WPC! Av\Y[Isl 7}_C*mI7ϓ*11jWC,'!{0c>J薜޵)įTC̩p}aS(GeQFg;-3,FCkߨ< HG`蘘 ~90Ai+#:aLcZ`A{,''ǝNgPW>ċcqJK[SXdjYCPƢs&0juHw(U/_4# d-ڎR?& }P̴r4XԠ€Jʺ?!s-"XJ) 3*< :*k f2Z2jSuRzRЂN S`[m;Dv]OٕQ, N72U(;ؿr]BmN(CgDU}"Wh^uJ0c W du c.k6%Mxpe#!U/N % 0(^ # w@/ 4o   m 1_ 1u 0Xc M 01 0= 0T 0> 0lZ 0 0 0D 0a 0Y 0  09 0 02 0 0: 0> 0_ 0 " 0k, 0 B*^ D3 C D+ 0 0 06 0 0: 0h& 0FU6U> U*HMrU@v 0l 0D"UNfNxM.!M2!2!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6!6! BL!L!L!L!L!L!L!L!L!L!L!L!L!L! 0 i!HP LaserJet 4,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($36 'E()E*+E,-D./0D6@0p}.bk23|x0U3$37;?CGKOS-*+x3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  0.Normal<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition<  9(parparagraph ` ('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEK/<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS0\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K/<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS0\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K/<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS0\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of I%&4$ ** ddI  B    ?1%2A`Arial?9'&*  dd9  XXXS0\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d d$$$$'dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForI%&4$** ddI  B    ?1%2A`Arial?9'&*  dd9  XXXS0\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleK/<6X9`(Courier NewKS0\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK/<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS0\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(9 Z(Times New Roman ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  (A Z6Times New Roman Regular  L.EdKennardFDAP.orgUnpubCLETS CII I]tCorchadoFagansKempisBonolaFagan RyleP]robationWissink decisionmakingwebsite opnSaphaocitable    dV ,quotesingle space, indent8   !  _    8EXXdd8<[ @" XXCUNNINGHAMUPDATE#XEX#    XXE@) I.  @*@%BACKGROUND     InApprendiv.UnitedStates(2000)530U.S.466,490,theSupremeCourtheld:   d  d48    Otherthanthefactofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt.(Id.atp.490.)#  #d4a݌    Ќ    OnJune24,2004,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtexplainedthat thestatutorymaximum   forApprendipurposesisthemaximumsentenceajudgemayimposesolelyonthebasisof   thefactsreflectedinthejuryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant.#  #  (Blakelyv.Washington  (2004)542U.S.#  ]#296[159L.Ed.2d403  ,413]#  #.)  InPeoplev.Black(2005)35Cal.4th1238,6of7CaliforniaSupremeCourtjusticessaid  BlakelydidnotapplyinCalifornia,becausethestatutorymaximumistheupperterm,not  themiddleterm.Alonedissenter,JusticeKennard,saidBlakelydidapplytoCalifornias  DeterminateSentencingLaw,butoncetherewasoneaggravatingfactorfoundtruebyajuryoradmittedbyadefendant,the statutorymaximumwasthentheupperterm,andthecourtcouldengageinanyfactfindingitwantedwithoutviolatingBlakely.  OnJanuary22,2007,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecidedCunninghamv.California  (2007)549U.S.___[127S.Ct.856;166L.Ed.2d856].Thecourtheldthe statutorymaximumperBlakelywasthemidterm,nottheupperterm.TheCourtanalyzedthe  CaliforniaSupremeCourtsassumptionsinBlackandfoundthateachviolated Apprendis  brightlinerule.(Id.atp.