WPC p+ȕ% Ǫ_; _w`=yA}7V!A]h)s$87vvϒpu@#=~(!c~"7B&0cTO3_şii@)HN*m/Wj*7V_AFhmWis-p+Z$ I8ecU $ɶRv([JoyXt1SwUx[wAcO4hӨJx$fMZlgG:%$6-m&1bHP LaserJet 4,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($8 bDcd[eDfDgDhDik |lv[8@0iles3|xl:U- -+1Z 6Albertus Medium Regular,L qZ *Technical Regular\  `&Times New Roman '     !  _kkXX  _nk ,3#3 ,#k#n#nk >3#3 >%#k#n(#_____ 8=XXdd8_ THEPROCEDURESFORPERFECTINGASENTENCING  APPEALANDAFEWSELECTEDSENTENCINGISSUES     ByDallas_Sacher_    TABLEOFCONTENTS     INTRODUCTIONb b E .| | 1     I.8 ` THECERTIFICATEOFPROBABLECAUSE   REQUIREMENT#b b E .` x` x#2   #T# ` A.8 ACertificateofProbableCauseIsRequired   WheneverTheDefendantSeeksToChallengeTheCourtsJurisdictionOrTheValidityOfHisPlea.However,TheIssuanceOfACertificateCannotResuscitateAnIssueWhichHasBeenWaivedByThePlea.#b b E .,  #3    ` B.8 AnApplicationForACertificateofProbable  CauseMustBeSoughtWithin60DaysFollowingTheSentencingHearing.#b b E .:  #4   ` C.8 TheHighlyFavorableStandardGoverningAn  ApplicationShouldBeBroughtToTheTrialCourtsAttention.#b b E .+  #7   ` D.8 OnceACertificateIsIssued,AnyCognizable  IssueCanBeRaisedOnAppealEvenIfTheApplicationForTheCertificateDidNotMentionTheIssue.#b b E .66#  #7 "  ` E.8 IfTrialCounselFailsToTimelyApplyForA $  CertificateofProbableCause,ReliefFromDefaultMayBeObtainedUponAProperShowing.#b b E .!  #7 '##  ` F.8 UnderTheEvolvingViewOfTheCalifornia )%% SupremeCourt,CounselShouldErrOnTheSideOfCautionAndObtainACertificateWhenever +'' APossibleMaximumTermIsContemplatedByAPleaBargain.#b b E .  (  #8   >4k k  k k #>4 #"  ` G.8 ACertificateOfProbableCauseIsNot  RequiredRegarding_Postplea_ԀIssuesWhichInvolveNeitherSentencingNorTheValidityOfThePlea.#D .  %  #13   II.8 ` THEPROPERFORMFORASENTENCINGONLY   NOTICEOFAPPEAL.#D .xx%` x` x#14   III.8 ` AWORDONWAIVERANDFORFEITUREANDTHE   METHODSFORAVOIDINGPROCEDURALDEFAULT.#D .<` x` x#16    ` A.8 IfTheDefendantAgreesToAPleaBargain  ForASpecifiedSentence,HeHasWaivedAnyObjectionToTheSentence.#D .HH3  #17   `  1.8  InOrderToPreserveAn  AppellateChallengeToTheSufficiencyOfTheEvidenceToProveAnEnhancement,TheDefendantMustEnterA_Bunnell_  Plea.#D .##20   ` B.8 TheSpecialSituationOfTheExpressWaiver  OfTheRightToAppeal.#D .RR0  #21   ` C.8 ThereAreSeveralTheoriesWhichMayBe   AdvancedInOrderToAvoidAFindingOfForfeiture.#D .VV$  #22 " IV.8 ` APPELLATECOUNSELSHOULDALWAYSBEWARY $  OFTHEPOTENTIALFORANADVERSECONSEQUENCE.#D . ` x` x#26 &"" V.8 ` INADVANCINGAPENALCODESECTION654 ($$ CLAIM,COUNSELSHOULDTAKEFULLADVANTAGEOFTHESIGNIFICANTDECISIONSINPEOPLEv.BRITT(2004)32Cal.4th944,PEOPLEv. +'' HALL(2000)83Cal.App.4th1084ANDPEOPLEv.LE  (2006)136Cal.App.4th925.#D .@@/` x` x#34  VI.8 ` INACASEARISINGUNDERPROPOSITION36,  COUNSELSHOULDBEAWAREOFTHEDEVELOPINGLAWWHICHGOVERNSWHETHERADEFENDANTMAYBESENTENCEDTOPRISON.#D ./` x` x#39   VII.8 ` WHENTHEDEFENDANTISSENTENCEDUNDER   PENALCODESECTION667.6,APPELLATECOUNSELSHOULDCAREFULLYEXAMINETHERECORDINORDERTOENSURETHATTHESTATUTEWASPROPERLYAPPLIED.#D .%` x` x#43   VIII.8 ` WHENEVERADEFENDANTHASBEENDENIED  PRESENTENCECREDITBASEDON MIXEDCONDUCTRELATEDTOAPROBATIONORPAROLEREVOCATION,APPELLATECOUNSELSHOULDOBTAINTHEDOCUMENTSUNDERLYINGTHEREVOCATIONINORDERTODETERMINEIFACLAIMCANBEMADEFORADDITIONALCREDITS.#D .7` x` x#45  IX.8 ` WHENEVERADEFENDANTISSENTENCEDTOA  TERMOFCONFINEMENTOFATLEASTSIXMONTHS,ANYAWARDOFATTORNEYSFEESSHOULDBESUBJECTTOCHALLENGEFORINSUFFICIENCYOFTHEEVIDENCE.#D .2` x` x#48  X.8 ` ABRIEFWORDABOUTTHEREMNANTSOF   CUNNINGHAMv.CALIFORNIA(2007)549U.S.____[166 ! L.E.2d856].#D . ` x` x#48 " XI.8 ` NOTWITHSTANDINGTHECASELAWTOTHE $  CONTRARY,ADEFENDANTWHOISPRESUMPTIVELYINELIGIBLEFORPROBATIONISENTITLEDTOANEWPROBATIONREPORTWHENHEISRESENTENCEDFOLLOWINGASUCCESSFULAPPEAL.#D . ` x` x#51 )%%   *&&  k>4k k#>4#kXII.8 ` NOTWITHSTANDINGTHERULEOFPEOPLEv.  SCOTT,SUPRA,9Cal.3d331,COUNSELSHOULDNOT  HESITATETORAISEAROUTINECLAIMOFSENTENCINGERRORUNDERTHERUBRICOFINEFFECTIVEASSISTANCEOFCOUNSEL.INSODOING,COUNSELSHOULDPROVIDEA_NUANCED_ANALYSISONTHEQUESTIONOFPREJUDICE.#D .:` x` x#55   CONCLUSIOND . 58    >4      l lTABLEOFAUTHORITIES  eed dc  cCASESd dc6cff X.. ` `  X Blakelyv.Washington(2004)   542U.S.296D . 10   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X _Bunnell_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt(1975)    13Cal.3d592D .22!20    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Cunninghamv.California(2007)    549U.S.____[166L.E.2d856]> .pp248,49,50    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X InreChavez(2003)    30Cal.4th643@ .nn"3,4,15    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X InreCortez(1971)   6Cal.3d78A .V V 52,53   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X InreJordan(1992)   4Cal.4th116b b E .!8   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X InreSheenaK.(2007)   40Cal.4th875; .nn"16,17,24,25   X<( ` hp x ` `  <Nealv.StateofCalifornia(1960)   ` 55Cal.2d11D .  @ 35  <( ` hp x X< X ` `  X Peoplev.Britt(2004)   32Cal.4th944; .nn"34,35,36,37   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Belmontes_(1983) !  34Cal.3d335A .22!42,44 "  X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Brown(1987) $   193Cal.App.3d957D .PP&31 %!!  X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Bruner_(1995) '##  9Cal.4th1178A .nn"45,47 ($$  X<( ` hp x ` `  <    +'' A* X ` `  X Peoplev.Bullock(1994)   ` 26Cal.App.4th985D .TT'54    Peoplev._Buttram_(2003)   30Cal.4th773b b E .nn"9   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Caravajal_(2007)    157Cal.App.4th1483A .(13,14    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Cardenas(2007)    155Cal.App.4th1468A .(50,57    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Casper(2004)    33Cal.4th38D .!29    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Chatmon_(2005)   129Cal.App.4th771A .'18,19   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Collins(1978)   21Cal.3d208A .22!19,20   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Davey_(2005)   133Cal.App.4th384D .'38   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._DeVaughn_(1977)   18Cal.3d889b b E .22!4   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Dobbins(2005)   127Cal.App.4th176D .'54    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Emery(2006) "  140Cal.App.4th560D .'14 #  X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Enriquez(2008) %!!  160Cal.App.4th230A .'41,42 &""  X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Fosselman_(1983) ($$  33Cal.3d572D .22!25 )%%  X<( ` hp x ` `  < f  ;f X ` `  X Peoplev.French(2008) +''  ___Cal.4th___[08DAR4253]D .tt110   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Garcia(1999)   20Cal.4th490D .nn"29   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Gonzalez(2003)    31Cal.4th745A .nn"23,24    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Hanson(2000)    23Cal.4th355D .nn"27    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Hazle_(2007)    157Cal.App.4th5678 .(39,40,41,42,43    X<( ` hp x ` `  <Peoplev.Hall(2000)   ` 83Cal.App.4th1084> .' @ 34,37,38  <( ` hp x X< X ` `  X Peoplev.Helms(1997)   15Cal.4th608D .nn"29   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Hester(2000)   22Cal.4th290> .nn"17,18,19   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Hoffard_(1995)   10Cal.4th1170C .#6,7   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Hollins_(1993)   15Cal.App.4th567b b E .&4   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Jack(1989) !  213Cal.App.3d913D .PP&32 "   # Peoplev.Johnson(1999) $   70Cal.App.4th1429D .'51 %!!  X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Jones(2007) '##  157Cal.App.4th1373D .(32 ($$  X<( ` hp x ` `  <   E X ` `  X Peoplev.Jones(1988) +''  46Cal.3d585D .22!43   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Jones(1995)   10Cal.4th1102A .