATEDISTRICT  DIVISION____________     `     h      p   *x Ydddd  dd Y  x,dd , dd +     THEPEOPLEOFTHESTATEOF  d  CALIFORNIA, d  PlaintiffandRespondent, d  vs. d  ̀, d DefendantandAppellant. d  ,Yd ,CourtofAppealNo. d  SuperiorCourtNo. d  Ѐ(d Y (@*  APPEALFROMTHESUPERIORCOURTOF___________ D COUNTY  D Honorable_________________,Judge D    0 @ APPELLANTSMOTIONTORECALLTHEREMITTITUR D  ANDREINSTATETHEAPPEAL D! Ѐ  @*   TOTHEHONORABLEPRESIDINGJUSTICE_____________AND D"% ASSOCIATEJUSTICESOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALOFTHESTATE D#& OFCALIFORNIAFOURTHAPPELLATEDISTRICT,DIVISION D$' ___________: D% (  ` PursuanttoCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rules8.272_(c)_,8.366(a), D'"* appellant___________herebymovestorecallthe_remittitur_Ԁthecourt D)$, issuedon_____________andtoreinstatehisappeal.Thegroundsforthis D+&. motionarethat,aftertheissuanceoftheremittitur,interveningnew  authority,contrarytostatelawrelieduponbythiscourtinitsopinion,was  issuedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin_Melendez_-Diazv.  Massachusetts(2009)557U.S.___[129_S.Ct_.2527;174_L.Ed_.2d314]   (_Melendez_ԄDiaz).    ` ThismotionisbasedupontheCaliforniaandUnitedStates   Constitutions,rules8.272(c)(2),8.366(a)oftheCaliforniaRulesofCourt,   theaccompanyingmemorandumofpointsandauthorities,theattached  exhibits,andonallfilesandrecordsinFourthAppellateDistrictcase  number_____________.  Dated:0 0 0h  0h h   Respectfullysubmitted, x  @x     `     h 0      Ѐ    ________________  0 ` 0 ` ` 0 0h  0h h 0  AttorneyforAppellantand  Defendant   b `     h         MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIES  I.0 ` INTRODUCTION. ` `   ` Onappeal,appellantarguedrelianceonlabtestsperformedbyan  absent_criminalist_ԀviolatedappellantsSixthAmendmentrightsasconstrued   inCrawfordv.Washington(2004)541U.S.36[124_S.Ct_.1354,158   _L.Ed_.2d177](Crawford),requiringreversalofcountsix,unlawful   possessionofacontrolledsubstance,methamphetamine,inviolationof   HealthandSafetyCodesection11377,subdivision(a).OnMarch17,  2008,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtgrantedcertiorariin_Melendez_ԄDiaz,  toaddresstheissuewhetherastateforensicanalystslaboratoryreport  preparedforuseinacriminalprosecutionis testimonialevidencesubject  tothedemandsoftheConfrontationClause,asheldinCrawford,supra,  541U.S.36.OnJanuary23,2009,thiscourtheldthatthelaboratory  reportsandexperttestimonywere_nontestimonial_,asneutral,  contemporaneousrecordationsofobservableevents,andnoconstitutional   violationresultedfromtheadmissionofthelaboratoryreportsandexpert " testimonybyanexpertwhodidnotpersonallytestthemethamphetamine, $  relyingonPeoplev.Geier(2007)41Cal.4th555(_Geier_).(Opinionatpp. &"" 8-10.)OnApril1,2009,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtdeniedreview. ($$ (ExhibitA.) *&&  ` OnJune25,2009,aftertheissuanceoftheremittiturinthiscase  (ExhibitB[_remittitur_ԀissuedApril13,2009]),butbeforetheappealinthis  matterwasfinalastoallcourts,inthatthe90daystofileapetitionforwrit  ofcertiorarihadnotexpired(U.S.SupremeCt.Rules,rule13.1),theUnited   StatesSupremeCourtdecided_Melendez_ԄDiaz.In_Melendez_ԄDiaz,the   UnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatadruganalystsaffidavitdiscussing   thenatureofthesubstancetestedanditsweightwasatestimonialstatement   forpurposesoftheSixthAmendment,andassuch,absentashowingof  unavailabilityandaprioropportunityforcross-examination,adefendantis  entitledtoconfronttheanalystattrial.Themajorityfoundthistobea   ratherstraightforwardapplicationof_Crawford____._ԀTheappealmustbe  reinstatedduetothisinterveningnewlaw.   