___[127S.Ct.atp.869].)ItheldthatBlackmisunderstood   priorU.S.SupremeCourtprecedentinitserroneousbeliefthattherewasno brightlineruleonthisissue.(Ibid.) " @}}) II. #  @   SB40:THELIKELYSHORTLIFESPANOFTHE %!! @--BLAKELY/CUNNINGHAMCHALLENGETOUPPERTERMS  &"" Exceptforacoupleofissues(seebelow),legalargumentbasedonBlakelyandCunningham ($$ willhaveashortlife.OnMarch30,2007GovernorArnold_Schwarzenegger_Ԁsignedurgency legislationchangingCalifornia'ssentencinglaw.Underthenewlaw,containedinSB40, *&& themidtermisnolongerthepresumptivesentence.Thesentencingjudgehastotaldiscretionindecidingwhethertoimposetheupper,midorlowterm. L $33 L  3    32$3  0    Arguably,SB40shouldnotapplyretroactively,asthatwouldviolatetheexpost  factoclause.(SeeMillerv.Florida(1987)482U.S.423,433[departurefrom  presumptivesentenceunderrevisedsentencingguidelineviolatedexpostfacto   prohibitions];butsee_Dobbert_Ԁv.Florida(1977)432U.S.282[noexpostfacto   violationwheredeathpenaltylawchangedsothatjudge,notjury,madeultimatedecisionwhetherdeathpenaltyshouldbeimposed].) 3݌ (#(# Ќ    3    32$3  0    However,inBookertheSupremeCourtalteredthefederalsentencingsystemand   allowedthealterationtoapplytocasespendingonappealatthattime.Itneverconsideredwhetherthisviolatedexpostfactoprinciples 3݌ (#(# Ќ    3    32$3  0    ChiefJusticeGeorgehaspubliclystatedSB40willnotapplyretroactively.Hemade  thisstatementinaFebruary15radiointerviewwithMichaelKrasnyonNationalPublicRadio.JusticeGeorgesaidSB40 cannot...affect...pastcases. 3݌ (#(# Ќ    3    3R2$3  0    Jeff_Adachi_,thePublicDefenderinSanFrancisco,believesSB40isunconstitutional  becauseCaliforniastriadsentencingsystemdoesnotprovideasufficientrangeofsentencingoptionstoallowajudgegenuineauthoritytosentenceamongarangeofsentences.HisargumentisbasedontheSupremeCourtsstatementinCunningham  thatsomestates havechosentopermitjudgesgenuinely toexercisebroaddiscretion...withinastatutoryrange.(Cunningham,supra,[127S.Ct.atp.871].)  Mr._Adachi_Ԁbelievesthesystemnowinplacestillviolatestheconstitutionalrighttohaveajurydecideallthefactssincegivingjudgesonlythreechoicesdoesnotamounttobroaddiscretionwithinastatutoryrange.HeisconfidentSB40willnotsurviveconstitutionalchallenge.Iamnotsoconfident,butthechallengeshouldbemade,nonetheless. 3R}݌ (#(# Ќ  @SS( III. "   PEOPLEv._TOWNE_,S125677  $  !Cunninghamleftmanyquestionsunanswered.Itwasacasewhereeveryaggravatingfactor &"" involvedthecrimecommitted,andnoneofthefactorswerefoundtruebythejury.Amajorunansweredquestioniswhathappenswhenthesentencingcourtfindsseveralaggravatingfactors,andoneormoreinvolvethedefendantspastcriminality,orrecidivism. )%%   *&& InPeoplev._Towne_,S125677theSupremeCourtaskedforsupplementalbriefingontwo   issues:L $33 L  3    372$3  0    DoCunninghamand_Almendarez_ԄTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224   permitthetrialjudgetoimposetheuppertermbasedonitsownfindingthatthedefendantspriorconvictionsasanadultarenumerousandofincreasingseriousness,thedefendanthasservedapriorprisonterm;thedefendantwasonparolewhenthecrimewascommitted;or,thedefendantspriorperformanceonprobationorparolewasunsatisfactory.ThesearethefouraggravatingfactorslistedinCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule4.421(b)(2)to(b)(5). 