#15,16   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Lambeth(1980)    112Cal.App.3d495D .PP&56    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Lawrence(2000)    24Cal.4th219D .nn"28    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Le(2006)    136Cal.App.4th925> .'34,38,39    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Lincoln(2007)   157Cal.App.4th196.A .(49,50   X<( ` hp x ` `  <Peoplev.Little(1993)   ` 19Cal.App.4th449D .& @h 47  <( ` hp x X< X ` `  X Peoplev.Llamas(1998)   67Cal.App.4th35A .%51,52   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Lloyd(1998)   17Cal.4th658PPB .nn"8,15   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Mariano_(1983)   144Cal.App.3d814D .PP&54   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Mendez(1999) !  19Cal.4th1084b b E .#5 "  X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Mercant_(1989) $   216Cal.App.3d1192D .'54 %!!  X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Miller(1977) '##  18Cal.3d873A .22!34,37 ($$  X<( ` hp x ` `  <   S X ` `  X Peoplev._Mumm_(2002) *&&  98Cal.App.4th812D .&22 +''  X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Myers(1999)   69Cal.App.4th305D .&51   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Oglesby_(2008)   158Cal.App.4th818A .(12,13    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Osorio_(1987)    194Cal.App.3d183D .PP&14    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Panizzon_(1996)    13Cal.4th68> .!19,21,22    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Price(1986)    184Cal.App.3d1405A .'27,31   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Ribero_(1971)   4Cal.3d55PPB .V V 8,11   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Robinson(1992)   11Cal.App.4th609D .&57   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Rosbury_(1997)   15Cal.4th206D .nn"29   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Rosso_(1994)   30Cal.App.4th1001D .'21   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Scott(1994)    9Cal.4th331dd, .!16,22,23,24,25,27,39,55,57 !  X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Searle(1989) #  213Cal.App.3d1091D .'56 $   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Serrato_(1973) &""  9Cal.3d753A . 25,27 '##  X<( ` hp x ` `  < f  f fff X ` `  X Peoplev._Shelton_(2006) )%%  37Cal.4th7599 .nn"8,10,11,12,13 *&&  X<( ` hp x ` `  < +''  X ` `  X Peoplev._Sherrick_(1993)   19Cal.App.4th657A .&21,22   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Dorsey)(1996)   50Cal.App.4th1216D .'23   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Romero)(1996)    13Cal.4th497D .nn"32    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Stein)(1965)    239Cal.App.2d99b b E .%6    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Thomas(1986)    41Cal.3d837D .22!20    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Turner(1985)   171Cal.App.3d116b b E .PP&3   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Vargas(1993)   13Cal.App.4th1653A .'21,22   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Vera(2004)   122Cal.App.4th970A .'13,14   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev._Viray_(2005)   134Cal.App.4th1186D .(48   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Watson(2007)   42Cal.4th822D .nn"20    X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Watson(1956) "  46Cal.2d818D .22!54 #  X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Peoplev.Williams(1998) %!!  17Cal.4th148D .nn"24 &""  X<( ` hp x ` `  < f  f ftf X ` `  X Roev.FloresOrtega(2000) ($$  528U.S.470b b E . 7 )%%  X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X Stricklandv.Washington(1984) +''  466U.S.668D . 56   X<( ` hp x ` `  < X ` `  X VolkswagenofAmerica,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt(2001)   94Cal.App.4th695b b E .&6   X<( ` hp x ` `  <  CONSTITUTIONS    t UnitedStatesConstitution    ` SixthAmendmentPPB .#7,10     STATUTES  X ` `  X PenalCode ` Section136.1D .!31    ` Section137D .n n 31   ` Section290D .n n 35   ` Section654" .n n 8,9,11,12,17,25,31,32,34,35,37,38,39   ` Section667.6> .!30,43,44   ` Section667.6,subdivision(c)A .^^143,44   ` Section667.6,subdivision(d)A .ll130.43   ` Section667.61D ."30   ` Section667.61,subdivision_(i)_D .230   ` Section987.8D .!48   ` Section987.8,subdivision(g)(2)(B)D .748   ` Section1170,subdivision(b)D .66049   ` Section1170.1D ."43   ` Section1170.1,subdivision(b)D .230   ` Section1170.1,subdivision(c)D .231   ` Section1170.1,subdivision(d)D .249    ` Section1170.12,subdivision(a)(6)A .88628,29 !  ` Section1170.12,subdivision(a)(8)D .88629 "  ` Section1170.15D .#31 #  ` Section1202.4,subdivision(b)(2)D .538 $   ` Section1203D . 53 %!!  k  k kk ` Section1203,subdivision(b)(4)D .44352 &""  ` Section1210D . 39 '##  ` Section1210.1> ."40,41,42 ($$  ` Section1210.1,subdivision(e)(3)(C)A .839,42 )%%  ` Section1210.1,subdivision(f)(3)(A)D .839 *&&  ` Section1210.1,subdivision(f)(3)(B)D .839 +''  ` Section1210.1,subdivision(f)(3)(C)D .842   ` Section1237,subdivision(b)A .66047,48   ` Section1237.1D ."47   ` Section1237.5@ ."3,5,11   ` Section1237.5,subdivision(a)b b E .25   ` Section1240.1,subdivision(b)b b E .27    ` Section1368D . 12    ` Section1385A . 32,54    ` Section1385,subdivision(a)D .((032    ` Section1538.5@ ."3,6,15    ` Section3057,subdivision(d)(2)(C)A .VV646,47    ` Section12022.5D .#49     X<( ` hp x ` `  <VehicleCode ` Section2800.2D ."36   ` Section20002D .JJ! @h 36    MISCELLANEOUS  gg X ` `  X 15_CCR_Ԁsection2743(c)D .LL%46    CaliforniaRulesofCourt ` Rule4.411(c)A .!51,52   ` Rule4.426(b)D .!44   ` Rule8.60(d)b b E . 8   ` Rule8.304(a)(4)D .$15   ` Rule8.304(b)b b E .!3   ` Rule8.304(b)(1)b b E .$5   ` Rule8.304(b)(2)b b E .$6   ` Rule8.304(b)(4)(B)D .>>'14    ` Rule8.308(a)PPB .!4,14 !  " b %!! b   b %!! b b %!! bFormerRule31(d)b b E .h h 5 #   X<( ` hp x ` `  <#>4~#  HistoricalandStatutoryNotestoPenalCodesection1203,50DWests %!! AnnotatedCaliforniaCodes(2004ed.)p.223D .;53 &"" >4Peoplev._Bonnetta_ԀS159133D .) @ 33 ($$    Peoplev._Cuevas_,S147510  D .(12 )%%  X ` `  XPeoplev.Jefferson(2007)2007_Cal.App.Unpub_ԀLexis6822D .G43 *&& Peoplev._Levell_Ԁ(2007)2007Cal.App._Unpub_ԀLexis6763A .E46,47 +''         X<( ` hp x ` `  <hh<( ` hp x X<#>4#h   hi  _iINTRODUCTION____  i׍i__ ` CaliforniahasaByzantinearrayofsentencingruleswhichinvolvea  hodgepodgeofvaryingschemeswhichmustoftenbemeldedtogetherinasinglecase.Underourincrediblycomplicatedlaw,atrialcourtmustoftenimposebothdeterminateandindeterminatesentencesundertwodifferentschemeswhilealsopayingallegiancetothesentencingfactorsfoundintheRulesofCourt.Inordertopreservebothmyownsanityandtheattentionofthereader,thisarticleisnotintendedtoprovideanomnibusreviewofCaliforniassentencinglaw.Theonlywaytofullycomprehendthemultitudeofrules_is_Ԁtodiligentlypracticeandstudythecriminallawforanumberofyears.Inthisendeavor,Iwishyouthebestofluck. ` Themodestgoalsofthisarticlearethreefold.First,thereareimportantproceduralruleswhichgovernthemannerinwhichasentencingappealmustbeperfectedfollowingapleaofguiltyornolocontendere.TherelevantprincipleswillbediscussedinsectionsIIII.Second,thecomplexityofthesentencinglawsoftenleadsthetrialcourttoerrinthedefendantsfavor.InsectionIV,Iwilloffersomecommentsonthepotentialadverseconsequenceswhichmightarisefromtakingasentencingappeal.Third,frommycatbirdsseatasanappellateprojectattorney,Ihavetheopportunitytoreadhundredsofappellatebriefsandunpublishedopinionseveryyear.InsectionsVXII, *&& Iwillsharemythoughtsonafewoftheissueswhichhavegainedmyattentioninrecentyears. ` WithregardtotheissuesselectedinsectionsVXII,Imustcautionthereaderthatthelistisfarfromexhaustiveandisnotintendedtosuggestthatthesearethebestormostimportantissues.Tothecontrary,thecomplexityand_everchanging_ԀnatureofCalifornialawallowsthecreativedefenselawyertoraiseanynumberofsentencingissues.Nonetheless,itismyhumblehopethatthediscussionwillbeofsomeuseinmorethanafewcases.  