ÿWPC˜ ¬›B‹Œ;.RgüXIByü~5{¸Ã‘ËÆ5" ×+‡SîTƒ6 ¹Ÿ¶ð *¹u6­ƒîd¸Xaš~’=?|á¶  ÐsÖJß‘ÄÌJüÔ@jÅ%QýÓÝsoK‚UUâ²Ó°Õ™“lb»KXv€dPÐ_ZyË×ÿU×Ã?³ÃP¡E¿]PõMM3›¿ëš”ùЃK@ñR÷Ü|sΓ†äÖÉõáª+¬ÅJ¡‡u0i°£DmÙÓÁÑ‚?~¼P÷×'#½ýJ‚KC·èâÎÚ@•ƒŽ,ókÁ#ä. !bVjs1Õ2zZζqt3À¡näV&s¶Äé¹47d$1§ûê7 ¶b¶U8Û ½UݯYŸÀ(J.K}š-»Zª:-ë2€dm¢ –§ÔœÊV{!QïlÁ€€F¨~¸ýö€|ÿ Aw‚ÊÔ€¿u{ï©Ë‚Ñ2Än̯ÖÌ·5WL}¶Fc£´V) ¯^¦"„mü¨Šp2õ:®-¶ó" AþiÁÚ|éÕ¼3%ÆòNH…1éö2ôXE!éugˆmFŸc|,–ó½QU;Û±yÃÒŽ–§ªuú¯‚ðŒ–å\šñÛée!åâO*u„šÞV‰öûƒZKW#!ÂUNã %1 0(7^ _w@k4«¿Î mÐb çÂó 0lµ 0D!eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee B{˜HP LaserJet 4ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡¶œ4‰ r [s [t [u [v [w [x [y [z E| [iu3@Þ0orel03|x| ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù - ¸Ô_ÔÔ€Š¢¶‹XXÔÓ  Ó1.à0  àIt€is€noteworthy€that€òòMyersóó€did€not€overrule€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô€óó(1983)€33€Cal.3dÐ ° Ð623.€€òòÔ_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ôóó€construed€Penal€Code€section€667.5,€subdivisions€(b)€and€(f),€andÐ ° Ðdetermined€that€the€elements€of€a€foreign€conviction€must€match€the€elements€of€aÏCalifornia€felony€before€a€one€year€prison€prior€enhancement€could€be€imposed.€ÏHowever,€òòÔ_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ôóó€was€overruled€in€òòPeople€v.€Riel€óó(2000)€22€Cal.4th€1153,€1205.€Ð ° ÐTo€have€the€court€overrule€its€17„year„old€interpretation€of€section€667.5,€which€hadÏnever€been€questioned€by€the€Legislature,€was€unusual€to€say€the€least.€€Plus,€òòMyersóóÐ °  Ðdetermined€that€it€did€not€have€to€follow€òòÔ_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô€óóas€to€section€667,€subdivision€(a)Ð °  Ðpriors€because€the€statutory€schemes€were€distinguishable.€€In€òòRielóó,€it€overruledÐ °  ÐòòÔ_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ôóó€because€it€said€the€schemes€were€not€distinguishable.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ñ  Ñ dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€Š¢¶‹XXÔÓ  ÓÑ€ ÑÑ8€6XXdìdÈ8ÑÑ€NÑI.à8  àTHE€HUGE€UNRESOLVED€QUESTION€ABOUT€PRIOR€CONVICTIONS,Ð ° ÐOR€WHY€DO€òòÔ_ÔALMENDAREZÔ_Ô„TORRES€óóAND€òòÔ_ÔMONGEÔ_Ô€óóSURVIVE€WHENÐ ° ÐFIVE€JUSTICES€OF€THE€U.S.€SUPREME€COURT€HAVE€SAID€THEYÏWERE€WRONGLY€DECIDED?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓà  àÔ_ÔJurisprudentiallyÔ_Ô€speaking,€the€issues€of€whether€there€is€a€jury€trial€right€and€doubleÏjeopardy€protection€accorded€in€the€trial€of€prior€conviction€allegations€have€made€the€U.S.ÏSupreme€Court€look€very€bad.€€The€story€is€familiar€to€you€criminal€procedure€buffs.€€First,Ïin€August,€1997,€in€€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔMongeÔ_Ô€óó(1997)€16€Cal.4th€826,€the€California€Supreme€CourtÐ °  Ðin€a€4„3€decision€overruled€òòsub€Ô_ÔsilentioÔ_Ôóó€lower€court€precedent€and€decided€that€the€retrial€ofÐ °  Ða€prior€conviction€allegation,€after€the€prosecution€produced€insufficient€evidence€at€the€firstÏtrial,€was€not€prohibited€by€either€the€state€or€federal€double€jeopardy€clauses.Ìà  àThen,€in€March,€1998,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€decided€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„TorresÐ ° Ðv.€United€States€óó(1998)€523€U.S.€224.€€The€court€said€that€an€allegation€that€a€person€hadÐ ° Ðbeen€convicted€of€an€aggravated€felony,€which€upped€the€maximum€term€for€entry€by€anÏalien€who€has€been€previously€deported,€did€not€have€to€be€proved€to€a€jury.€€That€was€a€5„4Ïdecision,€based€on€statutory€grounds.€€Justice€Scalia€wrote€the€dissent,€saying€he€would€notÏso€construe€the€statute€because€to€do€so€would€raise€grave€constitutional€doubts,€which€heÏwould€avoid€resolving,€about€whether€the€prior€conviction€was€an€"element"of€the€offenseÏand€therefore€had€to€be€proved€to€a€jury.Ìà  àThen,€just€a€few€months€later€in€June,€1998,€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€affirmed€òòPeopleÐ °'## Ðv.€Ô_ÔMongeÔ_Ôóó€in€another€5„4€decision,€with€the€same€line€up€as€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„Torres.€€óó(òòÔ_ÔMongeÔ_Ô€v.Ð °)%% ÐCalifornia€óó(1998)€524€U.S.€721.)€€This€time,€Justice€Scalia€dissented€on€the€basis€that€theÐ °+'' Ðstrike€prior€allegation€which€doubled€Ô_ÔMongeÔ_Ôððs€term€was€an€element€of€the€offense,€and€thatÏconsequently€a€federal€constitutional€right€to€both€a€jury€trial€and€double€jeopardy€protectionÏexisted.€€Justice€Scalia€crossed€the€Rubicon€of€constitutional€interpretation€he€hadÏcontemplated€in€his€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„Torresóó€dissent.