37b݌ (#(# Ќ    3    3C 2$3  0    IfthereisasingleaggravatingfactorwhichsatisfiestherequirementsofBlakely(e.g,   defendantadmitsaprisonprior),isthedefendanttheneligiblefortheupperterm,permittingthecourttomakeitsownfindingsonotheraggravatingfactorswithoutviolatingBlakely?(NOTE:thisisthepositiontakeninKennardsdissentingopinion  inBlack.) 3C n ݌(#(# Ќ  TheSupremeCourtwillprobablydecideaggravatingfactorsinvolvingadefendants  criminalhistorycanbedecidedbythejudgeunder_Almendarez_ԄTorresv.UnitedStates,  supra,523U.S.224.Asforthesecondquestion,despiteKennardsconcurringand  dissentingopinioninBlack,courtofappealopinionshavenotadoptedherpositionthatonly  onevalidaggravatingfactorissufficienttosatisfyBlakely.Despitethepresenceofavalid  aggravatingfactorinvolvingrecidivism,appellatecourtshavegenerallyreversedandremandedwherethesentencingcourtalsoreliedoninvalidaggravatingfactorsandthecourtcannotdeterminethattheerrorwasharmless.ItisdifficulttopredictwhattheSupremeCourtwilldecide. A.0  MereFactofPriorConvictionorRecidivism ?(#(# In3  _Almendarez_ԄTorresv.UnitedStates(1998)523U.S.224#  3&#Ԁadefendantpledguiltyand ! admittedhehadsufferedspecifiedpriorconvictions.Thesentencingcourtenhancedthesentencebasedonthosepriorconvictions.TheSupremeCourtheldthedefendanthadnorighttoajurytrialconcerningthepriors.Itreasonedthat3  recidivismwasatraditional $   sentencingfactoranddidnot relatetothecommissionoftheoffense#  3;(#3  (id.atpp.243248) %!! #  3)#andwasthereforenotcoveredbytheconstitutionalguaranteethatallelementsofanoffense &"" mustbefoundbyajurybeyondareasonabledoubt.3  Ԁ  Indiscussing_Almendarez_ԄTorres,theApprendimajoritystated: )%%   *&& d  d*8    Because_Almendarez_ԄTorreshadadmittedthethreeearlierconvictionsfor   aggravatedfeloniesallofwhichhadbeenenteredpursuanttoproceedingswithsubstantialproceduralsafeguardsoftheirownnoquestionconcerningtherighttoajurytrialorthestandardofproofthatwouldapplytoacontestedissueoffactwasbeforetheCourt.(Apprendiv.NewJersey,supra,530U.S.  atp.488[emphasisinoriginal].)d*+݌    Ќ  &  TheCourtlaterconcluded:d  d-8    Boththecertaintythatproceduralsafeguardsattachedtoany factofpriorconviction,andtherealitythat_Almendarez_ԄTorresdidnotchallengetheaccuracyofthat factinhiscase,mitigatedthedueprocessandSixthAmendmentconcernsotherwiseimplicatedinallowingajudgetodeterminea factincreasingpunishmentbeyondthemaximumofthestatutoryrange.(Id.atp.488.)#  3*#d-.݌   Ќ  '  -TheAttorneyGeneralspositionin_Towne_isthatthepriorconvictionexceptiontoBlakely  coversanyfactorrelatingtorecidivism,includingfouroffivefactorslistedinrule4.421(b):0@[ 0  (2)Thedefendantspriorconvictionsasanadultorsustainedpetitionsinjuvenile?+ 4 <DL!X?  delinquencyproceedingsarenumerousorofincreasingseriousness; (#(# 0  (3)Thedefendanthasservedapriorprisonterm; (#(# 0  (4)Thedefendantwasonprobationorparolewhenthecrimewascommitted;and (#(# 0  (5)Thedefendantspriorperformanceonprobationorparolewasunsatisfactory.# 0@[1#(#(# Theappellantspositionin_Towne_isthatthe_Almendarez_ԄTorresexceptionmaynolonger   beviableandisattheveryleastlimitedtothemerefactofapriorconvictionitself.Theonlyfactsajudgecouldfindshouldbelimitedtothefactsnecessarilyestablishedbythepriorjuryfindingordefendantsadmissionsinaplea.Underthisview,thequestionwhetheradefendantservedapriorprisontermorisonprobationorparolerequiresfindingsbeyondthemerefactofapriorconviction.Appellantreliesonthecriticismof_Almendarez_ԄTorresinsubsequentopinions. [I]tis '## arguablethat_Almendarez_ԄTorreswasincorrectlydecided,andthatalogicalapplicationof ($$ ourreasoningtodayshouldapplyiftherecidivistissuewerecontested.