I. 8 `  ` x` x 8 ` THECERTIFICATEOFPROBABLECAUSEREQUIREMENT. ` x` x  ` Formanylawyers,therulessurroundingcertificatesofprobablecausearebothmurkyandillunderstood.Inrecentyears,theCaliforniaSupremecourthasissueddecisionswhichhaveonlyexacerbatedtheproblemduetothefiniteandillogicaldistinctionsdrawninthecases. ` Intheinterestofclarity,thefollowingdiscussionwillprovidebothageneraloverviewofthecertificaterequirementandaresumeastohowitspecificallyappliesinsentencingcases.Inaddition,theprocedureforobtainingacertificatewillbeaddressed. +''  ` A.8 ACertificateofProbableCauseIsRequired  WheneverTheDefendantSeeksToChallengeTheCourtsJurisdictionOrTheValidityOfHisPlea.However,TheIssuanceOfACertificateCannotResuscitateAnIssueWhichHasBeenWaivedByThePlea.     ` Asageneralrule,anappealcannotbetakenfollowingapleaofguiltyornolocontendereabsenttheissuanceofacertificateofprobablecause.(PenalCodesection1237.5.)Theonlyexceptionstothisruleare_thatclaims_ofsentencingerrorandthedenialofaPenalCodesection1538.5motionarecognizableonappealsolongastheclaimsarespecifiedinthenoticeofappeal.(CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule8.304(b)(4).) ` Thevastmajorityofpotentialissuesarewaivedforpurposesofappealwhenadefendantpleadsguiltyornolocontendere.(InreChavez(2003)30  Cal.4th643,649.)Whenthechargesareadmitted, appellatereviewislimitedtoissuesthatconcernthejurisdictionofthecourtorthelegalityoftheproceedings,includingtheconstitutionalvalidityoftheplea.[Citations.](_Ibid_,fn.omitted.) !  ` Withregardto jurisdictionalissueswhichremaincognizableafteraplea,thereisasignificantlistofsuchclaimsrelatingtosomespeedytrialissues,denialofdiversionandotherclaimsrelatingtothecourtsauthoritytohearthecase.(SeevariousauthoritiescitedinPeople_v._ԀTurner(1985)171 )%% Cal.App.3d116,123129.)Althoughitisasomewhatdatedcase,Turnerstill +'' containsthemostauthoritativediscussionregardingtheissueswhichmayberaisedwithacertificateofprobablecause.(SeealsoInreChavez,supra,30  Cal.4th643,649,fn.2andcases_cited_Ԁtherein.) ` Theissuanceofacertificateofprobablecausedoesnotallowanotherwisenoncognizableissuetoberaisedonappeal.(Peoplev._DeVaughn_   (1977)18Cal.3d889,896.)Ifanissuehasbeenwaivedbyapleaofguiltyornolocontendere,itcannotberaisedonappealevenifthetrialcourthasissuedacertificate.(Ibid.)   ` However,ifthedefendanthasbeeninducedtopleadguiltyduetothetrialcourtserroneouspromisethataparticularissuecanberaisedonappealpursuanttoacertificateofprobablecause,thedefendantwillbeallowedtowithdrawhisplea.(Peoplev._DeVaughn_,supra,18Cal.3d889,896;People  v._Hollins_Ԁ(1993)15Cal.App.4th567,574575.)Thisresultiscompelled  sincethedefendantspleawasimproperlyinducedbyamisrepresentationofasignificantnature.(Ibid.)    ` B.8 AnApplicationForACertificateofProbable " CauseMustBeSoughtWithin60DaysFollowingTheSentencingHearing.     ` Anapplicationforacertificateofprobablecausemustbefiledwithin &"" 60daysofthedateofjudgment(_i.e._Ԁthedatethatsentencewasimposed).(CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule8.308(a).)Theapplicationmustbe *&& accompaniedbyaswornstatementwhichspecifiesthegroundssoughttobe  raisedonappeal.(PenalCodesection1237.5,subd.(_a_).)Interestingly,aJuly1,2007_amendment_ԀtoCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule8.304(b)(1)requiresthattheapplication mustbefiled withanoticeofappeal.Theamendmentraisesasignificantissue. ` Inmanycases,trialcounselfilesanoticeofappeal.Then,within60daysofthesentencinghearing,appellatecounselfilesanapplicationforacertificateofprobablecause.Undertherevisiontorule8.304(b)(1),isthereaproceduraldefaultinthissituationsincetheapplicationwasnotfiled withthenoticeofappeal?Theanswertothisquestionshouldbeno.(ButseePeople_v._ԀMendez(1999)19Cal.4th1084,1102,fn.11[decliningtoaddress  theissueastoformerrule31(d).].) ` Asasimplematterofequity,itmakesnosensetoconcludethatanapplicationforacertificateisuntimelymerelybecauseithasnotbeenfiledwiththenoticeofappeal.Thepurposeofthe_60day_Ԁruleforperfectingappealsistoensurethatthereisawindowoffinalityforthetrialcourtsjudgment.(People_v._ԀMendez,supra,19Cal.4th1084,1094.)Thereisno $  offensetothispurposeiftheapplicationistimelyfiledwithinthe_60day_period.Thus,anytechnicaldefaultshouldnotresultinthelossofthedefendantsrighttoappeal. *&&  ` Aparallelprinciplesupportsthisconclusion.Inanumberofcases,appellatecounselhasfiledanamendednoticeofappealwithinthe_60day_periodinordertoproperlyspecifythatasentencingorPenalCodesection1538.5issueistoberaisedonappeal.InsofarasneithertheAttorneyGeneralnoranyappellatecourthasdisagreedwiththispractice,noreasonappearswhyatimelyfiledapplicationforacertificateofprobablecauseshouldbetreatedanydifferently. ` PursuanttoCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule8.304(b)(2),thetrialcourtisrequiredtoeithergrantordenythecertificatewithin20days.Ifthecourtfailstoactwithinthespecifiedtime,apetitionforwritofmandamuswilllietocompelthecourttoissuearuling.(People_v._ԀSuperiorCourt(Stein)(1965)  239Cal.App.2d99,102[writofmandamusliestocompelacourttoruleonapendingmatter].) ` Similarly,mandamusreliefliestochallengethetrialcourtsorderdenyingtheapplication.(Peoplev._Hoffard_Ԁ(1995)10Cal.4th1170,1180.)   Althoughthereisnospecificstatuteorrulewhichsoprovides,themandamuspetitionmustbefiledwithin60daysofthetrialcourtsorder.(Volkswagen $  ofAmerica,Inc._v._ԀSuperiorCourt(2001)94Cal.App.4th695,701[absent &"" extraordinarycircumstances,writwillbedeniedifitisnotfiledwithinthe60dayperiodfollowingthetrialcourtsruling].) *&& __ ` C.8 TheHighlyFavorableStandardGoverningAn  ApplicationShouldBeBroughtToTheTrialCourtsAttention.     ` Thetrialcourtisrequiredtoissueacertificateofprobablecauseasto  anyissue whichisnotclearly_frivolous...._(Peoplev._Hoffard_,supra,10   Cal.4th1170,1179,emphasisinoriginal,fn.omitted.)Sincethisstandardishighlyfavorabletothedefendant,itshouldbeprominentlyfeaturedinanyrequestforacertificate. ` D.8 OnceACertificateIsIssued,AnyCognizable  IssueCanBeRaisedOnAppealEvenIfTheApplicationForTheCertificateDidNotMentionTheIssue.     ` Onceacertificateofprobablecauseisissued,thedefendantsappeal  isnotlimitedtotheissuesspecifiedinhisapplicationforthecertificate.Rather,anyotherwisecognizableissuemayberaised.(Peoplev._Hoffard_,  supra,10Cal.4th1170,1174.) ` E.8 IfTrialCounselFailsToTimelyApplyForA  CertificateofProbableCause,ReliefFromDefaultMayBeObtainedUponAProperShowing.     ` PursuanttotheSixthAmendmenttothefederalConstitution,trial $  counselhasadutytotimelyperfectanappealattheclientsrequest.(Roe_v._ &"" FloresOrtega(2000)528U.S.470,477.)Thisdutyiscodifiedunder ($$ Californialaw.(PenalCodesection1240.1,subd.(_b_).)Importantly,trial *&& counselsdutyincludesthepreparationofanapplicationforacertificateofprobablecause.(Peoplev._Ribero_Ԁ(1971)4Cal.3d55,66.)   ` Whentrialcounselfailstofileatimelynoticeofappeal,reliefmaybegrantedundertheconstructivefilingdoctrine.(InreJordan(1992)4Cal.4th   116,125126.)Thethesisunderlyingthedoctrineisthatthenoticeofappealisdeemedtohavebeentimelyfiledsincecounselerredbyfailingtocomplywithhisdutytofilethedocument.(Ibid.)    ` F.8 UnderTheEvolvingViewOfTheCalifornia  SupremeCourt,CounselShouldErrOnTheSideOfCautionAndObtainACertificateWheneverAPossibleMaximumTermIsContemplatedByAPleaBargain.     ` Untilrecentyears,itwasassumedthattypicalclaimsofsentencing  errorwerecognizableonappealsolongasapropersentencingnoticeofappealwasfiled.(SeegenerallyPeople_v._ԀLloyd(1998)17Cal.4th658,664  666.)However,arecentcasefromtheSupremeCourthasdrawnthisassumptionintoquestion. ` InPeoplev._Shelton_Ԁ(2006)37Cal.4th759,thedefendantentereda " pleabargainwhichprovidedforamaximumsentenceofthreeyearsandeightmonths.Underthetermsofthedeal,thecourtretainedthediscretiontoimposeashorterterm.Afterthetrialcourtimposedthemaximumsentence,thedefendantsoughttoadvanceaPenalCodesection654claimonappeal *&& which,ifsuccessful,wouldhaveservedtoreducethesentence.TheSupremeCourtdismissedtheappealsincethedefendanthadfailedtoobtainacertificateofprobablecause. ` Injustifyingthisresult,thecourtfirstindicatedthatapleabargainisaformof_contract_.Fromthispremise,thecourtreasonedthatthedefendantandthegovernmenthadreacheda mutualunderstandingthatthetrialcourthadthelawfulauthoritytoimposethemaximumsentencespecifiedinthepleabargain.