II.0 ` THISCOURTSHOULDGRANTAPPELLANTSMOTION  TORECALLTHEREMITTITURANDREINSTATETHE  APPEALBECAUSEOFINTERVENINGNEWLAW. ` `  "& ` Rule8.272(c)(2)oftheCaliforniaRulesofCourtprovides: Ona   partysoritsownmotionoronstipulation,andforgoodcause,thecourt " maystayaremittitursissuanceforareasonableperiodororderitsrecall. $  Further,long-establishedcaselawprovidesforaremittiturtoberecalled &"" andanappealtobereinstatedwheninterveningnewlawrequiringa ($$ differentresulthasbeenissuedorsimilarcircumstancesunderminingthe *&& originaldecisionarediscovered.(E.g.,Peoplev.Mutch(1971)4Cal.3d  389,396-397[recallof_remittitur_ԀorderedafterCaliforniaSupremeCourt  interpretedstatuteinsubsequentdecision];Inre_Grunau_Ԁ(2008)169  Cal.App.4th997,1002-1003[recallofremittiturbasedonineffective   assistanceofcounsel];Peoplev.Valenzuela(1985)175Cal.App.3d381,   388[recallofremittiturbecauseofineffectiveassistanceofcounselon   appeal],disapprovedonothergroundsinPeoplev.Flood(1998)18Cal.4th   470.)   ` A. BasisofError.   ` Inthepresentcase,overdefenseobjection,thetrialcourtpermitted  theforensic_criminalist_Ԁtotestifyregardingtheresultsoflabtestsperformed  onthesubstancesfoundinappellant'spossessionbyanother_criminalist_.  (2RT276-287.)Defensecounselspecificallyobjectedtotheexpert  testimonyonthegroundsthatthecriminalistdidnotperformthetestsor  formtheconclusions,theevidencewashearsayanddidnotfallwithinthe   businessrecordsexception,andthelabreportsweretestimonialand " accusatoryinnature.(2RT276,322-323.)Theprosecutioncited_Geier_, $  supra,41Cal.4th555,insupportoftheargumentthattherewasno &"" testimonialconfrontationclauseissuewithrespecttotestimonyregarding ($$ labreportsbydifferentlabtechnicianswithinthesamefacility,becauseit *&& fellwithinthebusinessrecordsexceptionanda_NIK_Ԁtestperformedbya  detectiveconfirmedthatatleastoneofthequantitieswas  methamphetamine.(2RT276-279.)Thetrialcourtoverruledtheobjection  inlightof_Geier_.   0 ` B.0 ` ` TheTrialCourtErredinAllowingtheExpertTestimony.    ` In_Geier_,supra,41Cal.4thatpage596,thedefendantobjectedto   experttestimonyofthedirectorofalaboratoryregardingDNAtestingthat   shedidnotpersonallyperformbasedonhisSixthAmendmentrightof  confrontationasconstruedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin  Crawford,supra,541U.S.36.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthatthe  labreportsrelieduponbythedirectorwerenontestimonialanddidnot  implicatetheConfrontationClause.(_Geier_,supra,41Cal.4thatp.607.)  Thecourtheldthat astatementistestimonialif(1)itismadetoalaw  enforcementofficerorbyortoalawenforcementagentand(2)describesa  pastfactrelatedtocriminalactivityfor(3)possibleuseatalatertrial.   Conversely,astatementthatdoesnotmeetallthreecriteriaisnot " testimonial.(Id.atp.605.)Thecourtfoundthatthesecondcriterionwas $  notmetbecausethelabreportswereacontemporaneous_recordation_Ԁof &"" observableeventsratherthanthedocumentationofpastevents.(Ibid.)The ($$ courtfoundthatthelabreportswerebusinessrecords.