WPCV 2B!Qf#%lF0Dvoe' WJ!Хgbj]C0A6[$bUp*"' kTo66s yi_tM >qrwV4~g?xDquj$RR`Qtz2aX#s?4IE}ˉ~*^7Wx cyd;ۜ()NiFx* ̟_z5>{Ibż3 Z3F)F}]7#6/~eASNt- r{TSG^)xG hj~N'|~M哷?(DKshԅ:DIr(GAvS>y~5Ԛ2PT[gBFdq&Լ 4θu;Ws̕Q%_~լG^ۗd$ӛrU\N % 0 #!k B ^ 0k U5NE w@ 4   m 1 04  0CnN 72 0gk  1U,_ 0U 0 0 0 0L 0 0 0e 0 ! 1! 1u4" 0c" B # 1)# 0#u$ 1)N|* 1~* 0+ 0+ 1, 1- 1- 1. 1. 0,/ 1/ 0`0`0 01N1 02 03 184 04 0T5 05 06 0q7 0!8 08 0o9 0 : 0: 07; 0; 0s< 01= 0>= 0-> 0%? 0@ 0@ 0A 1B 04C 0D 0D 02E 0E 0:F 0Y G 0_cG 0 G 0H 0NJ B*TL D/~L D+L 0LL 0$M D/*O 0YO 06'P 0]P 0:eQ 0^Q 0<Q 1e9RU6RU>RU*SVxhH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX(c3$    XXHP LaserJet 4,,,,0J:\Template\APPEALS\GPINTR~1.WPTm 9N (parparagraph in briefyA Z6Times New Roman Regular [ I e E    e E [8NV3|x U(ʽCEKQW]cioAutoList5IVIVIVIVIVIVIVIV(*2q$ 3!    6XX    66   `   0    q$  6XX  66 @ @ `   2    __6Unlessotherwisespecified,allfurtherstatutoryreferencesaretothe  _PenalCode.###6z#Ԁ  q$  6XX  66 @ @ `   1    _TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtgrantedcertiorariinUnitedStates  v.Booker(7thCir.2004)2004U.S.AppLEXIS14223,cert.grantedAug.2,  2004,No.04104andUnitedStatesv._Fanfan_(D.Me.June28,2004,No.03  47PH),cert.grantedAug.2,2004,No.04105concerningwhetheranenhancedsentenceundertheUnitedStatesSentencingGuidelinesviolatestherighttoajurytrial.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasgrantedreviewastowhetherimposingtheuppertermviolatestherighttoajurytrial.Asreflectedinthecourtsonlinedatabase66,theSupremeCourtgrantedreviewintwocases.   Inonecase,theissuesare:(1)Canatrialcourtusefactsrelatingtocountsonwhichadefendantwasfoundnotguiltyasaggravatingfactorsindeterminingtheappropriatesentence?(2)DoesBlakelyv.Washington(2004)__U.S.__,   124S.Ct.2531,precludeatrialcourtfrommakingfindingsonaggravatingfactorsinsupportofanuppertermsentence?(3)Ifso,whatprejudicialerrorstandardapplies,andwastheerrorinthiscaseprejudicial?#66ҕ#(Peoplev._Towne_   [nonpub.opn.],reviewgrantedJuly14,2004,S125677.)Intheothercase,theissuesare: (1)WhateffectdoesBlakelyv.Washington(2004)___U.S.__,  124S.Ct.2531haveonthevalidityofdefendant'suppertermsentence?(2)WhateffectdoesBlakelyhaveonthetrialcourt'simpositionofconsecutive . sentences? Ӏ(Peoplev.Black(2004)[nonpub.opn.],reviewgranted,July28, E 2004,S126182.)([asofJuly30,2004].)($    &i)V ,quotesingle space, indent8   ] <D &  6XX  _948949H(hCEKQW]cioAutoList6IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII\  `TmsRmn*+ (_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   (5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0   d(hCEKQW]cioAutoList7IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII*AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5   BustamonteVolkswagon NoeLongoriaEquarteMasbruchGranadoClabornSpechtGuerrero NavaBartowHarrellBatistarelitigateIzazaga opn MoskBoddieMELINDARELITIGATINGSohal secsFurhmanSaldanaFurhrmanDemetrisStarksconcealableCripsS.T.C.G.HurtadoVenegasS.T.G.C.MangelliBKDanserScheidBelmontesArbuckleMathewZaheriHeaveyLatimerDelozaVenagasRatliffJuradoSchmerberSafleypenologicalAnzaloneBotsfordDickersonFuerteTerhunedecisionmakersentencernonconsensualBlakelyAmelinePineiroAlmendarezTighe TighAndradesSmalleyBirksGuizar(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(hCEKQW]cioAutoList8IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII*GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  (hCEKQW]cioAutoList9IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(:EGMSY_ekqAutoList11A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(գEGMSY_ekqAutoList10IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(UfCEKQW]cioAutoList3I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList4IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII*55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` (JEGMSY_ekqAutoList12A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.