€€Still,€5„4,€the€defendant€lost.Ð °  Ðà  àIn€1999,€the€court€confronted€a€similar€issue€in€òòJones€v.€United€States€óó(1999)€526Ð °  ÐU.S.€227.€€The€question€there€was€whether€a€federal€statute€with€three€different€sentencingÏranges,€depending€on€whether€serious€bodily€injury€or€death€resulted€from€a€Ô_ÔcarjackingÔ_Ô,Ïdefined€three€different€offenses,€or€one€offense€in€which€the€judge€could€determine€whetherÏthe€aggravating€facts€existed.€€This€time,€the€defendant€won€5„4.€€The€difference?€€JusticeÏClarence€Thomas€moved€to€the€defendantððs€side.€€The€statute€was€construed€to€establishÏthree€separate€offenses,€such€that€a€jury€would€have€to€find€whether€serious€bodily€injury€orÏdeath€had€resulted€before€the€steeper€sentence€for€either€could€be€imposed.€€Although€theÏbasis€for€the€majorityððs€opinion€was€to€avoid€the€serious€constitutional€questions€that€wouldÏattend€the€contrary€interpretation,€it€appeared€that€Justice€Scaliaððs€views€had€gained€a€crucialÏadherentÌà  àThat€proved€to€be€the€case€the€following€year€in€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ô€v.€New€Jerseyóó€(2000)€530Ð °" ÐU.S.€466.€€New€Jersey€permitted€a€judge€to€increase€the€sentence€for€any€offense€if€the€judgeÏfound€that€the€crime€was€committed€with€the€purpose€to€intimidate€on€the€basis€of€race.€€TheÏmajority€in€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ô€óóembraced€the€constitutional€principle€that€ð ðother€than€the€fact€of€a€priorÐ °($$ Ðconviction,€any€fact€that€increases€the€penalty€for€a€crime€beyond€the€prescribed€statutoryÐ °*&& Ðmaximum€must€be€submitted€to€a€jury,€and€proved€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.Ð ° Ð489.)Ìà  àòòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó€clearly€eroded€the€foundations€of€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„Torres.óó€€The€majority€allowedÐ ° Ðthat€ð ðit€is€arguable€that€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„Torresóó€was€incorrectly€decided,€and€that€a€logicalÐ °  Ðapplication€of€our€reasoning€today€should€apply€if€the€recidivist€issue€were€contested€.€.€.€.ðð€Ï(530€U.S.€at€pp.€489„490.)€€But€the€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó€majority€refused€to€overrule€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„TorresóóÐ °  Ðbecause€ð ðñz ññy ñòòñy ññz ññy ññx ñòòñx ññy ññx ññw ñòòñw ññx ññw ññv ñòòñv ññw ññv ññu ñòòñu ññv ññu ññt ñòòñt ññu ññt ññs ñòòñs ññt ññs ññr ñòòñr ññs ññr ññq ñòòñq ññr ñÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôñz ñóóñz ñ€does€not€contest€the€decisionððs€validity€and€we€need€not€revisit€it€forÏpurposes€of€our€decision€today€to€treat€the€case€as€a€narrow€exception€to€the€general€rule€weÏrecalled€at€the€outset.ðð€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€490.)€€ñ| ñòòñ| ñApprendiñ| ñóóñ| ñ€did€limit€the€scope€of€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„TorresóóÐ ° Ðby€saying:€ð ðBoth€the€certainty€that€procedural€safeguards€attached€to€any€'fact'€of€priorÏconvictions,€and€the€reality€that€Ô_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„Torres€did€not€challenge€the€accuracy€of€thatÏ'fact'€in€his€case,€mitigated€the€due€process€and€Sixth€Amendment€concerns€otherwiseÏimplicated€in€allowing€a€judge€to€determine€a€'fact'€increasing€punishment€beyond€theÏmaximum€of€the€statutory€range.ðð€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€488.)Ð ° Ðà  àAlso,€Justice€Thomas€wrote€an€extensive€concurrence€in€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó€tracing€theÐ °  ÐAmerican€history€of€the€use€of€aggravating€facts€and€prior€convictions€to€increaseÏpunishment,€and€concluded€that€all€such€facts€had€been€treated€as€elements€of€the€offenseÏuntil€the€U.S.€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòÔ_ÔMcMillanÔ_Ô€v.€Pennsylvania€óó(1980)€477€U.S.€79.Ð °&"" ÐJustice€Thomas€indicated€that€both€òòÔ_ÔMcMillanÔ_Ô€óóand€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„Torres€óówere€inconsistent€withÐ °($$ Ðhis€constitutional€analysis.Ð °*&& Ðà  àThus,€it€seemed€as€though€the€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„Torresóó€ð ðrecidivismðð€exception,€allowingÐ ° Ðincreased€punishment€based€on€prior€convictions€allegations€which€could€be€proved€by€aÏmere€preponderance€to€a€judge,€was€headed€for€speedy€oblivion.€€Five€justices€of€the€U.S.