(Id._at_Ԁp.768.)Inthecourtsview,thedefendantssection654claim   wasinsubstanceachallengetothepleasvalidityandthusrequiredacertificateofprobable_cause...._(Id.atp.769.)   ` Insoholding,thecourtdistinguisheditsdecisioninPeoplev._Buttram_  (2003)30Cal.4th773.There,thedefendantalsoenteredapleabargainfor  aspecifiedmaximumterm.Afterreceivingthemaximumterm,thedefendantsoughttoargueonappealthatthetrialcourthadabuseditsdiscretioninimposingthemaximumsentence.Inthissituation,thecourtheldthatacertificateofprobablecausewasnotrequiredsincetherewas insubstancenoattackonthebargainedfor_sentence_.(Id._at_Ԁpp.785786.) $   ` In_Shelton_,thecourtexplainedthat_Buttram_Ԁwascorrectlydecided &"" sincethereisadistinctionbetweenachallengetothecourts authoritytoimposeasentenceasdistinguishedfromachallengetothecourts exercise *&& ofindividualizedsentencingdiscretion....(_Shelton_,supra,37Cal.4th759,  770.)Morerecently,thecourthasplacedanadditionalglossonthe_Shelton_  rule. ` InPeople_v._ԀFrench(2008)___Cal.4th___[08DAR4253],the   defendantenteredapleabargainforamaximumsentenceof18years.Onappeal,thedefendantcontendedthatthetrialcourthadviolatedtheruleofBlakelyv.Washington(2004)542U.S.296byimposingtheuppertermonthe   basisoffactswhichwerenotfoundtruebyajury.ThecourtheldthattheissuewascognizablewithoutacertificateofprobablecausesincetheSixthAmendmentviolationwouldnotrenderthemaximumsentenceunlawful underallcircumstances.(Id._at_Ԁp.4255.)Thus,ratherthan_Shelton_sfocus  onwhetherthecourthadthe authoritytoimposethesentenceinquestion,  Frenchsuggeststhattheinquiryiswhetherthedefendantslegalclaimwill  necessarilybarimpositionofthemaximumtermavailableunderthepleabargain. ` Regardlessofthefinepointsofthelanguageusedin_Shelton_and " French,thefactremainsthat_Shelton_Ԁisatroublingcasewhichhasnegative $  consequencesfordefendants.Giventhisreality,itisworthnotingthatthereareatleasttwofallaciesunderlyingtheholdingin_Shelton_. ($$  ` First,aswasdiscussedinJusticeWerdegarsdissentin_Shelton_,itis *&& simplyuntruethatthedefendantsentryintothepleabargainevincedhis   understandingthatthecourthadthelegalauthoritytoimposethemaximum  term.Tothecontrary,themoreplausible understandingofthedealisthatthedefendantbelievedonlythat becausesection654limitsaresubjecttodebate,theprosecutormightseek[_the]_Ԁhighersentence,thecourtmightsosentencehim,andanappealmightbeunsuccessful.(_Shelton_,supra,37   Cal.4th759,772(dis.opn.ofWerdegar,J.).) ` Second,thereisamorefundamentalproblemwiththeresultin_Shelton_.  Untilrecentyears,achallengetothe validityofthepleawasunderstoodtobeanattempttowithdrawthepleaasdistinguishedfromanattackonthesentence.(Peoplev._Ribero_,supra,4Cal.3d55,61[PenalCodesection  1237.5 wasonlyintendedtoapplytoasituationinwhichadefendantclaimedthathispleaofguiltywasinvalid.[Citation].].)In_Shelton_,the  defendantwasnotseekingtowithdrawhispleanordidheclaimthattherewasanything invalidaboutthemeansusedtoinducetheplea.Inshort,_Shelton_changedthemeaningoftheterm validityofthepleawithoutever " explainingwhythechangewasjustified.Infuturecases,thecourtshouldbeurgedtoreconsider_Shelton_. &""  ` Goingforward,itispossiblethattheSupremeCourtwillbebroadening ($$ theapplicationofthe_Shelton_rule.InthependingcaseofPeoplev._Cuevas_, *&& S147510,_rv_._granted_ԀJanuary3,2007,theissueiswhetheracertificateof  probablecauseisrequiredtoraiseaPenalCodesection654issueevenifthedefendantdidnotbargainforamaximumsentence.Obviously,thepracticalimpactofanadverserulingin_Cuevas_willbetorequireacertificateof   probablecauseinordertoraiseanysection654claimfollowingapleaofguiltyornolocontendere. ` Themessagefromthepending_Cuevas_caseismanifest:TheSupreme   Courtmaywellexpandthenumberofsituationswhereacertificateisrequired.Thus,inadoubtfulcase,trialcounselshouldobtainacertificateofprobablecause.Inthisway,ourclientscanbeprospectivelyprotectedagainstanyenlargementsinthe_Shelton_rule.   ` Indeed,thePeopleareattemptingtoexpandthereachof_Shelton_  beyonditspresentparameters.InPeoplev._Oglesby_Ԁ(2008)158Cal.App.4th  818,thedefendantwasdeniedaPenalCodesection1368competencyhearingpriortothesentencinghearing.AccordingtothePeople,_Shelton_requiredthe   defendanttoobtainacertificateofprobablecausetoraisetheissue.Thecourtcorrectlyrejectedtheclaimonthegroundsthattheissueconcerneda _postplea_Ԁquestionunrelatedtothesentence.(Id._at_Ԁpp.826827.) &"" Nonetheless,itisapparentthatwehavenotreceivedthelastwordonthescopeofthe_Shelton_rule. *&&  ` G.8 ACertificateOfProbableCauseIsNotRequired  Regarding_Postplea_ԀIssuesWhichInvolveNeitherSentencingNorTheValidityOfThePlea.     ` AsisreflectedbytheholdinginPeoplev._Oglesby_,supra,158  Cal.App.4th818,thereisagenreof_postplea_Ԁissuesunrelatedtosentencingwhichmayberaisedwithoutthebenefitofacertificateofprobablecause.Theseissuestypicallyinvolvemattersancillarytoamotiontowithdrawtheplea. ` Forexample,inPeoplev.Vera(2004)122Cal.App.4th970,the  defendantenteredapleaofnolocontendereandthenrequestedaMarsdenhearing.Onappeal,thedefendantchallengedthetrialcourtsdenial  oftheMarsdenmotion.OverthePeoplesobjection,theCourtofAppeal  heldthattheissuewascognizablewithoutacertificateofprobablecausesincethegrantingofaMarsdenmotion hasnonecessaryconnectiontoamotion  towithdrawtheplea.(Id._at_Ԁp.978.)   ` However,thecasesarefarfromuniformonthisissue.InPeoplev.   _Caravajal_Ԁ(2007)157Cal.App.4th1483,thedefendantwasassigneda " conflictslawyerforthepurposeofinvestigatingamotiontowithdrawaguiltyplea.Whenthe_conflicts_Ԁattorneydeclinedtobringamotion,theoriginallawyerwasreappointed.Whenthedefendantinformedthecourtthathewasdissatisfiedwiththedecisionmadebytheconflictsattorney,thecourtrefused *&& toholdafurtherhearing.TheCourtofAppealheldthatacertificateofprobablecausewasrequiredsincetheappellateclaimoferrorwasessentiallyrelatedtothedefendantsdesiretowithdrawhisplea.(Id._at_Ԁpp.14861487.)   ` Asidefrom_Caravajal_,thereisalsoacontroversyastowhetherthe   denialoftheopportunitytofileamotiontowithdrawthepleaisanissuewhichrequiresacertificate.(ComparePeople_v._ԀEmery(2006)140   Cal.App.4th560[certificaterequired];Peoplev._Osorio_Ԁ(1987)194   Cal.App.3d183[certificatenotrequired].)Untilsuchtimeastheconflictinauthorityisresolved,defensecounselwouldactwiselybyseekingacertificateinthissituation.  II.8 ` THEPROPERFORMFORASENTENCINGONLYNOTICEOFAPPEAL. ` x` x  ` Anoticeofappealmustbefiledwithin60daysofthesentencinghearing.(CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule8.308(a).)PursuanttoCaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule8.304(b)(4)(B),anappealonsentencinggroundsmustbeperfectedbyfilinganoticeofappealwhichspecifies [_g]rounds_Ԁthataroseafterentryoftheplea[that]donotaffectthepleasvalidity.Intheusualcase,trialcounselcansatisfythisrequirementbycheckingtheappropriateboxontheJudicialCouncilformwhichcanbeusedtoinstituteacriminalappeal.Ifcounselwishestoemployahomemadeform,languagesuchasthe +'' followingwillbedeemedsufficient: Theappealwillraiseclaimsofsentencingerrorwhichdonotchallengethevalidityoftheplea. ` Byrule,theappellatecourtisrequiredto liberallyconstruethesufficiencyofanoticeofappeal.(CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule8.304(a)(4).)Thus,anoticeofappealwhichmerelyspecifiedanappealfromthe sentencehasbeenheldtobeadequate.(People_v._ԀLloyd,supra,17Cal.4th   658,665.)However,inadoubtfulcase,appellatecounselshouldtaketherequisitestepstocureanypossibleproblem.Thiscanbedoneinoneoftwoways. ` First,ifcounselnoticesaproblemwithin60daysofthesentencinghearing,anamendednoticeofappealcanbefiled.Second,ifitistoolatetofileanamendednoticeofappeal,amotionforrelieffromdefaultshouldbefiledintheCourtofAppeal.