*22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #   D q$  6XX  66 @ @ `   3    _AllfurtherreferencestorulesaretotheCaliforniaRulesofCourt.(3D $ 3!    6XX  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h (jEGMSY_ekqAutoList14A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.*)) (_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   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (EGMSY_ekqAutoList13IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKl<6X9`(Courier NewKSm\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kl<6X9`(Courier NewKSm\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/Kl<6X9`(Courier NewKSm\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7`(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?n%2A`Arial?  Sm\  `&Times New RomanS7a(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d_)1dxd'dxd>c$"Small Circle"0 <:zTop of For7d(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?n%2A`Arial?  Sm\  `&Times New RomanS7a(X75+ ` hp x 5  _)2dxd0KS.SampleKl<6X9`(Courier NewKSm\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKl<6X9`(Courier NewKSm\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  */068:=? 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(~2$ 3!    6XX  ($opqaA<< c(O$(Wf|$ @*  A ____'dxddd g <D &  6XX  _Numberhereis34\  `&Times New Roman 3!    6XX  _8b Xdd8@<<INTHECOURTOFAPPEALOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA  @!!SIXTHAPPELLATEDISTRICT (I  (PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA ,  2Q)     2Q) `  PlaintiffandRespondent,  2Q)     2Q) ` v.  2Q)      2Q) SHAWNRAMONROGERS,   2Q)     2Q) `  DefendantandAppellant.  2Q)   _______________________________________  2Q)  H026823(SantaClaraCountySuperiorCourtNo.CC062329)   (IQQ(    APPELLANTSSUPPLEMENTALBRIEF   8_6_ III. ` WHENTHECOURTIMPOSEDANAGGRAVATED  SENTENCEONTHEBASISOFFACTSITFOUNDWHICHWENTBEYONDTHEELEMENTSOFTHECRIMETOWHICHTHEJURYFOUNDTRUE,ITVIOLATEDHISCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTTOJURYTRIALASEXPLAINEDINBLAKELYv.WASHINGTON.   ` A. Introduction    ` In_Apprendi_Ԁv.UnitedStates(2000)530U.S.466,490,theSupreme   Courtheld:8 ` Otherthanthefactofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt. ` x` x (Id.,atp.490.) '")  ` OnJune24,2004,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtexplainedthat thestatutorymaximum'for_Apprendi_purposesisthemaximumsentenceajudge +&- _mayimposesolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictor  admittedbythedefendant.(Blakelyv.Washington(2004)542U.S.__[124  S.Ct.2531,2537],emphasisinoriginal.)UnderBlakely,whenthecourt  makesadditionalfindingstojustifytheimpositionofanaggravatedsentence,itviolatesadefendantsconstitutionalrighttoajurytrialassetforthinApprendi.    ` Thisrulewasviolatedinthiscase.   1      ׀AppellantShawnRamonRogers    wasconvictedincountoneofassaultwithafirearm###_#(Pen.Code,#6_? #6Ԁ245,subd.  (b)).   2      ׀Thejuryfoundtruethathepersonallyusedafirearm# ##_ #Ԁ(12022.5),he   personallyinflictedgreatbodilyinjury(12022.7#6_ #_6_),andhecommittedthe  crimeinfurtheranceofacriminalstreetgang(186.22,subd.