ÏSupreme€Court€had€said€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„Torresóó€was€wrongly€decided,€and€the€majority€inÐ °  ÐòòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó€limited€it€strictly€to€its€facts,€one€of€which€was€that€the€defendant€had€òòadmittedóó€andÐ °  Ðnot€contested€the€truth€of€the€alleged€prior€convictions.€€Surely,€many€thought,€a€case€wouldÏbe€decided€in€the€next€term€of€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€that€would€clarify€the€definition€ofÏð ðelementðð€of€a€crime€to€include€a€prior€conviction€allegation€which€increased€punishment.€ÏThe€four€dissenters€in€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„Torresóó€and€Justice€Thomas,€it€was€thought,€would€accordÐ ° Ðconstitutional€protections€to€the€trial€of€prior€conviction€allegations€and€overruleÏòòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„Torresóó€and,€inexorably,€òòÔ_ÔMongeÔ_Ô.Ð ° Ðà  àóóAlmost€six€years€later,€we€are€still€waiting€for€those€five€members€of€the€court€to€haltÐ ° Ðwhat€they€clearly€believe€is€the€unconstitutional€practice€of€having€judges€decide€priorÏconviction€allegations€based€on€a€preponderance€standard,€with€no€double€jeopardyÏprotection€in€cases€in€which€the€prosecution€presented€insufficient€evidence€or€in€which€theÏdefendant€obtained€a€favorable€verdict€in€the€trial€court.€€What€has€been€holding€them€up?€ÏWas€it€the€vehemence€of€the€dissents€in€òòJones€óóand€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó,€which€claimed€the€majorityÐ °$  Ðview€ð ðÔ_Ôthreaten[edÔ_Ô]€the€Ô_ÔworkabilityÔ_Ô€of€every€criminal€justice€systemðð€€(530€U.S.€at€p.€565Ï(Ô_ÔBreyerÔ_Ô,€J.,€dissenting))€and€created€doubt€about€the€constitutionality€of€the€confinement€ofÏmany€prisoners?€Ð °*&& Ðà  àWhatever€the€reason,€the€lengthy€tolerance€of€widespread€practices€concerning€theÏtrial€of€prior€conviction€allegations€which€a€majority€of€the€court€regard€as€unconstitutionalÏis€a€blot€on€the€courtððs€record€as€guardian€of€constitutional€rights.Ìà  àWith€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€in€such€a€rationally€indefensible€position,€what€haveÏour€California€courts€done€in€response?€€The€answer€is,€as€little€as€possible.€€The€CaliforniaÏSupreme€Court€in€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔEppsÔ_Ô€óó(2001)€25€Cal.4th€19,€reaffirmed€its€holding€in€òòPeople€v.Ð °  ÐÔ_ÔKeliiÔ_Ôóó€(1999)€21€Cal.4th€452,€that€a€defendant€had€neither€a€constitutional€nor€a€statutory€rightÐ °  Ðto€trial€by€jury€on€the€issue€of€whether€a€prior€conviction€suffered€by€the€defendant€was€orÏwas€not€a€strike,€at€least€where€ð ðonly€the€bare€fact€of€the€prior€conviction€was€at€issue."€€(25ÏCal.4th€at€p.€28.)€€However,€it€did€concede€that€ð ðwe€do€not€now€decide€how€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó€wouldÐ ° Ðapply€were€we€faced€with€a€situation€like€the€one€at€issue€in€òòÔ_ÔKeliiÔ_Ôóó,€where€some€fact€neededÐ ° Ðto€be€proved€regarding€the€circumstances€of€the€prior€conviction€„€„€such€as€whether€a€priorÏburglary€was€residential€„€„€in€order€to€establish€that€the€conviction€is€a€serious€felony.ðð€Ï(òòIbidóó.)€€In€òòÔ_ÔEppsÔ_Ô,óó€the€alleged€strike€prior€was€kidnapping,€a€ð ðper€seðð€serious€felony.Ð ° Ðà  àIn€February,€2004,€the€First€District€Court€of€Appeal€decided€this€precise€issue€inÏòòPeople€v.€McGee,óó€formerly€published€at€115€Cal.App.4th€814,€review€granted.€€There€twoÐ °" ÐNevada€robbery€convictions€were€alleged€as€strike€priors.€€However,€the€Nevada€robberyÏstatute€permitted€the€force€or€fear€element€to€be€satisfied€by€fear€of€future€harm€to€aÏcompanion€of€the€person€being€robbed,€while€California€law€limits€such€fear€to€immediateÏharm.€€Also,€robbery€in€California€requires€an€intent€to€permanently€deprive€the€victim€ofÐ °*&& Ðproperty,€while€Nevada€required€only€a€taking€of€the€property.€€Since€the€elements€of€the€twoÏrobbery€statutes€did€not€match,€there€had€to€be€a€determination€of€whether€appellantððsÏconduct€would€constitute€robbery€under€California€law.€€€(òòPeople€v.€Myers€óó(1993)€5€Cal.4thÐ ° Ð1193.)ò òòò׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×óóó óÐ °  Ðà  àThe€First€District€held€that€the€determination€of€whether€defendant's€conductÏconstituted€robbery€as€defined€in€California€had€to€be€made€by€a€jury,€not€a€judge€asÏoccurred€in€òòMcGee.