(Peoplev.Jones(1995)10Cal.4th1102,1108,  fn.4,disapprovedonothergroundsinInreChavez,supra30Cal.4th643,  656.)Suchmotionsareroutinelygrantedonthetheorythatthepersonfilingthenoticeofappeal(i.e.thedefendantortrialcounsel)wasunawarethatthenoticeofappealwasdefective. ` Finally,itisimportanttonotethataclaimofsentencingerrorcanberaisedonappealifthenoticeofappealmerelyspecifiedthataPenalCodesection1538.5issuewouldberaised.(Peoplev.Jones,10Cal.4th1102, *&& 11121113.)Solongasasinglecognizableissueisspecifiedinthenoticeofappeal,anyandallcognizableissuesmayberaised.(Ibid.)    III.8 ` AWORDONWAIVERANDFORFEITUREANDTHEMETHODSFORAVOIDINGPROCEDURALDEFAULT. ` x` x  ` Aseverycriminalappellatedefenselawyerknows,theAttorneyGenerallovestoraiseclaimsofwaiverandforfeiture.Insomecases,theseclaimsareevenmeritorious.However,inothercases,thedefensecansuccessfullymeettheobjection.Themethodsforavoidingforfeiturewillbediscussedbelow. ` Attheoutset,itisimportanttounderstandthecorrectparlanceregarding waiverand forfeiture.A waivermaybefoundwhenthedefendantengagesin anexpressrelinquishmentofarightorprivilege.[Citations.](InreSheenaK.(2007)40Cal.4th875,880,fn.1.)For  example,adefendantexpresslywaivesanumberofconstitutionalrightswhenheentersaguiltyplea.Ontheotherhand, forfeitureinvolvesthesituationwherearightislostduetothe failuretoobjectortoinvoke[the]_right...._(Ibid.)Aprimaryexampleofforfeitureisthedefendantsfailuretoobjectto %!! thetrialcourtsuseofanerroneoussentencingfactor.(SeePeople_v._ԀScott '## (1994)9Cal.4th331,336.) )%%  +''  ` A.8 IfTheDefendantAgreesToAPleaBargainFor  ASpecifiedSentence,HeHasWaivedAnyObjectionToTheSentence.     ` Oftentimes,theprosecutorwillinsistonatopandbottompleabargain  (_i.e._Ԁasentenceforaspecifiednumberofyears).Unlessthedefendantwishestohavethepleabargainvacated,aclaimofsentencingerrorcannotberaisedonappeal. ` People_v._ԀHester(2000)22Cal.4th290istheleadcaseinthisarea.In   Hester,thedefendantplednocontesttoburglaryandassaultbyforcelikely  toproducegreatbodilyinjury.Thepleabargaincalledforasentenceoffouryears.Afterthecourtimposedconcurrentterms,thedefendantsoughttoargueonappealthatthetermfortheassaultcountshouldhavebeenstayedpursuanttoPenalCodesection654.TheSupremeCourtheldthatthedefendantwasprecludedfromraisingtheissueduetohisagreementtothefouryearterm.8 ` Wherethedefendantshavepleadedguiltyinreturnforaspecifiedsentence,appellatecourtswillnotfinderroreven ! thoughthetrialcourtactedinexcessofjurisdictioninreachingthatfigure,solongasthetrialcourtdidnotlackfundamental # jurisdiction.Therationalebehindthispolicyisthatdefendantswhohavereceivedthebenefitoftheirbargainshouldnotbeallowedtotriflewiththecourtsbyattemptingtobetterthebargainthroughtheappellateprocess.[Citations.](Id.atp. '## 295,emphasisinoriginal.) ` x` x  ` TheruleofHesterisquiteclear.Ifadefendanthasagreedtoatopand *&& bottomplea,hehaswaivedanyrighttochallengethelengthofhissentenceonappeal. ` Inaddition,theHesterrulehasbroaderapplication.Insomecases,the  rulemayalsoapplytootherlegalprotectionswhichthedefendanthasbargainedaway. ` Peoplev._Chatmon_Ԁ(2005)129Cal.App.4th771illustratesthepossible   useofthewaiverdoctrine.There,thedefendantwaschargedwithresistingarrestandpossessionofcocaine.Pursuanttoapleabargain,theresistingarrestchargewasdismissedandthedefendantplednocontesttothedrugcountwiththepromisethathewouldbeplacedonprobation.AlthoughthedefendantwaseligibleforProposition36drugtreatment,hewasnotorderedintoaprogram.Subsequently,probationwasrevokedandreinstatedwiththenewconditionofa_180day_Ԁjailterm.Onappeal,thedefendantarguedthatthejailtermwasillegalsinceheshouldhavebeenplacedintoaProposition36program.Whileacknowledgingthatthedefendanthadnotagreedtoa specifiedsentencewithinthemeaningofHester,thecourtnonetheless " appliedthewaiverdoctrine.8 ` HeagreedtoadispositionoutsidethemandatesofProposition36,inexchangefordismissalofachargethatwouldhaveexposedhimtoadditionalprisontimeandprecludedanyapplicationofProposition36.Heisattemptingtotriflewiththecourts.(Id._at_Ԁp.774.)*&&` x` x  +''  ` Itisimportanttonotethatthedefendantin_Chatmon_hadobtaineda  certificateofprobablecause.Nonetheless,sincehewasnotseekingtowithdrawhisplea,thecertificatewasofnovaluetohim. ` Peoplev._Panizzon_Ԁ(1996)13Cal.4th68providesanexampleofa   situationwhereacertificateofprobablecausewouldhavemadeadifference.There,thedefendantenteredapleabargainforaspecifiedtermoflifewiththepossibilityofparoleplus12years.Withoutthebenefitofacertificateofprobablecause,thedefendantarguedthathissentencewascruelandunusualsinceitexceededthetermsimposedonhiscodefendants.TheSupremeCourtdismissedtheappealonthegroundsinteraliathatacertificatewas  required.(Id._at_Ԁp.79.)However,thecourtmadenomentionof_waiver_.  Thus,theimplicationisthataconstitutionalchallengetoasentenceisnotnecessarilywaivedbyanagreementtoaspecifiedterm. ` Althoughthispointgoesunaddressedin_Panizzon_,thequestion  remainsastotheremedywhichcouldhavebeengivenhadthedefendantsclaimbeenproperlyperfected.Presumably,theproperremedywouldhavebeentovacatethepleabargain.ThisissosincethePeoplewouldhavebeenotherwisedeprivedofthebenefitoftheirbargain.Thus,ifadefendantisdesirousofchallengingaspecifiedsentencearrangedbypleabargain,heshouldbeadvisedthathemightberequiredtogototrial.(SeePeoplev. *&& Collins(1978)21Cal.3d208,215[pleabargainmustbevacatedwhentodo  otherwisewoulddeprivetheprosecution ofthebenefitofitsbargain....].) `  1.8  InOrderToPreserveAnAppellate  ChallengeToTheSufficiencyOfTheEvidenceToProveAnEnhancement,TheDefendantMustEnterA_Bunnell_ԀPlea.   ` ItwilloftenbethecasethatanenhancementchargedbythePeoplewillbesubjecttoadefenseoffactorsometypeoflegalobjection.However,anysuchdefenseisnotcognizableonappealifthedefendantadmitstheenhancement.(People_v._ԀThomas(1986)41Cal.3d837,842844andfn.6  [admissionof_seriousfelonyprior_Ԁprecludedappellateattackonsufficiencyofallegation].) ` Inordertopreserveaclaimthattheenhancementisnotsupportedbytheevidence,thedefendantmustenterapleapursuantto_Bunnell_Ԁv.Superior  Court(1975)13Cal.3d592.Underthe_Bunnell_procedure,thedefendant  entersa slowpleabysubmittingthecaseonthebasisofwhateverdocumentationispresentedbytheprosecutor.Inthisway,asufficiencyoftheevidenceclaimispreservedforappeal.(Peoplev.Watson(2007)42Cal.4th $  822,825826,fn.3.) ` B.8 TheSpecialSituationOfTheExpressWaiverOf ($$ TheRightToAppeal.     ` Insomecases,theDistrictAttorneyattemptstoforestallasentencing +'' appealbyrequiringthedefendanttowaivetherighttoappealasaconditionofthepleabargain.Fortunately,anypurportedwaiverisstrictlyconstruedinthedefendantsfavor. ` Awaiveroftherighttoappealisvalidregardlessofwhetheritismadeorallyorinwriting.(Peoplev._Panizzon_,supra,13Cal.4th68,8384.)   However,abarementionofsuchawaiverwillnotbedeemedvalidabsentevidencethatthenatureoftherightwasmadeknowntothedefendant.(Peoplev._Rosso_Ԁ(1994)30Cal.App.4th1001,1006.)   ` Inaddition,thescopeofawaiveroftherighttoappealwillnotbebroadlyconstrued.Ifaparticularissuewasnotwithinthepartiescontemplationatthetimeofthewaiver,theissuewillbedeemedoutsidethewaiver.(Peoplev._Sherrick_Ԁ(1993)19Cal.App.4th657,659[generalwaiver  didnotencompasstherighttoappealthetrialcourtserrorindenyingprobationbasedonamisunderstandingofthelaw];People_v._ԀVargas(1993)  13Cal.App.4th1653,1662[challengetoorderdenyingpresentencecreditswascognizablesincetheissuewasnotmentionedwhenthewaiverwastaken].) ` IntheSupremeCourtsview,theholdingsin_Sherrick_ԀandVargaswere &"" correctsinceeachcaseinvolveda possiblefutureerrorregardingissues leftunresolvedbytheparticularpleaagreementsinvolved.(_Panizzon_, *&& supra,13Cal.4th68,85,emphasisinoriginal.)Thus,solongastheissueto  beraisedwasleft openorunaddressedbythedeal,thewaiverwillnotprecludetheissuefrombeingraisedonappeal.(Id._at_Ԁp.86;seealsoPeople  v._Mumm_Ԁ(2002)98Cal.App.4th812,815[waiverofrighttoappealdoesnot   includeerroroccurring afterthewaiverbecausethedefendantcouldnotknowinglyandintelligentlywaivetherighttoappealanunforeseenorunknownfutureerror.