(b)).(CT270274,288.)Thecourtimposedtheuppertermfortheunderlyingcrimeandtheuppertermforthefirearmenhancement,aswellasthreeyearsforthegreatbodilyinjuryenhancementandoneyearforthegangenhancement,foratotalof23yearsinprison.(CT339,341.)Punishmentfortheothercountsweretobeservedconcurrently. ` Injustifyingtheupperterms,thecourtfoundthreefactorsinaggravation: thevulnerabilityofthevictims###_#...#6_A#6Ԁ,theoverallconductofthe  defendant###_#...#6_H#_6_Ԁthathedoesposeordidposeadangertosociety,###_#...#6_G#6Ԁ[and]that  thedefendantwasonprobationatthetimeoftheoffense.(RT962;seeCT324[recommendationsofprobationoffice];###_#Cal.RulesofCourt,rule#6_#_6_  4.421(a)(3),(b)(1)&(b)(4).)#+#;   3      #6J#6ԀSinceappellantneveradmittedthesefactorsand  theywereneverfoundtruebythejury,theirusetoimposeaggravatedtermsviolatedBlakely. "  ` Thisissuecanbeaddressedonappeal.WhentheSupremeCourtannouncesanewrule,itappliestoallcriminalcasesstillpendingondirect &"" review.Thelackofanobjectionbelowdidnotwaivetheissuebecausecounselcouldnothaveanticipatedthisnewruleandbecauseaviolationofadefendantsconstitutionalrighttoajurytrialcanalwaysberaisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.Theerrorshouldbedeemedstructural,requiringautomaticreversal,becausethefactswhichjustifiedanaggravatedsentencewerefoundtruebythewrongentityandunderastandardofprooflessthanbeyondareasonabledoubt.Eveniftheerrorcanbesubjectedtoharmlesserroranalysis,reversalisrequiredbecause,asdescribedinappellant'sopeningbrief,theappropriatesentenceinthiscasewasahotlycontestedtopic.Consequently,themattermustberemandedforresentencingwithoutconsiderationoffactsthejurydidnotfindtrue.  ` B.0 ASentencingCourtCannotImposeanAggravatedSentence  BasedonAggravatingFactorsinAdditiontotheFactsAdmittedbytheDefendantinhisGuiltyPleaorFoundTruebytheJury.     ` InBlakely,thedefendantpledguiltytoseconddegreekidnapingand  admittedafirearmenhancement.UnderWashingtonStatesentencinglaw,seconddegreekidnapingwasa classBfelony,withanabsolutemaximumsentenceof10years.Undertheapplicablesentencingguidelines,the standardrangeforseconddegreekidnapingwithuseofafirearmwas49to53months.UnderWashingtonlawacourtcouldimposeasentenceabovethestandardrangeifitfoundcompellingreasonsfordoingso.Thestatute +&' providedanonexhaustivelistofaggravatingfactorswhichcouldjustifyimposingahighersentence.(Blakely,supra,124S.Ct.atp.2535.)Whena  courtimposesasentenceabovethestandardrangeitmustmakefindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawsupportingit.InBlakely,thetrialcourtimposed   asentenceof90months!37monthsabovethestandardrange!afterfindingBlakelyactedwithdeliberatecruelty,oneoftheaggravatingfactorsenumeratedinWashingtonssentencinglaw.#T##_5#(Ibid.)#6_ #_6_Ԁ      ` TheSupremeCourtheldthattheimpositionofanaggravatedsentencebasedonthecourtsfindingofdeliberatecrueltyviolatedApprendisrule  entitlingadefendanttoajurydeterminationofanyfactusedtoimposeagreaterpunishmentthanthemaximumotherwiseallowablefortheunderlyingoffense.TheSupremeCourtrejectedthestatesassertionthattherelevantmaximumunderApprendiwasthe10yearcapforaclassBfelony.Instead,  thecourtdecided53months!thetopendofthestandardrange!wasthestatutorymaximumbecausethatwasthegreatestsentenceBlakelycouldreceivebasedsolelyonthefactsadmittedbyhisplea.!  8 ` #8!#mOurprecedentsmakeclear[]thatthe"statutorymaximum"for $  #m%#mApprendi#m%#mԀpurposesisthemaximumsentenceajudgemay %!! impose#m%#msolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthejury &"" verdictoradmittedbythedefendant.