óó€€"We€cannot€reconcile€with€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó€the€notion€that€a€judge€may,€in€theÐ °  Ðfirst€instance,€make€a€factual€determination€about€a€criminal€defendant's€intent,€and€then€useÏthat€factual€determination€to€increase€substantially€the€maximum€term€to€which€theÏdefendant€will€be€subjected."€€(115€Cal.App.4th€at€p.€834.)€€However,€òòMcGeeóó€found€thatÐ ° ÐòòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó€error€of€this€type€was€not€structural€by€a€far€fetched€analogy€to€cases€in€which€aÐ ° Ðjury€had€not€been€instructed€on€all€elements€of€an€offense.€€It€then€reviewed€the€evidenceÏfrom€the€plea€transcript€in€one€prior€conviction,€and€the€preliminary€examination€transcriptÏin€the€other,€and€found€the€error€was€harmless.€€Ð ° Ðà  àNonetheless,€the€California€Superior€Court€granted€review,€and€the€case€was€orallyÏargued€on€March€7.€€Published€reports€indicate€that€a€majority€of€the€court€seemed€inclinedÏtoward€the€view€that€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó€said€prior€convictions€are€an€exception,€and€that's€goodÐ ° Ðenough€for€us.Ìà  àCurrently,€the€California€Supreme€Court€also€has€before€it€the€case€of€òòPeople€v.Ð °  ÐTrujilloóó,€S130080.€€In€this€case,€in€which€I€am€appellate€counsel,€the€defendant€had€two€priorÐ °  Ðstrike€convictions€alleged.€€Following€conviction€by€jury,€Trujillo€waived€jury€for€the€trialÏof€the€prior€conviction€allegations.€€The€trial€judge€found€that€one€of€the€alleged€priorÏconvictions€was€not€a€strike.€€That€prior€conviction€was€for€infliction€of€corporal€injury€onÏa€spouse/Ô_ÔcohabitantÔ_Ô,€not€a€"per€se"€serious€felony€under€the€Three€Strikes€law.€€However,€theÏprosecutor€alleged€it€qualified€because€defendant€had€personally€used€a€dangerous€or€deadlyÏweapon.€€To€back€up€this€allegation,€the€prosecutor€introduced€defendant's€admission€in€theÏprobation€report€that€he€had€stuck€his€Ô_ÔcohabitantÔ_Ô€with€a€knife.€€However,€the€plea€colloquyÏwas€also€introduced,€which€showed€that€the€prosecution€had€originally€alleged€personal€useÏof€a€dangerous€or€deadly€weapon,€but€had€dismissed€the€allegation€in€exchange€for€the€pleaÏof€guilty€to€the€offense.€€Trial€counsel€argued€that€the€court€should€not€go€beyond€theÏelements€of€the€offense€pled€to,€and€the€judge€said€finding€personal€use€would€deny€theÏdefendant€the€benefit€of€his€prior€bargain.€€He€found€that€the€conviction€qualified€as€a€prisonÏprior,€but€not€a€strike.Ìà  àThe€DA€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€from€the€sentence€imposed.€€At€the€time€the€case€wasÐ °*&& Ðbriefed€in€the€Court€of€Appeal,€the€Supreme€Court€had€pending€the€issue€of€whether€thereÏwas€a€statutory€right€under€Penal€Code€section€1238€to€appeal€a€not€true€finding€followingÏtrial€of€a€prior€conviction€allegation.€€The€Sixth€District€Court€of€Appeal€decided€in€anÏunpublished€opinion€that€the€People€had€such€a€right.€€We€petitioned€for€review,€and€wereÏgranted€and€held€in€February,€2005,€for€the€lead€case,€which€had€been€fully€briefed€for€a€yearÏand€a€half€at€that€point.€€In€May,€2005,€the€court€ordered€me€to€file€a€brief€on€the€merits,€andÏmade€òòTrujilloóó€the€lead€case.€€I€then€did€something€I€should€have€done€a€long€time€before,Ð °  Ðwhich€is€read€the€briefing€in€the€former€lead€case.€€In€so€doing,€I€discovered€that€the€attorneyÏin€the€lead€case€had,€in€arguing€that€appeal€was€not€permitted€under€two€subdivisions€ofÏsection€1238,€tried€to€buttress€his€argument€by€improvidently€asserting€that€it€was€permittedÏunder€a€third€subdivision€that€had€not€been€relied€upon€by€the€People.Ìà  àI€will€not€belabor€you€with€the€somewhat€byzantine€legislative€history€and€statutoryÏconstruction€arguments€about€whether€subdivisions€(a)(1),€(a)(8)€or€(a)(10)€authorize€aÏPeopleððs€appeal€of€a€not€true€finding.€€The€California€Supreme€Court€will€finally€resolveÏthese€issues€in€òòTrujilloóó€at€some€point.€€However,€I€did€want€to€alert€you€that€there€areÐ °  Ðarguments€to€be€made,€at€least€in€situations€like€òòMcGee€óóand€òòTrujillo,€óóthat€there€is€a€federalÐ °" Ðconstitutional€right€both€to€jury€trial€and€to€double€jeopardy€protection€as€to€factual€issuesÏabout€a€prior€conviction€that€were€not€resolved€in€the€prior€conviction€proceedings.€€I€madeÏthose€arguments€in€an€attempt€to€persuade€the€court€that€it€should€not€construe€section€1238Ïto€permit€a€Peopleððs€appeal,€for€to€do€so€would€raise€serious€and€doubtful€constitutionalÐ °*&& Ðquestions.€€I€argued€that€such€questions€would€arise€under€both€the€federal€and€stateÏconstitutional€double€jeopardy€clauses.