[_Citation._]].) ` C.8 ThereAreSeveralTheoriesWhichMayBe  AdvancedInOrderToAvoidAFindingOfForfeiture.     ` IntheseminalcaseofPeople_v._ԀScott,supra,9Cal.4th331,the  SupremeCourtheldthataclaimofsentencingerrorcannotbemadeonappealabsentanobjectioninthetrialcourtifthenatureoftheissuerelatesto thetrialcourtsfailuretoproperlymakeorarticulateitsdiscretionarysentencingchoices.(Id.atp.353.) Includedinthiscategoryarecasesinwhichthe  statedreasonsallegedlydonotapplytotheparticularcase,andcasesinwhichthecourtpurportedlyerredbecauseitdoublecountedaparticularsentencingfactor,_misweighed_Ԁthevariousfactors,orfailedtostateanyreasonsorgiveasufficientnumberofvalidreasons.(Ibid.) &""  ` InlightoftheScottrule,theAttorneyGeneralsfirstargumentis ($$ invariablythattheissueinquestionhasbeenforfeitedduetothefailureto *&& renderanadequateobjection.Ifthereisacompleteabsenceofanobjection,itisawisetactictoaddresstheproblemintheopeningbrief.Dependingupontheexactnatureoftheissueinaparticularcase,thereareanumberofargumentswhichmightbeadvancedinordertoavoidforfeiture. ` First,apredicateforafindingofforfeitureunderScottisthatthetrial   courtaffordedthedefendanta meaningfulopportunitytorenderanobjection.(People_v._ԀScott,supra,9Cal.4th331,356.)Thus,ifthetrialcourt   quicklyannouncesitsjudgmentandcallsforarecess,thefailuretoobjectwillbeexcused.(People_v._ԀSuperiorCourt(Dorsey)(1996)50Cal.App.4th1216,  12231224.) ` However,theSupremeCourthascautionedthatthe opportunitytoobjectneednotbeaformalororderlyone.Rather,thetrialcourthasnodutytoissueatentativedecisionbeforethehearingnoristhecourtrequiredtoentertainobjectionsbeforeannouncingthetermsofitssentence.(Peoplev.  Gonzalez(2003)31Cal.4th745,748,755.)Asufficient opportunitywill   befoundifthecourt allowedthepartiestomakeobjectionswhilethesentencewasbeingpronounced.(Id._at_Ԁp.755.) $   ` ThemessagefromtheSupremeCourtisthattheterm meaningfulopportunitywillbegivenalimitedconstruction.Asaresult,appellatecounselshouldnotassumethatanargumentconcerningtheopportunityto *&& objectwillprevailonappeal. ` Second,theScottruleislimitedtothoseclaimswhichrelateto   discretionarysentencingchoices.(InreSheenaK.,supra,40Cal.4th875,  881.)Thus,ifatallpossible,anissueshouldbecategorizedasapureissueoflawsincesuchissuesareoutsidetheScottrule.(Id.atpp.887889.)For   example,aconstitutionalchallengetoaprobationconditioncanberaisedforthefirsttimeonappealsinceatrialcourthasnodiscretiontoviolatetheConstitution.(Ibid.)   ` Third,anappellatecourtalwayshasthediscretiontoreviewaclaimofsentencingerrorregardlessofthelackofanobjectioninthetrialcourt.(Inre  SheenaK.,supra,40Cal.4th875,887888,fn.7.)Thethesisunderlyingthis  exceptionisthatforfeituredoctrinesaregenerallycourtcreatedandthereisnolegalbarwhichprecludestheappellatecourtfromreachingmost_unpreserved_Ԁissues.(Peoplev.Williams(1998)17Cal.4th148,161162,fn.  6.)Thus,inacasewhereerrorhasplainlyoccurred,thecourtshouldbeencouragedtoreachthemerits.(InreSheenaK.,supra,40Cal.4thatp.887, " fn.7[claimshouldbereviewedonthemeritswhenitinvolves asubstantialright.].) ` Fourth,an unauthorizedsentencecanalwaysbechallengedonappealwithoutanobjectioninthetrialcourt.(InreSheenaK.,supra,40Cal.4th *&& 875,882andfn.3.)Asentenceis unauthorizedwhen itcouldnotlawfullybeimposedunderanycircumstanceintheparticularcase.(Peoplev.Scott,  supra,9Cal.4th331,354.)Forexample,asentenceis unauthorizedwhenthelengthofthetermisnotallowedbythePenalCodeorwhenpunishmentisprohibitedbyPenalCodesection654.(Id._at_Ԁp.354andfn.17;Peoplev.   _Serrato_Ԁ(1973)9Cal.3d753,764765,disapprovedonothergroundsin   Peoplev._Fosselman_Ԁ(1983)33Cal.3d572,583,fn.1.)    ` However,the unauthorizedsentenceexceptionshouldbeusedonlywithgreatcaution.Aswillbediscussedbelow,thedangerofan unauthorizedsentenceisthatthetrialcourtisallowedtoincreasethesentenceorpunishmentonremand.(Seepp._2633,infra.)_ԀThus,the unauthorizedsentenceexceptionshouldbearguedonlywiththeconsentoftheclient. ` Fifth,theultimateanswertoaforfeitureproblemistoadvanceaclaimofineffectiveassistanceoftrialcounsel.Asamatteroflaw,defensecounselperformsineffectivelywhenthereisafailuretopromotethe properapplicationofthesentencinglaws.(People_v._ԀScott,supra,9Cal.4th331, $  351.)Thus,thereshouldbenohesitancytoargueineffectiveassistanceofcounselwhenitisanecessarypredicateforobtainingappellaterelief.Thispointwillbefurtheraddressedbelow.(Seepp.5558,infra.) *&&   IV.B8 ` APPELLATECOUNSELSHOULDALWAYSBEWARYOFTHEPOTENTIALFORANADVERSECONSEQUENCE. ` x` x  ` AppellatedefensecounselshouldtakeguidancefromtheHippocraticoath(_i.e._Ԁfirstdonoharmtotheclient).Uponinitialreviewofacase,appellatecounselshouldcarefullyexaminethesentence.Inmanycases,thetrialcourtwillhavemadeanerrorfavorabletotheclient.Inthissituation,theclientmustbecounseledthattheerrorcouldbecaughtbyeithertheAttorneyGeneralorCourtofAppeal.Ifthisoccurs,theappealmightresultinanincreaseintheclientssentence.Insomecases,itmaybeintheclientsbestintereststoabandontheappeal. ` Ofcourse,therearenumerousgradationsoferrorandprobabilitiesregardingwhethertheerrorwillbediscovered.Inaddition,thereisalikelihoodthattheDepartmentofCorrectionsandRehabilitation(_CDCR_)willcatchasignificanterroreveniftheCourtofAppealdoesnot.Thus,inmanycases,_CDCR_Ԁwillalertthetrialcourttotheerroreveniftheappealisabandoned. ` Ultimately,itistheclientsdecisionastowhethertheappealshouldbedismissed.However,itiscounselsdutyinthefirstinstancetocorrectlyadvisetheclientaboutanypossibleadverseconsequenceandthelikelihood *&& thatitwillcometofruition. ` ThegeneralruleinCaliforniaisthatadefendantmaynotreceivealongersentenceonremandtothetrialcourtafterwinninghisappeal.(People  _v._ԀHanson(2000)23Cal.4th355,357.)However,thegeneralruledoesnot   applyiftheinitiallyimposedsentencewas unauthorized.(Peoplev.   _Serrato_,supra,9Cal.3d753,764.)Asentenceis unauthorizedwhen it   couldnotlawfullybeimposedunderanycircumstanceintheparticularcase.(People_v._ԀScott,supra,9Cal.4th331,354.)   ` Atonetime,theconceptofan unauthorizedsentencewaslimitedtoobvioussituationssuchaswherethecourtgrantedprobationwhenithadnopowertodoso.(Peoplev._Serrato_,supra,9Cal.3d753,764.)However,as  oursentencingschemeshavebecomeevermorecomplex,thevarietyof unauthorizedsentences_have_Ԁexpandedgreatly.Althoughthescopeofthisarticledoesnotallowfordiscussionofeveryconceivableadverseconsequence,afewcommononeswillbediscussedbelow. ` Althoughitdoesnotoccuroften,trialjudgesoccasionallyforgettoimposeasentenceonaparticularcountorenhancement.Ifsuchanomissionhasoccurred,theclienthastobewarnedthatthecasecouldberemandedforimpositionofjudgmentonthecountorenhancement.(People_v._ԀPrice(1986) ($$ 184Cal.App.3d1405,1411,fn.6.)Ifthereisalikelihoodthatthetrialcourt *&& wouldnotimposeadditionalpunishment,itmightbeawiseideatopromptlyseekresentencing.Ontheotherhand,theclientcanelecttogamblethattheerrorwillneverbediscovered. ` TheThreeStrikes_law_ԀcreatedaschemewhichapplieswhenthePeopleareabletoprovethatthedefendanthasapriorseriousorviolentfelonyconviction.PursuanttoPenalCodesection1170.12,subdivision(a)(6),consecutivesentencesaremandatedwhenthepresentoffenseswerenotcommittedon thesameoccasionordidnotarise fromthesamesetofoperativefacts.Importantly,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthastightlyconstruedtheseconceptssuchthatevencrimeswhicharecommittedcloseintimeandplacemaystillrequiremandatoryconsecutivesentences.(SeePeoplev.Lawrence(2000)24Cal.4th219,225234[applyingbothconcepts  andholdingthatconsecutivesentenceswererequiredwherethedefendantwasconvictedofstealingabottleofbrandyfromastoreandassaultbasedonhisconductofhittingtwopeoplewiththebottleshortlythereafter].) ` Insomecases,therecordwillreflectimpositionofconcurrentsentencesina_strikes_Ԁcasewithoutanydiscussionofsection1170.12,subdivision(a)(6).Insuchacase,appellatecounselshouldcarefullyconsiderwhetherthereisanarguablechallengetothetrialcourtsruling.Ifthereis,cautionshouldbeexercisedsincetheadverseconsequencetotheclientmay *&& beasgraveastheadditionofaconsecutivesentenceof25yearstolife. ` Anotherpermutationconcerningsection1170.12,subdivision(a)(6)involvestheruleofPeoplev.Garcia(1999)20Cal.4th490.UnderGarcia,  thetrialcourthasthepowertodismissstrikesastosome,butnotall,oftheconvictions.Inthissituation,section1170.12,subdivision(a)(6)stillappliestothecountswhicharebeingsentencedoutsidethestrikeslaw.