#mx&#mԀ[Citations.]#m-'#mԀInotherwords, '## therelevant"statutorymaximum"isnotthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,butthemaximumhemayimpose#m|'#mwithout#mt(#manyadditionalfindings.When *&& ajudgeinflictspunishmentthatthejury'sverdictalonedoesnot +'' allow,thejuryhasnotfoundallthefacts"whichthelawmakesessentialtothepunishment,"[citation]#m(#,andthejudgeexceedshis  properauthority. ` x` x (Blakely,supra,124S.Ct.atp.2537,emphasisinoriginal.)Basedonthis  reasoning,thecourtreversedBlakelyssentence:O*  +8 `   Petitionerwassentencedtoprisonformorethanthreeyearsbeyondwhatthelawallowedforthecrimetowhichheconfessed,onthebasisofadisputedfindingthathehadactedwith deliberatecruelty.TheFramerswouldnothavethoughtittoomuchtodemandthat,beforedeprivingamanofthreemoreyearsofhisliberty,theStateshouldsufferthemodestinconvenienceofsubmittingitsaccusationto theunanimoussuffrageoftwelveofhisequalsand_neighbours_,[citation],ratherthanaloneemployeeoftheState.+@+݌ ` x` x Ќ  (Id.,atp.2543.)  .     ` UnderBlakely,theaggravatedsentenceimposedinthiscaseis  unconstitutional.UnderCalifornialaw, [_w]hen_Ԁajudgmentofimprisonmentistobeimposed,thecourtshallorderimpositionofthemiddleterm,unless  therearecircumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime.(1170,  subd.(b),emphasisadded;accordrule4.420(a)&(b).)Thesameruleappliesindeterminingwhichtermtoimposeforanenhancement.(Rule4.428(b).)Thus,asinBlakely,thesentencingcourtcouldnotimposeasentenceother $  thanthemiddletermwithoutfindingaggravatingcircumstancesbeyondtheelementsinherentinthecrimeitself.AsinBlakely,Californialawalso ($$ providesanonexclusivelistofaggravatingfactorsthecourtmayrelyuponin *&& decidingtosentenceadefendanttotheupperterm(rules4.421,4.408(a)),andthecourtmustmakeexpressfindingsconcerning theultimatefactsdeemed  toconstitutecircumstancesinaggravation.(1170,subd.(c).) `   UndertheanalysisinBlakely,themiddletermisthehighestsentence   whichcanbeimposedbasedonthejurysverdictoradefendantsplea.Thisisbecauseanyfactorwhichisanelementofthecrimeorthebasisforanenhancementcannotbeusedtojustifyimpositionofanaggravatedterm.(1170,subd.(b);rule4.420(c)&(d).)Thus,theaggravatingfactorswhichjustifyimpositionoftheuppertermnecessarilyinvolvefactsbeyondthose reflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant.(Blakely,supra,  124S.Ct.atp.2537.) [_T]he_Ԁjurysverdictalonedoesnotauthorizethe[aggravated]sentence.Thejudgeacquiresthatauthorityonlyuponfindingsomeadditionalfact.#_W!#(Id.,atp.#6_6#6Ԁ2538.)g3a     ` Analogously,federalcourtshavefoundthatBlakelyappliestoimposing  enhancedpenaltiesundertheUnitedStatesSentencingGuidelines.(See,e.g.,   UnitedStatesv.Ameline(9thCir.July21,2004,No.0230326)__F.3d__ " [2004U.S.App.LEXIS15452];UnitedStatesv.Booker(7thCir.July13, $  2004)__F.3d__[2004U.S.App.LEXIS14223];butseeUnitedStatesv. &"" Pineiro(5thCir.July12,2004,No.0330437)__F.3d__[2004U.S.App. ($$ LEXIS14259].) *&&  ` Thecourtinthiscaseimposedtheaggravatedtermonlyafterfindingthreeaggravatingfactors:thevictimwasvulnerable(rule4.421(a)(3)),thedefendant'sconductindicatedadangertosociety(rule4.421(b)(1)),andthedefendantwason(juvenile)probationwhenthecrimewascommitted(rule4.421(b)(4)).(RT962;seeCT324#y;##6H7#6.)Thecourtcouldnotuseanyfactwhich   wasanelementofthecrimetojustifytheimpositionoftheaggravatedterms,thesefactswerenecessarilyonesinadditiontothosefoundtruebythejury.ThesentenceinthiscasethereforeviolatedBlakely.   ` Althoughoneofthefactorsinaggravationwasthatappellantwasonprobation,therecidivist exceptiondoesnotapply.#6;#6InAlmendarezTorresv.  UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224,#6=#6fivejusticeoftheSupremeCourtagreed  thefactofapriorconvictioncanbeusedtoenhanceasentencewithoutfirstpresentingtheissuetoanewjury.#_>#(Id.,atp.#6_V?#6Ԁ228.)JusticeClarenceThomas,  whovotedforthemajorityinAlmendarezTorres,hassincestatedthathe  wouldvotedifferentlyiftheissuewerepresentedtotheSupremeCourtagain.(Apprendi,supra,530U.S.atpp.520521(conc.opn.ofThomas,J.).)#6?#6Thus, " amajorityoftheSupremeCourtnowagreethatAlmendarezTorreswas $  wronglydecided.#6EA#6ԀSofar,theCourthasyettoapplyApprenditorecidivist &"" basedsentencingfactors,evenwhenthefactofapriorconvictionisusedtoincreasethestatutorymaximumsentenceforanoffense. *&&  ` Second,totheextentthattherecidivistexceptionstillapplies,ithasbeenjustifiedonthegroundthatthedefendantenjoyedarighttoajurytrialinthepriorcase;thus,hisrighttoajurytodetermineeveryfactrelevanttoincreasinghissentencehasbeenpreserved.(Apprendi,supra,530U.S.at   p.496.)Thispremisedoesnotexistwhenthedefendantisonjuvenileprobationandneverenjoyedtherighttoajurytrialinthejuvenilecourt.#6B#(See   UnitedStatesv.Tighe(9thCir.2001)266F.3d1187,1194[priorjuvenile   adjudicationwithoutrighttojurytrialcannotbeusedasanenhancement].)AlthoughthiscourtandothershavedisagreedwithTighe(see,e.g.,Peoplev.  SuperiorCourt(Andrades)(2003)113Cal.App.4th817,830834;Peoplev.  Lee(2003)111Cal.App.4th1310,1316;seealsoUnitedStatesv.Jones(3d  Cir.2003)332F.3d688,696;UnitedStatesv.Smalley(8thCir.2002)294  F.3d1030,1033),appellantsubmitsthisissuemustberevisitedinlightofBlakely.  6  ` C.8 TheIssueisnotWaived.      ` Whenadecisionof[theSupreme]Courtresultsinanewrule,theruleappliestoallcriminalcasesstillpendingondirectreview.[Citation.](_Schiro_Ԁv._Summerlin_(2004)542U.S.___,[2004S.Ct.2519,2522].) &!" Furthermore,theissueisnotwaivedduetothelackofanyconstitutionalobjectionbelow.TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtexplainedinPeoplev.Vera *%& (1997)15Cal.4th269, mNotallclaimsoferrorareprohibitedintheabsence  ofatimelyobjectioninthetrialcourt.Adefendantisnotprecludedfrom  raisingforthefirsttimeonappealaclaimassertingthedeprivationofcertainfundamental,constitutionalrights.#mJ#(Id.,atp.276,emphasisadded.)Among   thefundamentalconstitutionalrightslistedinVeraistheconstitutionalright   tojurytrial.(Id.,atpp.276277,citingPeoplev.Holmes(1960)54Cal.2d   442,443-444;seealso,Peoplev.Saunders(1993)5Cal.4th580,589fn5   [ Defendantsfailuretoobject[]wouldnotprecludehisassertingonappealthathewasdeniedhisconstitutionalrighttoajurytrial].) ` Thereisanadditionalreasonafindingofwaiverwouldnotbeappropriateinthiscase.Appellatecourtswillnotinsistuponanobjectioninalowercourtwhereitwouldhavebeenfutileatthetime.Thus,inPeoplev.  Birks(1998)19Cal.4th108theSupremeCourtrejectedawaiverargument  whenanissuewaspresentedforthefirsttimeonreviewbecausethelowercourtwouldhavebeenboundtorejectanyobjectionbasedoncontrollingprecedent.(Id.,atp.116,fn.6;seealso# L##6H#Peoplev.Turner(1990)50Cal.3d " 668,703[ Thoughevidentiarychallengesareusuallywaivedunlesstimelyraisedinthetrialcourt,thisisnotsowhenthepertinentlawlaterchangedsounforeseeablythatitisunreasonabletoexpecttrialcounseltohaveanticipatedthechange.[Citations.]].) *&&  ` _6_Inthiscase,anobjectionthataggravatingfactorshadtobesubmitted  toajuryoradmittedbythedefendantwouldhavebeenfutilebecauseCalifornialawclearlyprovidedthatsentencingfactsarefoundbyjudges,notjuries. [_T]he_Ԁabilityofcourtstomakefactualfindingsinconjunctionwiththe   performanceoftheirsentencingfunctionsneverhasbeenquestioned.