€€As€to€the€federal€clause,€I€point€to€the€inconsistencyÏbetween€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„Torres€óóand€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ô,€óóthe€limited€reading€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„Torresóó€was€givenÐ ° Ðin€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó,€and€the€fact€that€five€members€of€the€court€have€stated€that€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„TorresóóÐ °  Ðwas€wrongly€decided.Ìà  àI€also€discussed€the€recent€case€of€òòShepard€v.€United€States€óó(March€7,€2005)€544€U.S.Ð °  Ð13.€€In€that€case,€the€U.S.€Supreme€Court€rejected€an€attempt€to€prove€that€a€state€convictionÏqualified€as€a€violent€prior€felony€conviction€under€the€federal€Armed€Career€Criminal€Act.€ÏUnder€this€federal€law,€a€prior€conviction€for€burglary€of€a€building€is€a€violent€felony,€andÏa€person€with€three€violent€priors€who€possesses€a€firearm€faces€a€15€year€mandatoryÏminimum€sentence.€€Shepard€had€four€prior€convictions€under€a€state€burglary€statute€thatÏincluded€buildings,€boats€and€motor€vehicles.€€The€complaints€to€which€Shepard€had€pledÏguilty€alleged€all€the€statutory€variations€as€to€the€object€of€the€burglary.€€Thus,€theÏcomplaints€did€not€establish€that€the€convictions€were€necessarily€for€burglary€of€a€building.ÏThe€prosecution€introduced€police€reports€which€had€been€submitted€to€obtain€theÏcomplaints,€which€indicated€that€Shepard€had€burglarized€buildings.Ìà  àThe€majority€in€òòShepardóó€stated€that€it€was€adhering€to€its€prior€decision€in€òòTaylor€v.Ð °$  ÐUnited€States€óó(1990)€495€U.S.€575,€which€limited€a€judge€sentencing€under€the€Ô_ÔACCAÔ_Ô€toÐ °&"" Ðlooking€at€the€statutory€elements,€charging€documents€and€jury€instructions€to€determine€ifÏa€prior€conviction€qualified€as€violent.€€ð ð[A]€later€court€determining€the€character€of€anÐ °*&& Ðadmitted€burglary€is€generally€limited€to€examining€the€statutory€definition,€chargingÏdocument,€written€plea€agreement,€transcript€or€plea€colloquy,€and€any€explicit€factualÏfinding€of€the€judge€to€which€the€defendant€assented.ðð€€(544€U.S.€at€p.€____€[161€Led€2d€atÏp.€211].)Ìà  àOne€of€the€reasons€the€court€gave€for€its€ruling€was€that€to€permit€fact€finding€outsideÏsuch€sources€would€create€constitutional€issues€as€to€whether€such€fact€finding€would€triggerÏthe€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ôóó€right€to€jury€trial.€€ð ðWhile€the€disputed€fact€here€can€be€described€as€a€factÐ °  Ðabout€a€prior€conviction,€it€is€too€far€removed€from€the€conclusive€significance€of€a€priorÏjudicial€record,€and€too€much€like€the€findings€subject€to€òòJones€óóand€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ô,€óóto€say€thatÐ ° ÐòòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„Torres€óóclearly€authorizes€a€judge€to€resolve€the€dispute.ðð€€(òòId.€óóat€p.€____€[161Ð ° ÐLed€2d€at€p.€217].)Ìà  àOn€the€state€constitutional€side,€I€urged€the€California€Supreme€Court€to€recognizeÏthe€dubious€validity€of€the€òòÔ_ÔMongeÔ_Ô€óóplurality€opinion,€how€it€ignored€contrary€California€CourtÐ ° Ðof€Appeal€precedent,€and€rested€on€the€erroneous€assumptions€that€trials€of€prior€convictionÏwere€ð ðperfunctory,ðð€their€outcomes€ð ðpredictable,ðð€the€risk€of€an€erroneous€result€ð ðslight,ðð€andÏthat€the€ð ðembarrassment,€expense€and€anxiety€of€trying€a€prior€conviction€allegation€areÏrelatively€minor.ðð€€(òòÔ_ÔMongeÔ_Ô,€supraóó,€16€Cal.4th€at€p.€845€(plur.€opn.€of€Chin,€J.).€€I€include€myÐ °$  Ðbriefing€of€these€points€from€both€my€brief€on€the€merits€and€reply€brief€on€the€merits€inÏòòTrujillo.Ð °($$ ÐÐ °*&& ÐóóÓÓII.à8  àWHAT€ARE€THE€LIMITS€OF€THE€ð ðRECORD€OF€CONVICTIONððÐ ° ÐWHICH€A€COURT€MAY€CONSIDER€AND€WHAT€ARE€THEÏEVIDENTIARY€LIMITATIONS€ON€THE€USE€OF€SUCH€DOCUMENTS?Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓà  àIn€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔGuerreroÔ_Ô€óó(1988)€44€Cal.3d€343,€the€California€Supreme€Court€overruled€Ð ° ÐòòPeople€v.€Alfaro€óó(1986)€42€Cal.3d€627€and€held€that€proof€that€a€prior€conviction€qualifiedÐ °  Ðas€a€serious€felony€was€not€limited€to€the€elements€necessarily€adjudicated€in€the€priorÏproceeding.