(People_v._   Casper(2004)33Cal.4th38,40.)Thus,onceagain,appellatecounselmust   carefullyconsiderwhetherthe sameoccasionor samesetofoperativefactsexceptionswereproperlyappliedifconcurrenttermswereimposed. ` Afinalcommonadverseconsequencearisingunderthe_strikes_Ԁlawoccurswhenthedefendantisalreadyservingasentenceonapriorcase.Asamatteroflaw,thecourtisrequiredtorunthenew_strikes_Ԁsentenceconsecutivetotheexistingsentence.(PenalCodesection1170.12,subd.(_a_)(8);People_v._ԀHelms(1997)15Cal.4th608,610.)However,itshouldbe  notedthatthisruledoesnotapplywhereoneofthetwocasesinvolvestherevocationofprobationandthesentenceforthenewoffenseisimposedfirstintime.(Peoplev._Rosbury_Ԁ(1997)15Cal.4th206,210211.) $   ` Thehighlyoneroussexsentencingstatutesposeaminefieldofpotentialadverseconsequences.Thisistrueinatleasttworespects. ` ThePeoplewilloftenseekalifesentencepursuanttoPenalCode *&& section667.61whichapplieswhencertainpredicatefactsarepledandproven.Importantly,consecutivesentencesaremandatedwhenthecrimes involveseparatevictimsorinvolvethesamevictimonseparate_occasions...._(Section667.61,subd.(_i_).)Thus,wheneverconcurrenttermsareimposedinasection667.61case,thelegalityofthesentencesshouldbecarefullyexamined. ` ThesameholdstrueforcasessentencedunderPenalCodesection667.6.Pursuanttosection667.6,subdivision(d),fullconsecutivesentencesaremandatedwhen thecrimesinvolveseparatevictimsorinvolvethesamevictimonseparateoccasions.Onceagain,appellatecounselshouldcloselyreviewtherecordinordertoensurethatthetrialcourtdidnoterrwhenitfailedtoimposefullconsecutivesentences. ` Appellatecounselshouldalsobeawareofotheruniquestatuteswhichrequirespecialsentences.Suchstatutesexistwithregardtokidnapping,escape,crimescommittedbyprisonersandconvictionsinvolvingthreatsorbribestoavictimorwitness. ` Inacasewheretwoormorekidnappingsinvolvedseparatevictims,thecourtisrequiredtoimposethefullmiddletermforeachsubordinatecountwhichissentencedconsecutively.(PenalCodesection1170.1,subd.(_b_).)Anysubordinateenhancementsmustalsoberunfull_term_.(Ibid.) *&&  ` PenalCodesection1170.1,subdivision(c)statesaspecialrulewhichappliestocrimescommittedbyprisonersorthosewhoareconvictedofescape.Inthecasesgovernedbythisprovision,allconsecutivesentencesmustbeservedfullterm. ` AnotherspecialruleisfoundinPenalCodesection1170.15.IfadefendantisconvictedofthreateningorbribingavictimorwitnessinviolationofPenalCodesections136.1or137andthecrimewasrelatedtoanotherfelonyforwhichthedefendantwasconvicted,anyconsecutivesentencefortheoffensesmustbeimposedfull_term_.However,itshouldbenotedthatthetrialcourtstillretainsthejurisdictiontoimposeconcurrentterms. ` Inexaminingthejudgmentimposedbythetrialcourt,appellatecounselshouldbeespeciallyattentivetoanyfavorablerulingregardingPenalCodesection654.Accordingtoatleastonedecision,theerroneousimpositionofasection654stayrenderstheentiresentence unauthorized.(Peoplev.   Price,supra,184Cal.App.3d1405,1411.)Sincesection654issuesareoften " hotlycontestedinthetrialcourt,counselshouldbecautiouswheneverthetrialcourtsfavorablerulingisquestionable.(ButseePeople_v._ԀBrown(1987)193 &"" Cal.App.3d957,962[erroneoussection654staymaynotrendersentence unauthorized.].) *&&  ` Inmostcases,thedeterminationofpresentencecreditsinvolvesaclericalcalculationoranissueoflaw.Thus,ifthetrialcourterrsandawardsmorecreditsthanareallowedbylaw,theappellatecourtcancorrecttheerror.(People_v._ԀJack(1989)213Cal.App.3d913,915.)Giventhisrule,appellate   counselshouldcloselyscrutinizethepresentence_credits_Ԁaward.Inaguiltypleaappealwheretheclienthasreceivedashortsentence,itmaybeintheclientsbestintereststodismisstheappeallestthecreditserrorbediscovered. ` Finally,anadverseconsequencemightariseifthetrialcourthasfailedtoproperlymemorializeitsexerciseofdiscretionunderPenalCodesection1385.Pursuanttosection1385,asentencingcourthasbroaddiscretiontodismisscounts,priorconvictionsandotherenhancements.(SeegenerallyPeople_v._ԀJones(2007)157Cal.App.4th1373,13801383.)Inexercisingits  power,thecourtisrequiredtoprepareawrittenminuteorderwhichspecifiesthe reasonsforthedismissal.(Section1385,subd.(_a_).)Presumably,theomissiontopreparethewrittenorderrendersthedismissal unauthorizedsincetheorderisdeemed ineffectiveornonexistent.(People_v._ԀSuperior " Court(Romero)(1996)13Cal.4th497,532;butseePeoplev._Bonnetta_ $  S159133,_rv_._granted_ԀMarch12,2008[SupremeCourtmayaddressthis &"" issue].)  ($$  ` Inacasewherethewrittenorderhasnotbeenprepared,appellate *&& counselcantaketheaffirmativestepofrequestingthatthetrialcourtpreparetheordernuncprotunc.Thiscanusuallybedonebysimplyincorporatingthereasonswhichwereorallystatedontherecord. ` However,insomecases,itmaybebettertodonothing.Iftheoriginaltrialjudgeisnolongeravailable,thereisalwaysthedangerthatanotherjudgewillnotagreetopreparethewrittenorder.Inthiscircumstance,inactionmaybethebestcourse.Indeed,experienceteachesthattheAttorneyGeneralwillnotmentionthetrialcourtsfailuretopreparethewrittenorder. ` Astheforegoingexamplesreveal,aplethoraofadverseconsequencescanariseinthesimplestofcases.Giventherealitythattheconceptof unauthorizedsentencesisagrowthindustry,appellatecounselmusttakecaretodonoharmtotheclient.__j   j_  V.t8 ` INADVANCINGAPENALCODESECTION654CLAIM,COUNSELSHOULDTAKEFULLADVANTAGEOFTHESIGNIFICANTDECISIONSINPEOPLEv.BRITT(2004)32  Cal.4th944,PEOPLEv.HALL(2000)83Cal.App.4th1084   ANDPEOPLEv.LE(2006)136Cal.App.4th925. ` x` x  ` PenalCodesection654providesasignificantprotectiontodefendants.Undersection654,adefendantmaynotbepunishedformultipleoffensesifallofthecrimeswerecommittedpursuanttoasinglecriminalobjective.(People_v._ԀBritt,supra,32Cal.4th944,951952.)Anexceptiontotheruleis  thatmultiplepunishmentisallowedforcrimesofviolence.(People_v._ԀMiller  (1977)18Cal.3d873,885.)   ` Althoughtheyareoftenoverlooked,therearetwosignificantdecisionswhichbearontheseprinciples.(People_v._ԀBritt,supra,32Cal.4th944;People  _v._ԀHall,supra,83Cal.App.4th1084.)Inapropercase,theseauthoritiescan  makethedifferencebetweenvictoryordefeat. ` Inaddition,People_v._ԀLe,supra,136Cal.App.4th925isacasewhich   cansavemoneyfortheclient.Whenallelsefails,Lecanbeusedtoobtainat " leastafinancialremedyfortheclient. ` Thetestfordeterminingwhethersection654prohibitsmultiplepunishmentiswellestablished: Whetheracourseofcriminalconductisdivisibleandthereforegivesrisetomorethanoneactwithinthemeaningof *&& section654dependsontheintentandobjectiveoftheactor.Ifalloftheoffenseswereincidenttooneobjective,thedefendantmaybepunishedforanyoneofsuchoffensesbutnotformorethanone.(Neal_v._ԀStateof   California(1960)55Cal.2d11,19.)InBritt,theSupremeCourtelucidated " theapplicationofthetest. ` InBritt,thedefendantwasrequiredtoregisterasasexoffender &"" pursuanttoPenalCodesection290.Whenoffendersmove,theymustnotifythepoliceinboththeirformerandnewjurisdictions.Thedefendantleft *&& _SacramentoCountyandmovedtoElDoradoCounty.However,hefailedtoprovidenoticetoeitherjurisdiction.Followinghisconvictioninbothcounties,thedefendantcontendedthatsection654precludedmultiplepunishment.Inopposingtheargument,thePeoplecontendedthatthedefendanthadtwoseparatecriminalobjectives:Tomisleadlawenforcementintwoseparatelocales. ` TheSupremeCourtrejectedthePeoplesposition.Insodoing,thecourtreasonedthat findingseparateobjectivesheretomisleadorconcealinformationfromthelawenforcementagencyineachcountyparsestheobjectivestoofinely.(Britt,supra,32Cal.4thatp.953.)Thecourt &"" concludedthat theobjectiveavoidingpolicesurveillancewasachievedjustonce,butonlybythecombinationofbothreportingviolations.