(Peoplev.Wiley(1995)9Cal.4th580,587.)8 @l    8 ` [_U]nder_ԀtheprovisionsoftheDeterminateSentencingAct,trialcourtsareassignedthetaskofdecidingwhethertoimposeanupperorlowertermofimprisonmentbasedupontheirdeterminationwhether"therearecircumstancesinaggravationormitigationofthecrime,"adeterminationthatinvariablyrequiresnumerousfactualfindings. ` x` x (Ibid.)  @Va     ` SinceanobjectionbasedonApprendiwouldhavebeenfutile,andsince  theissueinvolvesappellant'sfundamentalconstitutionalrighttotrialbyjury,itmustbeaddressedonappealdespitethelackofanobjectionbelow.  ` D. 8   0  E R  r R  r O  o R  r  R R  r   r  E  e Q  q U  u I  i R  r E  e S  s  R R  r  E  e V  v E  e R  r S  s A  a L  l O  o F  f T  t H  h E  e  S S  s  E  e N  n T  t E  e N  n C  c E  e .    `   Whenajudgeimposesasentencehigherthanwhatthelawpermitsbasedsolelyonthejurysverdictoradefendantsadmission,theresultisstructuralerrorrequiringautomaticreversal.Itisstructuralerrorbecauseappellant'srighttoajurytrialwasaltogetherdeniedastothefindingswhichaddedtwoyearstohissentence.AstheSupremeCourtexplainedinRosev. )$% Clark(1986)478U.S.570,578, Where_th[e_]right[toajurytrial]is +&' altogetherdenied,theStatecannotcontendthatthedeprivationwasharmlessbecausetheevidenceestablishedthedefendant'sguilt;theerrorinsuchacaseisthatthewrongentityjudgedthedefendantguilty."k[one   ` Inaddition,theerrorisstructuralbecausethejudgemadeitsfindingsunderapreponderanceoftheevidencestandard.(SeeRule4.420(b)[ Circumstancesinaggravationandmitigationshallbeestablishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence].)UnderBlakelyitshouldhaveappliedthe   beyondareasonabledoubtstandard.Anerrorwhichdeprivesadefendantoftherequirementofproofbeyondareasonabledoubtisstructuralerror.(Sullivanv.Louisiana(1993)508U.S.275.) p   `one     ` CourtshaveappliedtheChapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18  harmlesserrorstandardtosocalledApprendierrors.However,theanalysis  inthosecasescannotbeappliedtotheerrorinthiscase.Somehaveinvolvedthefailuretoadequatelyinstructthejuryonallelementsofanenhancement.(See,e.g.,Peoplev.%  Sengpadychith(2001)26Cal.4th316,324#$R#[failureto   instructthejuryontherequisiteprimaryactivitiesofacriminalstreetgangenhancement];#Ec#ԀPeoplev.Scott(2001)91Cal.App.4th1197,12091211 $  [failuretoinstructjuryonelementsoffirearmuse].)Thefailuretoinstructonanelementofacrimeisalwayssubjecttoharmlesserroranalysis.(Nederv. ($$ UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1,9,18.)    feone *&&    ` OthercourtshavefoundApprendierrorharmlessbecausethefactused  toenhanceasentencewasconcededbythedefendantattrial.(See,e.g.,#d#Clark  v.State(2001)2001N.D.9[621N.W.2d576,581].)Othercaseshavefound  Apprendierrorharmlessbecausethesentenceimposedbythecourtbasedon   theerrorwasstillunderthestatutorymaximum.(See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.   GarciaGuizar(9thCir.2000)234F.3d483,488489.)    ` Noneofthesecircumstancesareapplicabletothiscase.Theerrordidnotinvolveafailuretoinstructthejuryonanelementoftheoffense,butinsteadatotalfailuretoinstructontheelementsnecessarytofindtheaggravatingcircumstancestrue.Theerrordidresultinasentencewhichwas  beyondthemaximumwhichcouldbeimposedbasedsolelyonthejury'sverdict.Sincethewrongentitymadethefindings,andsinceitusedalesserstandardofproof,theerrorwasstructural. ` EveniftheChapmanharmlesserrorstandardisfoundtoapply,reversal  wouldberequired.