€€òòAlfaroóó€had€held€that€a€conviction€of€burglary€in€which€a€defendant€was€chargedÐ °  Ðwith€burglary€of€a€residence€and€plead€guilty€ð ðas€set€forth€in€the€information,ðð€did€notÏqualify,€because€under€the€burglary€statute€as€it€read€at€the€time€of€the€offense,€proof€that€theÏburglary€was€of€a€residence€was€not€an€element€of€the€offense.Ìà  àThe€òòÔ_ÔGuerreroÔ_Ô€óócourt€knew€it€wanted€to€overrule€òòAlfaroóó,€and€cover€the€situation€inÐ ° Ðwhich€a€non„element€fact€which€made€the€prior€conviction€serious€was€pled€in€the€chargingÏdocument€and€the€defendant€pled€guilty€as€charged.€€However,€it€was€very€vague€about€theÏcontours€of€its€new€rule€that€ð ða€trier€of€fact€may€look€to€the€entire€record€of€the€conviction.ðð€Ï(44€Cal.3d€at€p.€355.)€€The€òòÔ_ÔGuerreroÔ_Ôóó€majority€justified€its€new€rule€as€reasonable,€becauseÐ ° Ðit€promoted€the€ð ðefficient€administration€of€justiceðð€òòóóand€the€intent€of€the€people€in€definingÐ °  Ðthe€enhancement€in€terms€of€conduct,€not€a€specific€crime.€€It€also€said€that€not€allowing€theÏtrier€to€go€further€than€the€record€ð ðbars€the€prosecution€from€Ô_ÔrelitigatingÔ_Ô€the€circumstancesÏof€a€crime€committed€years€ago€.€.€.ðð€€(òòIbidóó.)€€The€majority€added€what€I€would€call€a€ð ðfuzzyÐ °&"" Ðfootnote.ðð€€ð ðIn€this€case€we€are€not€called€on€to€resolve€such€questions€as€what€items€in€theÏrecord€of€conviction€are€admissible€and€for€what€purpose€or€whether€on€the€peculiar€factsÐ °*&& Ðof€an€individual€case€the€application€of€the€rule€set€forth€herein€might€violate€theÏconstitutional€rights€of€a€criminal€defendant.ðð€€(òòIdóó.,€at€p.€356,€fn.€1.)Ð ° Ðà  àThe€California€Supreme€Court€revisited€òòÔ_ÔGuerreroÔ_Ô€óóin€òòPeople€v.€Reed€óó(1996)€13Ð ° ÐCal.4th€217.€€òòReedóó€established€that€a€preliminary€examination€transcript€was€part€of€theÐ °  Ðð ðrecord€of€convictionðð€which€could€be€examined€by€the€trier€of€a€prior€conviction€allegation,Ïð ðbecause€the€procedural€protections€afforded€the€defendant,€and€the€accuracy€of€a€reporterððsÏtranscript,€make€such€evidence€relatively€reliable.ðð€€(òòIdóó.€at€p.€230.)€€It€said€that€theÐ °  Ðpreliminary€examination€transcript€came€within€the€official€records€hearsay€exception.€€It€Ïalso€said€that€the€testimony€came€within€the€hearsay€exception€for€prior€recorded€testimonyÏ(Ô_ÔEvÔ_Ô.€Code,€ðð€1291),€because€of€the€defendantððs€prior€opportunity€and€incentive€to€cross„¼examine€the€witnesses,€and€because€the€witnesses€were€ð ðunavailableðð€due€to€the€òòÔ_ÔGuerreroÔ_ÔóóÐ ° Ðrule€that€the€prosecution€could€not€go€beyond€the€record€of€conviction€to€prove€the€truth€ofÏthe€prior€conviction€allegation.€€(òòId.óó€at€p.€229.)Ð ° Ðà  àHowever,€òòReedóó€declined€to€resolve€whether€a€probation€report€was€included€in€theÐ ° Ðð ðrecord€of€conviction.ðð€€(13€Cal.4th€at€p.€230.)€€It€did,€however,€hold€that€a€fragment€of€aÏreport€which€contains€statements€of€people€other€than€the€defendant€was€inadmissibleÏhearsay.€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð °$  Ðà  àThe€next€step€by€the€state€supreme€court€to€define€ð ðrecord€of€convictionðð€was€takenÏin€òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔWoodellÔ_Ô€óó(1998)€17€Cal.4th€448.€€In€that€case,€the€court€determined€that€anÐ °($$ Ðappellate€court€opinion€was€part€of€the€record€of€conviction€which€could€be€considered.€Ð °*&& ÐWhile€that€conclusion€was€unanimous,€the€court€split€5„2€over€the€proper€use€of€such€anÏopinion.€€The€majority€authorized€its€use€for€the€ð ðÔ_ÔnonhearsayÔ_Ôðð€purpose€of€ð ðdetermining€theÏbasis€of€the€conviction.ðð€€(17€Cal.4th€at€p.€459.)€€According€to€the€majority,€the€trier€of€factÏis€to€determine€ð ðthe€nature€of€the€òòconvictionóó.ðð€€The€court€stated€that€one€way€to€do€that€is€toÐ °  Ðlook€to€the€record€to€show€the€nature€of€the€defendantððs€conduct,€citing€òòReedóó,€and€thatÐ °  Ðevidence€used€for€this€purpose€must€comply€with€the€hearsay€rule.€€(òòIbidóó.)Ð °  Ðà  àHowever,€the€majority€said€another€way€to€decide€what€crime€the€defendant€wasÏconvicted€of€is€to€look€to€a€court€ruling€ð ðfor€the€Ô_ÔnonhearsayÔ_Ô€purpose€of€determining€the€basisÏof€the€conviction.ðð€€(17€Cal.4th€at€p.€459.)€€ð ðThe€appellate€courtððs€discussion€of€the€evidenceÏis€relevant€and€admissible,€not€to€show€exactly€what€the€defendant€did,€but€to€show€whetherÏthe€trial€court€found,€at€least€impliedly,€that€the€conviction€was€based€on€personal€use€ratherÏthan€vicarious€liability.ðð€€(òòId.óó€at€p.€460.)Ð ° Ðà  àThe€two€dissenters€argued€that€the€appellate€opinion€ð ðproves€his€crime€and€the€basisÏof€his€liability€only€by€proving€his€conduct.ðð€€(òòId.