(Apprendi,supra, )%%  530U.S.atp.490.)Andinaconcurringopinion,JusticeThomassaidtheholdingof *&& _Almendarez_ԄTorreswasflawedandshouldbereconsideredinanappropriatecase.(Shepard  v.UnitedStates(2005)544U.S.13,2728(conc.opn.ofThomas,J.).)   Unfortunatelyforus,themajorityofcasestoconsidertheissuetaketheviewurgedbytheAttorneyGeneral.ThefollowingcaseshaveheldthejudgecanmakefindingsrelatedtorecidivismwithoutviolatingBlakely:     3    3:2$3  0    UnitedStatesv.Smith(6thCir.2007)474F.3d888[findingdefendantscriminal   historywas extensiveandegregious]) 3::݌ (#(# Ќ    3    3;2$3  0    UnitedStatesv._Alford_(6thCir.2006)436F.3d677,681[findingpriorconviction   involved crimeofviolence] 3;<݌ (#(# Ќ    3    3V=2$3  0    UnitedStatesv.Greer(11thCir.2006)440F.3d1267,12731275[same] 3V==݌ (#(# Ќ    3    3X>2$3  0    UnitedStatesv.Corchado(10thCir.2005)427F.3d815,820[findingthedefendant  wasonprobationattimeofcurrentoffense] 3X>>݌ (#(# Ќ    3    3?2$3  0    UnitedStatesv.Fagans(2ndCir.2005)406F.3d138,142[ thetypeandlengthof  asentenceimposedseemlogicallytofallwithinthisexception] 3??݌ (#(# Ќ    3    3A2$3  0    UnitesStatesv.KempisBonola(8thCir.2002)287F.3d699,703[priorconviction  exceptionappliesto sentencingrelatedcircumstancesofrecidivism] 3A+A݌ (#(# Ќ    3    3fB2$3  0    UnitedStatesv.Santiago(2ndCir.2001)268F.3d151,156[judgescandetermine  the who,what,whenandwhereofapriorconviction] 3fBB݌ (#(# Ќ    3    3C2$3  0    Maryland:Statev.Stewart(Md.2002)791A.2d143,151152[ norighttoajury  trialonmattersrelatedtothebroaderissueofrecidivism] 3CC݌ (#(# Ќ    3    3E2$3  0    Washington:Statev.Jones(Wash.2006)149P.3d636,640641[findingdefendant " wasonprobationattimeofoffense].Connecticut,IndianaandMinnesotaagree.Statev.Fagan(Conn.2006)905A.2d1101,1121;Rylev.State(Ind.2005)842 $  N.E.2d320,323325;Statev.Allen(Minn.2005)706N.W.2d40,4748.Thecourt %!! inJonesreasonedthat [P]robationisadirectderivativeofthedefendantsprior &"" criminalconviction...andthedeterminationinvolvesnothingmorethanareviewofthedefendantsstatusasarepeatoffender.(Jones,supra,149P.3datp.640.) 3EJE݌($$(#(# Ќ  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasalsoadoptedanexpansiveviewofthe_Almendarez_Ԅ *&& TorresexceptioninPeoplev.McGee(2006)38Cal.4th682,69570.Inthatcaseitheldthat +'' thecourt,notthejury,wastheproperentitytoexaminedocumentsconcerningaNevadapriorconvictiontodeterminewhetheritqualifiedasaseriousfelonyinCalifornia.Othercourtstoconsidertheissuehavereachedthesameconclusion.(SeeUnitedStatesv.  Santiago(2dCir.2001)268F.3d151;UnitedStatesv.Reeves(8thCir.2005)410F.3d  1031,1035;UnitedStatesv.Williams(7thCir.2005)410F.3d397,402;seealsoUnited  Statesv.Morris(7thCir.2002)293F.3d1010,1012-1013[norighttoajurytrialonthe   issueofwhetherpriorconvictionswerecommittedonasingleoccasion,forpurposesofthearmedcareer-criminalenhancement].)Therearefewcaseswhichadopttheoppositeviewasurgedbytheappellantin_Towne_.     