#ӷf##6CR#Therewasawidedisagreementastothesentence   appellantshouldreceive.Theprosecutoradvocatedasentenceofatleast30years.(RT957959.)Appellantsoughtasentenceofabout16years,whichwaswhattheprobationdepartmentrecommended.(RT959.)Thesentencingcourtfounditsignificantthatthejurywasnotconvincedappellantattemptedtomurderanyone.(RT960961.)Witnessestestifiedatthesentencing *&& hearinghowappellantmediateddisputesandprotectedtheweakfrompredatorswithinthesystem.(RT918919,925927,929930,931933;seecourtexhibits1and2.)Thecourtspecificallyfoundappellant'syoungagetobeafactorinmitigation.(RT962.)Thecourtacknowledgeditwas adifficultcaseformebecauseIwasnotthetrialjudge.(RT960.)6 ` Eveninconsideringthefactorinaggravationthatappellantwason   juvenileprobationduringtheoffense,thisalonewouldnotleadtoaconclusionthattheerrorwasharmless.Althoughonlyonefactorinaggravationisrequiredtoimposetheupperterm#ӯn##_n#,remandisnecessarywhenthecourt  appearstohavereliedmostlyonfactorsthatwerefoundtobeinvalid.(See,e.g.,Peoplev.Wallace(July26,2004,S113321)__Cal.4th__[2004cal.  LEXIS6770,*29*30].)Here,theprosecutionandthetrialcourtfocusedprimarily#6_p#666notonappellantsperformanceonprobation(whichotherthanthis  crimehadbeenquitegood),butinsteadontheviolenceinvolvedandtheapparentvulnerabilityofthevictims.(RT955959[commentsbytheprosecutionconcerningthecircumstancesofthecrimes];962[commentsbythecourt].)#Ӽq##6q# ` Appellantdisagreedwiththecourt'scharacterizationofthecrimes,that &"" heposedadangertosocietyorthatheattackedvictimsthatwereparticularlyvulnerable: *&& 8 ` [_T]he_ԀD.A.saysthat,orheisclaimingthatIwasamenaceorwhatnot.Butwherearethesestatementscomingfrom?Whatareyoubasingthison?AreyoubasingthisonmyconductwhenIwasontheStreets?Ifthatsthecase,ifIhadbeenamenace,youknow,Iwouldhaveafilethisthickofcriminalhistory.ButIdont._6...#6_u#Ԁ[]SoIhavebeenincarceratedfor   aboutfouryears.Ihavenothadonephysicalaltercationnotroubleatall._6...#6_v#Ԁ[]_6...#6_w#ԀItsapparentthatalotofevidencethat   theD.A.hashadachancetolookat,thestatementsmadebythevictims,thecontradictorystatementsthattheyhavemade,itsapparenthesnotworkingforthebestinterestofjustice_6...#6_Rx#Ԁ. ` x` x :dd(RT918919.)Yt666Appellantwasentitledtohaveajuryresolvethesecontentions. d Sinceappellant contestedthe[aggravatingcircumstances]andhasdemonstratedthe evidence[was]sufficienttosupportacontraryfinding[,thereviewingcourt]shouldnotfindtheerrorharmless.(_Neder_Ԁv.UnitedStates d (1999)527U.S.1,#x#19.) d   d #z##6y#6  @%    Conclusion |  {reas݈     ` Duetotheviolationofhisconstitutionalrighttoajurytrial,appellantrespectfullyrequeststhatthisCourtremandhiscaseforresentencingwithoutconsiderationoftheaggravatingfactorswhichhedidnotadmit,orforajurytrialwherethetruthoftheaggravatingfactorswhichappellantdisputescanbedecidedbeyondareasonabledoubt.#{##6{#   DATED: August13,200  8   4  August13,2008!  .  `     h Respectfullysubmitted, `     h SIXTHDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROGRAM `     h By:  _________________________   `     h   JonathanGrossman `     h   AttorneyforAppellant `     h   ShawnRamonRogers._6_8_dXd8     #_# CERTIFICATIONOFWORDCOUNT   #:dd ` I,JonathanGrossman,certifythattheattachedAPPELLANTSSUPPLEMENTALBRIEFcontains3617words.#6_#66 ` ExecutedunderpenaltyofperjuryatSantaClara,California,on  August  d  13,2008!  .    August  d  13,200  8   4.  `     h     򀀀 d   `     h     JonathanGrossman#66X#_6#6_…#_6_###6&#