(Id.atp.606.) *&&  ` _Geier_Ԁdoesnotcomportwith_Melendez_ԄDiazandCrawford,supra,  541U.S.atpp.54,68[prosecutionmaynotintroducetestimonialhearsay  againstacriminaldefendantunlessthedeclarantisunavailableandthe  defendanthasorhadanopportunityforcross-examination].)In_Melendez_Ԅ   Diaz,theprosecutionintroducedcertificatesofstatelaboratoryanalysts,   statingthatmaterialconnectedtothedefendantwascocaine.(129_S.Ct_.at   p.2531.)TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthattheadmissionofthe   certificatesviolatedthedefendantsSixthAmendmentrighttoconfrontthe  witnessesagainsthim.(Id.atpp.25322534,2542.)Thehighcourt  reasonedthatthecertificateswereaffidavits,whichfallwithinthe core  classoftestimonialstatementscoveredbytheConfrontationClause.(Id.  atp.2532.)Itfoundthatthecertificatesweremade undercircumstances  whichwouldleadanobjectivewitnessreasonablytobelievethatthe  statementwouldbeavailableforuseatalatertrial,(Ibid.,quoting  Crawford,supra,541U.S.atp.52(internalquotationsomitted)andtheir    solepurpose...wastoprovideprimafacieevidenceofthecomposition, " quality,andthenetweightoftheanalyzedsubstance.(_Melendez_ԄDiaz, $  supra,129_S.Ct_.atp.2532,quotingMass.Gen.Laws,ch.111,13(italics &"" inoriginal).)Itconcludedthatitwasa ratherstraightforwardapplication ($$ ofourholdinginCrawford,(id.atp.2533)andrejectedtheargumentsto *&& avoidtheapplicationofCrawford,includingtheargumentsthatthe  witnessesarenotaccusatory,thestatementswerecontemporaneouswith  theirobservations,theaffidavitsarebusinessrecords,andthestatements  resultfromneutralscientifictesting(id.atpp.25332540).Thus,thelab   reportsusedinthepresentcasetoproveanelementofthecrimewere   testimonialandwerepreparedsolelyforthecriminalprosecutionof   appellant.Thelabreportsandexperttestimonywereerroneouslyadmitted   inviolationofappellantsSixthAmendmentrights.   ` C. TheErrorWasPrejudicial.   ` Relianceonlabtestsperformedbytheabsent_criminalist_Ԁviolated  appellant'sSixthAmendmentrightsasconstruedinCrawford.  Confrontationclauseviolationsaresubjecttofederalharmless-error  analysisunderChapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,24[87S.Ct.824,  17L.Ed.2d705].(Delawarev.Van_Arsdall_Ԁ(1986)475U.S.673,681[106  S.Ct.1431,89L.Ed.2d674].)Here,theerrorwasnotharmlessbeyonda   reasonabledoubt.Theonlyevidencepresentedthatthesubstancefoundin " appellantspossessionwasmethamphetaminewasthetestimonyof $  _criminalist_Ԁwhodidnotperformthetest.Thetrialcourtspecificallystated &"" thatitwouldgrantdefendantsmotiontodismisspursuanttoPenalCode ($$ section1118iftheonlyevidencepresentedwasthata_NIK_Ԁtestwas *&& performedonthesubstance.(2RT279.)Therefore,countsix,unlawful  possessionofmethamphetamine,inviolationofHealthandSafetyCode  section11377,subdivision(a),shouldbereversed.   ` Goodcauseexiststorecalltheremittiturandreinstateappellants   appealonthegroundsofinterveningnewlaw.      CONCLUSION   ;K ` Asdemonstrated,_Melendez__ԄDiaz,_Ԁdecidedaftertheremittiturinthis  case,requiresadifferentresult.Petitionerrequeststherecallofthe  remittiturandreinstatementofhisappealbecausethestatelawappliedin   theopinioniscontrarytoaninterveningdecisionoftheUnitedStates   SupremeCourt.   Dated:0 0 0h  0h h   0p  Respectfullysubmitted, @n  @n p p   `     h 0  0  0p  ___________________p p  ,N `     h     0 p AttorneyforAppellantand  Defendantp p   `     h   ̀ `     h     N      INSERTPROOFOFSERVICE