3    3)M2$3  0    NorthCarolina:Statev.Wissink(N.C.2005)617S.E.2d319[probationarystatus   wasoutsidetheexceptionforapriorconviction] 3)MTM݌ (#(# Ќ    3    3rN2$3  0    Oregon:Statev.Steele(Ore.2006)134P.3d1054[similarpriorconvictionsand  probationarystatuswereoutsidetheexceptionforpriorconvictions] 3rNN݌ (#(# Ќ  Intheshortterm,thereissomehopeonthisissueastheSixthDistrictrecentlyheldinapublishedcasethatthe priorconvictionexceptionshouldbenarrowlyinterpreted,whichisthepositionurgedbyappellantin_Towne_.InPeoplev.Guess(April24,2007)___  Cal.App.4th___[2007_Cal.App.LEXIS_Ԁ646],theanalysisofthecourtofappealmirrorstheargumentpresentedbyappellantin_Towne_.ThecourtnotesthatApprendidescribes  _Almendarez_ԄTorresasan exceptionaldeparturefromtherulethatajurydecidesallfacts,  eventhoserelatedtosentencing.ItquotedtheportionofApprendiwheretheSupreme  Courtnotedthatin_Almendarez_ԄTorresthedefendanthadadmittedthepriorconvictions, all  ofwhichhadbeenenteredpursuanttoproceedingswithsubstantialproceduralsafeguardsoftheirown.(Apprendi,supra,530U.S.atp.488.)ThecourtinGuessstated,aswehave  beenconsistentlyarguing, ItisquestionablewhetheramajorityofthecurrentU.S.SupremeCourtsupportsthisexception.TheSixthDistrictthenheldthedefendantsparolestatusdoesnotcomewithingthe priorconvictionexception.Thecourtthenreversedandremandedtheuppertermsentencebecauseallfivefactorsparolestatusandfourfactorsconcerningthewaythecrimewascommitted shouldhavefirstbeenfoundbyajury.&  Thenarrowinterpretationofthe priorconvictionexceptionistheminorityview,however. %!! GiventheantipathytoBlakely(asreflectedinBlack)andgivenitsviewsexpressedin &"" McGee,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtislikelytofindthe_Almendarez_ԄTorresexception '## appliestoabroaderrangeofrecidivismfactors,andnotonlytothemerefactofapriorconviction. '%V *&& Ifyouchoosetolitigatethisissueyoushouldbepreparedtofileacert.petitionwiththe UnitedStatesSupremeCourt.ThisissuecannotberaisedinafederalhabeaspetitionbecausetheAEDPAstandardcannotbemet.Itisverydifficulttoarguetheviewtakenbyamajorityofcourts(includingmostfederalcircuits)iscontraryto,oranunreasonableapplicationof,UnitedStatesSupremeCourtprecedent. B.0  DoesOneValidAggravatingFactorSatisfyBlakely?  (#(# In_Towne_,appellantwasacquittedofcarjacking,kidnapping,robbery,grandtheft,criminal   threats,kidnappingforcarjackingandkidnappingtocommitrobbery.Hewasonlyconvictedofunlawfultakingofavehicle.(Veh.Code,10851.)Thecourtimposedtheuppertermafterfindingappellantterrifiedthevictim,appellantwasaninnocentofsorts(amitigatingfactor),andappellanthadalengthy(tenyear)criminalhistory.TheSupremeCourthassoughtbriefingonthequestionwhetherBlakelyissatisfiedifthereisasingle   aggravatingfactorwhichiseitherfoundbythejury,admittedbythedefendant,orsubjecttothe_Almendarez_ԄTorresexception.  TheAttorneyGeneralcontendsthat thepresenceofasinglecircumstanceinaggravationrendersadefendanteligiblefortheuppertermandprovidesthetrialcourtwiththestatutory  authoritytoimposetheupperterm.