óó,€at€p.€467€(conc.€and€dis.€opn.€of€Ô_ÔMoskÔ_Ô,Ð ° ÐJ.).)€€It€further€noted€that€the€proof€in€the€opinion€of€that€conduct€(personal€use€of€aÏdangerous€weapon€in€a€prison€assault)€consisted€of€an€unidentified€inmateððs€statement€to€aÏdeputy€sheriff,€who€made€an€unsworn€statement€to€that€effect€at€the€defendantððs€sentencingÏhearing.Ìà  àJustice€Ô_ÔMoskÔ_Ô€also€suggested€that€an€appellate€court€opinion€would€be€vulnerable€toÏa€ð ðbest€evidenceðð€objection,€pursuant€to€Evidence€Code€section€1500.€€(17€Cal.4th€at€p.€465.)€Ð °*&& ÐSince€no€such€objection€was€made,€neither€the€majority€nor€the€dissenters€resolved€this€issue.Ìà  àThe€òòÔ_ÔWoodellÔ_Ôóó€opinion€is€interesting€because€it€intersects€somewhat€with€the€limitationsÐ ° Ðplaced€on€information€that€could€be€considered€in€federal€courts€in€òòTaylor€óóand€òòShepard.€€óóTheÐ ° ÐòòTaylor€óóand€òòShepard€óódecisions€permit€consideration€of€a€judgeððs€rulings€in€the€case€toÐ °  Ðdetermine€if€the€conviction€necessarily€rested€on€the€factual€basis€required€by€federal€law€toÏtrigger€steeper€penalties.€€However,€in€òòÔ_ÔWoodellÔ_Ôóó,€the€defendant€had€been€charged€in€NorthÐ °  ÐCarolina€with€assault€with€a€deadly€weapon€and€pled€guilty.€€His€plea€did€not€admit€whetherÏhe€personally€either€used€a€deadly€weapon€or€great€bodily€injury,€because€he€could€have€beenÏliable€either€as€a€perpetrator€or€as€an€aider€and€abettor.€€The€majority€permitted€use€theÏappellate€opinion€to€determine€whether€he€personally€used€the€weapon€on€the€theory€that€inÏarguing€in€the€appellate€court€that€the€offense€should€have€been€mitigated,€ð ðsurely,€if€theÏconviction€had€been€based€on€vicarious€liability€for€someone€elseððs€actual€weapon€use,Ïdefendant€would€have€argued€that€€circumstance.€€The€appellate€court€recited€the€evidenceÏof€personal€weapon€use€as€a€reason€for€the€trial€court€not€to€find€the€mitigating€factor€thatÏthe€defendant€had€acted€under€premeditation.€€The€opinion€contained€no€hint€a€third€partyÏwas€even€involved€in€the€crime,€much€less€actually€used€the€weapon.ðð€€(17€Cal.4th€at€p.€461.)Ìà  àIt€is€clear€that€in€fact€the€trial€judge€made€no€ruling€on€whether€or€not€the€defendantÏhad€personally€used€a€weapon.€€He€had€merely€ð ðÔ_Ôfail[edÔ_Ô]€to€find€as€a€statutory€mitigatingÏfactor€that€defendant€acted€under€strong€provocation.ðð€€(17€Cal.4th€at€p.€451.)€€Such€a€failureÏto€find€mitigation€by€way€of€strong€provocation€did€not€reasonably€constitute€an€impliedÐ °*&& Ðfinding€of€personal€use.€€Nor€could€defendantððs€failure€to€argue€in€his€North€Carolina€appealÏin€support€of€his€claim€of€strong€provocation€that€he€did€not€personally€use€a€weapon€beÏreasonably€construed€as€an€admission€or€shed€any€light€on€whether€the€trial€court€necessarilyÏfound€personal€use.€€Nor€could€the€North€Carolina€appellate€courtððs€reference€to€theÏevidence€presented€at€sentencing€as€a€circumstance€supporting€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€findÏmitigation€amount€to€a€trial€court€ruling€that€the€defendant€personally€used€a€weapon.€€It€isÏclear€that€under€the€federal€rule,€the€appellate€court€opinion€would€be€insufficient€toÏestablish€that€Ô_ÔWoodellÔ_Ôððs€North€Carolina€offense€was€for€commission€of€a€felony€withÏpersonal€use€of€a€weapon.Ìà  àI€will€at€this€point€refer€to€the€motions€in€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_Ô€and€supplemental€motions€in€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_ÔÏprepared€by€George€Ô_ÔSchraerÔ_Ô€which€I€include€in€these€materials.€€€I€want€to€thank€George€forÏsending€me€these,€and€for€giving€me€permission€to€use€them.€€I€could€attempt€to€rewrite€theÏmaterial,€but€it€would€only€detract€from€their€clarity€of€presentation,€so€I€will€try€to€quicklyÏsummarize€them.€€Ìà  àIn€the€motions€in€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_Ô,€George€begins€with€a€summary€of€law€concerning€the€proofÏof€prior€conviction€allegations.€€(Motion€in€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_Ô,€at€pp.€2„4.)€€Then€he€challenges€theÏprosecutionððs€attempt€to€establish€necessary€facts€for€one€prior€conviction€allegation€throughÏthe€defendantððs€stipulation€on€a€guilty€plea€form€that€the€police€report€provided€a€factualÏbasis€for€his€plea,€and€a€later€admission€to€the€probation€office€that€the€police€reports€wereÏaccurate.€€(Motion€in€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_Ô,€pp.€4„11.)