(RespondentsSupplementalBrief.)Thus,itargues  thatatrialcourtacquiresthelegalauthoritytoimposeanuppertermupontheinitialfindingofasingleaggravatingcircumstanceratherthanuponanysubsequentweighingprocess.TheAttorneyGeneralalsocontendsthepresenceofasingleaggravatingfactorwhichsatisfiesBlakelyrendersanyerrorharmlessbecausethesinglevalidfactormadedefendant  eligiblefortheupperterm.Underthisview,eveniftherearenorecidivistfactors,iftheappellatecourtdeterminesbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthejurywouldhavefoundatleastoneoftheaggravatingcircumstancestobetrue,theerrorisharmless.Oncethisfindingismadebytheappellatecourt, thereviewingcourtdoesnotneedtofurtherdeterminewhetherthetrialcourtwouldhavesentencedthedefendanttothesameuppertermsentenceinlightoftheCunninghamerror. " TheAttorneyGeneralsargumentfindssupportinJusticeKennardsconcurringanddissentingopinioninBlack: Oncetheuppertermbecamethestatutorymaximuminthis %!! manner,defendant'srighttojurytrialunderthefederalConstitution'sSixthAmendmentwassatisfied,andthetrialcourtonitsownproperlycould--anddid--makeadditionalfindingsofoffense-basedaggravatingcircumstancesinsupportofitsdiscretionarysentencechoicetoimposetheupperterm.(Peoplev.Black,supra,35Cal.4thatp.1270,(conc.anddis. )%% opn.ofKennard,J.).) +'' AppellantspositionisthatifthesentencingcourtreliesonamixtureoffactorswhichcomplywithBlakelyandotherswhichdonot,thereisaconstitutionalviolation.Underthis  view,thepresenceofasinglevalidaggravatingfactordoesnotmakeadefendanteligiblefortheuppertermsincethecourtmustfirstassessthevalueoftheaggravatingfactorandfinditsufficienttojustifytheimpositionoftheupperterm.Theimpositionoftheuppertermisjustifiedonlyifcircumstancesinaggravationexistandthey outweighcircumstancesinmitigation.(Peoplev.Hall(1994)8Cal.4th950,957.)Asforprejudice,appellant   contendsthatunlessthereviewingcourtcandeterminethatthefactorswhichviolateBlakely   didnotcontributetothedeterminationthataggravationjustifiedtheupperterm,itcannotfindtheerrorharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt.Herearesomethoughts:  3    3Fi2$3  0    Todate,theCaliforniacourtsofappeal,includingtheSixthDistrict,areadoptingthe   positionarguedbytheappellantin_Towne_.DespiteKennardsviewsexpressedin  Black,Ihavenotseenasinglecasewheretheappellatecourthasheldasinglevalid  aggravatingfactormeansthereisnoviolationofBlakelyorrenderstheerror  harmless. 3Fiqi݌ (#(# Ќ    3    3k2$3  0    CitingPeoplev.Hill(2005)131Cal.App.4th1089,TheAttorneyGeneral  consistentlyarguesanyBlakelyissueiswaivedifnoobjectionwasmadeonBlakely  groundsinthesuperiorcourt.TheSixthDistricthasconsistentlyrejectedthisargument.(See,e.g.,Peoplev.Guess,supra,___Cal.App.4thatp.___[2007  _Cal.App.LEXIS_Ԁ646,atp.30].)Hillinvolvedasentencingwhichoccurredafter  BlakelybutbeforeBlack.Atthattime,aBlakelychallengehadgreatpotential.After  Blackwasdecided,anyobjectiontoanuppertermsentenceonBlakelygrounds  wouldhavebeenfutile.Anappellateclaimisnotforfeitedifanobjectionwouldhavebeenfutile. 3kk݌ (#(# Ќ    3    3o2$3  0    AsyoucontinueraisingBlakelyissuesyoumustargueprejudice.In3  Washingtonv. ! _Recuenco_(2006)548U.S.___[126S.Ct.2546,165L.Ed.2d466]theUnitedStates " SupremeCourtheldthatBlakely/Apprendierrorisnotstructuralerror,andissubject # toharmlesserroranalysis.(Id.atpp.#  3p#Ԁ3  25512553;165L.Ed.2datpp.474477.)The $  CourtanalogizedtoNederv.UnitedStates(1999)527U.S.1,8,whichapplied %!! harmlesserroranalysistothefailuretoobtainajuryfindingonanelementoftheoffense.NotingthatafterApprendi,sentencingfactorshadbeentreatedaselements '## thathadtobetriedtoajuryandprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt,theCourtconcludedthatthesameruleofprejudiceaswasappliedtotheerrorinNedershould )%%  apply#  3