€€He€argues€that€the€stipulation€would€only€apply€toÐ °*&& Ðfacts€necessary€to€support€the€plea€and€not€to€all€facts€contained€in€the€police€report.€€He€alsoÏargues€that€the€police€reports€are€not€part€of€the€record€of€conviction€under€òòÔ_ÔGuerreroÔ_Ôóó.€€HeÐ ° Ðdiscusses€in€detail€the€Court€of€Appeal€authority€on€what€constitutes€the€ð ðrecord€ofÏconviction.ðð€€Finally€he€argues€the€police€reports€are€inadmissible€hearsay,€and€that€theirÏadmission€would€violate€the€Confrontation€Clause.Ìà  àHe€attacks€the€evidence€presented€to€prove€a€second€prior€conviction€allegation,€aÏpreliminary€examination€transcript€and€his€clientððs€admission€to€a€probation€officer€that€heÏhit€the€victim€in€the€face,€on€record€of€conviction,€hearsay,€confrontation€clause€and€self„¼incrimination€grounds.€€(Motion€in€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_Ô,€at€pp.€12„13.)€€This€is€probably€a€good€ð ðmantraððÏfor€trial€attorneys€to€memorize€and€trot€out€in€response€to€the€introduction€of€all€theÏprosecutionððs€evidence€at€a€prior€conviction€allegation€trial.€€As€is€ethically€required,€GeorgeÏcited€the€trial€court€to€adverse€controlling€authority€on€these€issues.Ìà  àGeorge€also€reiterates€the€defense€double€jeopardy€objection€to€any€retrial€at€all,€sinceÏthe€prosecution€had€Ô_ÔpresentencedÔ_Ô€insufficient€evidence€at€the€first€trial.€€(Motions€in€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_Ô,Ïat€pp.€13„14.)Ìà  àAnother€issue€that€is€briefly€discussed€but€not€raised€in€the€motion€in€Ô_ÔlimineÔ_Ô€is€theÏissue€of€whether€a€defendant€may€present€live€testimony€to€dispute€the€circumstances€of€theÏoffense.€€There€is€a€negative€Court€of€Appeal€decision€on€point,€though€it€is€arguably€dictum.Ï(òòPeople€v.€Ô_ÔBartowÔ_Ô€óó(1996)€46€Cal.App.€4th€1573,€1581.)€€The€California€Supreme€CourtÐ °($$ Ðdeclined€to€resolve€that€issue€in€òòReedóó,€but€the€Ninth€Circuit€has€ruled€in€òòGill€v.€Ô_ÔAyersÔ_Ô€óó(9thÐ °*&& ÐÑNÑâ âѰÑâ âÑ  ÑCir.€2003)€342€F.3d€911,€914„922,€that€the€due€process€clause€requires€an€opportunity€forÏthe€defendant€to€testify€to€offer€a€defense€and€to€refute€or€explain€the€evidence€presented€byÏthe€prosecution.€€For€this€issue€to€be€raised€effectively€on€appeal,€there€would€have€to€be€anÏattempt€by€the€trial€counsel€to€introduce€testimony€and€an€offer€of€proof€as€occurred€in€òòGillóó.€Ð °  ÐThe€offer€of€proof€in€òòGillóó€was€that€he€would€testify€as€to€his€reasons€for€telling€a€probationÐ °  Ðofficer€he€had€personally€used€a€weapon€during€commission€of€several€assaults€and€to€testifyÏthat€he€did€not€actually€do€so.Ìà  àHowever,€if€no€such€proffer€was€made,€it€might€be€fruitful€for€appellate€counsel€toÏask€the€client€about€his€version€of€the€facts€underlying€a€strike€prior€in€which€proof€of€a€factÏsuch€as€personal€use€or€personal€infliction€of€Ô_ÔGBIÔ_Ô€was€necessary€to€establish€it€was€a€seriousÏfelony€prior.€€Particularly€in€cases€in€which€proof€of€that€fact€rests€solely€on€a€purportedÏadmission€to€a€probation€officer,€if€the€client€denies€making€the€admission€or€claims€that€itÏwas€not€truthful,€there€may€be€an€ineffective€assistance€habeas€claim€for€not€seekingÏadmission€of€the€clientððs€testimony.Ìà  àIn€his€supplemental€motion€filed€in€the€same€case,€George€argues€that€the€limitationsÏon€proof€of€the€nature€of€a€prior€conviction€set€forth€in€òòTaylor€óóand€òòShepard€óóareÐ °" Ðconstitutionally€based,€and€that€the€trial€court€must€follow€those€rules€under€the€SupremacyÏClause€and€not€the€rule€of€òòÔ_ÔGuerreroÔ_Ôóó.€€(Supplemental€Motion€in€limine,€at€pp.€2„8.)€€He€alsoÐ °&"" Ðadds€to€his€jury€trial€and€double€jeopardy€claims,€acknowledging€authority€to€the€contrary,Ïbut€anticipating€the€demise€of€òòÔ_ÔAlmendarizÔ_Ô„Torres€óóand€òòÔ_ÔMongeÔ_Ô.€€óó(Supplemental€Motion€inÐ °*&& Ðlimine,€at€pp.€9„11.)Ð °,(( ÐCONCLUSION:Ìà  àWhen€prior€conviction€findings€have€such€profound€effects€on€a€clients€sentence,€asÏis€now€frequently€the€case€in€California,€we€must€attack€these€findings€as€vigorously€andÏeffectively€as€we€can.€€This€presentation€has€dealt€with€just€a€few€of€the€potential€issues,€butÏI€hope€it€conveys€that€the€rules€applicable€to€the€trial€of€prior€convictions€differ€in€manyÏways€from€those€which€govern€the€ð ðguilt€phaseðð€of€a€criminal€trial.€€Also,€that€many€of€theseÏrules€are€still€very€much€unresolved€or€in€flux,€which€makes€it€important€that€we€insure€thatÏour€clients€get€the€benefit€of€any€favorable€resolution€of€these€issues.Ì