(Ibid.) *&&  ` Thepotentialapplicationofthisanalysisisquitebroad.Plainly,Mr.Brittscriminalconductwascommittedindifferentplaces,atdifferenttimesandagainstdifferentgroupsofpeople.Yet,thecourtconcludedthathisoverridingobjectiveprecludedmultiplepunishment.AlthoughonecanimagineamultitudeofsituationswhereBrittwouldapply,asingleexample   illustratestheutilityofthecase. ` Assumeasituationwherethedefendantgetsintoanaccidentwithanothercar.Thedefendantfleesthescenebydrivingdangerously.Afterdrivingforadistance,thedefendantisfollowedbyapolicecar.Thedefendantcontinuestodrivedangerously.Thedefendantisconvictedofhitandrun(VehicleCodesection20002)andevadingthepolice(VehicleCodesection2800.2).Onthesefacts,thePeoplewillundoubtedlyarguethatthedefendanthadtwocriminalobjectives(_i.e._Ԁtoescapefromthecarwhichhehitandtoescapefromthepolice).However,thisargumentis_meritless_ԀunderBritt.    ` Brittcounselsthatacourterrswhenit parsestheobjectivestoo " finely.(Britt,supra,32Cal.4thatp.953.)Basedonthefactsofthe $  hypothetical,itisperfectlyreasonabletoconcludethatthedefendantssoleobjectivewastoescapehisresponsibilityfortheaccident.Viewedfromthisperspective,theflightfromthepolicewasmerelypartandparcelofthe *&& defendantsbroaderintent.UnderBritt,thegoalofescapingwas achieved  justonce,butonlybythecombinationofboth[escapes].(Ibid.)   ` Aswasnotedabove,section654doesnotprecludedoublepunishmentwhenmultipleconvictionsinvolvecrimesofviolence.(People_v._ԀMiller,   supra,18Cal.3d873,885.)Importantly,thisrulehasbeenconstruedasapplyingonlytotheelementsoftheoffense. ` InPeople_v._ԀHall,supra,83Cal.App.4th1084,thedefendantwas   convictedofmultiplecountsofbrandishingafirearmbasedonhisconductofexhibitingtheweaponinfrontofthreepoliceofficers.Thetrialcourtimposedconsecutivesentences.Inresponsetothedefendantssection654contention,thePeoplearguedthatmultiplepunishmentwasallowedsincethebrandishingofaweaponisacrimewhichhasthepotentialforviolence.TheCourtofAppealdisagreedandheldthattheviolenceexceptiontosection654appliesonlywhentheoffenseis definedbystatutetoproscribeanactof  violenceagainstthe_person...._(Id.atp.1089,emphasisinoriginal.)Since   thecrimeofbrandishingaweapon doesnotrequireanintenttoharmorthecommissionofanactlikelytoharmothers,thecourtappliedsection654.(Id.atpp.10941097.) &""  ` _Hall_Ԁisavitalprecedentwhichwillbeusefulwithrespecttoalarge ($$ numberofoffenses.Withitsjudicioususe,Hallshouldbethebasisformany *&& successfulsection654claims.(SeePeoplev._Davey_Ԁ(2005)133Cal.App.4th  384,390392[citingHallandholdingthatindecentexposuredoesnotfall  withintheviolenceexceptiontosection654].) ` Peoplev.Le,supra,136Cal.App.4th925isacasewhichshowsthe   broadreachofsection654.InLe,thedefendantpledguiltytorobberyand   burglary.Thedefendantalsoadmittedastrikeprior.Asentenceoftwelveyears,fourmonthswasimposed.Thecourtalsoimposeda$4800restitutionfinebyusingthestatutoryformulaofmultiplyingthenumberofconvictions(two)bythenumberofyearsofimprisonment(twelve)by$200.(PenalCodesection1202.4,subd.(_b_)(2).) ` Onappeal,Mr.Lepersuadedthecourtthatthepunishmentforhisburglaryconvictionshouldhavebeenstayedpursuanttosection654.Asabyproductofthisconclusion,Mr.Lecontendedthathistriallawyerhadperformedineffectivelywhenhefailedtoobjectthatthestayedburglarycountcouldnotbeemployedasafactorinthecalculationoftherestitutionfine.TheCourtofAppealagreedandreducedtherestitutionfineto$2200.(Le, " supra,136Cal.App.4thatpp.932936.) ` ItisworthnotingthatLedoesnotsaythatafindingofineffective &"" assistanceofcounselwasrequiredforaremedytobegiven.Rather,thecourtnotedthatMr.Lehadelectedtoseekreliefonthisbasis.(Le,supra,136 *&& Cal.App.4thatp.935.)Insofarasitisthegeneralrulethatasection654issuecanberaisedwithoutanobjectioninthetrialcourt(Peoplev.Scott,supra,9  Cal.4th331,354,fn.17),itislikelythatLereliefcanbeobtainedwithout  resorttoaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.However,asalways,itisagoodideatoraisetheineffectiveassistanceclaimasabackup.  VI. 8 ` INACASEARISINGUNDERPROPOSITION36,COUNSELSHOULDBEAWAREOFTHEDEVELOPINGLAWWHICHGOVERNSWHETHERADEFENDANTMAYBESENTENCEDTOPRISON. ` x` x  ` In2000,theelectorateapprovedProposition36(_i.e._ԀPenalCodesection1210,et._seq._).Reducedtoitsessence,Proposition36providesthatanonviolentoffendermustbegrantedprobationifhehasbeenconvictedsolelyofadrugpossessionoffense.Undertheoriginalversionofthescheme,thecourtwasgenerallyrestrictedfromsendingthedefendanttoprisonuntilhecommittedthreeseparateviolationsofprobation.(FormerSection1210.1,subd.(_e_)(3)(C).) ` In2006,theLegislatureamendedsection1210.1inordertoincreasethepowerofthetrialcourttoimposejailtimeforthefirsttwoprobationviolations.(Seepresentsection1210.1,subd.(_f_)(3)(A)and(f)(3)(B).)However,forthemoment,theAlamedaCountySuperiorCourthasenjoinedenforcementofthenewlaw.(SeePeoplev._Hazle_Ԁ(2007)157Cal.App.4th +'' 567,577,fn.1.) ` Therearetworecentdevelopmentsconcerningsection1210.1whichareofgreatsignificance.Oneofthedevelopmentsinvolvesevolvingcaselawandtheotherdevelopmentisfoundinthetextoftherevisedstatute. ` Section1210.1providessubstantialdueprocessprotectiontotheprobationer.Thestatuterequiresthatthecourtmustconductahearingbeforeitcanrevokeprobation.Sincedrugusersoftenfalloffthewagon,thestatutecontemplatesthatthedefendantsprobationmustberevokedthreetimesbeforeaprisonsentencemaybeimposed. ` However,insomecases,thePeoplearebentonavoidingthespiritofthestatute.Onitsface,section1210.1generallyrequiresthreeseparateviolationsbeforeprobationcanbeterminated.Theimplicationofthisschemeisthatthedefendantistobegiventhreeopportunitiesforredemption.However,thePeoplehavesoughttoavoidthepolicyofthestatutebyallegingthreeviolationswhichwerecommittedcloseintimeandwithnochanceforthedefendanttoseekassistanceforhiscontinuingdrugproblem.Fortunately,theThirdDistricthassteppedintoalleviatethegovernmentsabuseofsection1210.1. ` InPeoplev._Hazle_,supra,157Cal.App.4th567,thedefendantsuffered ($$ afirstprobationviolationonNovember29,2004.Secondandthirdpetitions *&& torevokeprobationwerefiledonMay20,2005andMay27,2005.Significantly,theviolation_alleged_Ԁinthethirdpetitionoccurredbeforethesecondpetitionwasfiled.Thecourtfoundbothpetitionstrueandcommittedthedefendanttoprison. ` Inassessingthissituation,theCourtofAppealfirstconcededthatsection1210.1doesnotrequirethatthreeseparatepetitionsbefiled.However, where,asinthiscase,nonoticeofonepetitionisgivenbeforethe   conductunderlyingthenextpetitionoccurs,althoughaconsolidatedhearing  maybeproper,itwouldbeimpropertotreattheresultasifthePeoplehadmadethreeseparatenoticedmotions.(_Hazle_,supra,157Cal.App.4thatp.  577,emphasisinoriginal.)Asaresult,thecasewasremandedforresentencing. ` InPeoplev.Enriquez(2008)160Cal.App.4th230,theThirdDistrict  applied_Hazle_.InEnriquez,twopetitionstorevokeprobationwerefiled.The  defendantwasnotservedwitheitherpetitionuntilhisarraignment.Then,athirdpetitionwasfiledbasedonconductwhichpredatedthefactsallegedinthesecondpetition.Allthreepetitionswereadmittedinasinglehearingandthedefendantwassentencedtoprison.TheCourtofAppealreversedsincethetrialcourtshouldhavefoundonlyasingleviolationofprobationonthesefacts.(Id.atp.239[ UnderProposition36,defendantwasentitledtothree *&& distinctperiodsofprobationbeforehelosthiseligibility.Hedidnotgetthat.].) ` Theruleof_Hazle_ԀandEnriquezissalutary.Section1210.1mustbe  construedinafairmannerwhichallowsthedefendantthethreechancesrequiredbyProposition36.(Enriquez,supra,160Cal.App.4thatp.239;   _Hazle_,supra,157Cal.App.4thatp.577.)    ` Asidefrom_Hazle_ԀandEnriquez,itisessentialtonotethattherevised   versionofsection1210.1containsaprovisionwhichismorefavorabletothe  defendantthantheoriginalstatute.Intheinitialstatute,thetrialcourthadnopowertoreinstateprobationfollowingathirdviolation.(Formersection1210.1,subd.(_e_)(3)(C).)However,thenewversionofthestatuteallowsthecourttoreinstateprobationevenafterathirdviolation.(Newsection1210.1,subd.(_f_)(3)(C).) ` Giventhisrecentstatutorychange,itislikelythatmosttrialcourtjudgesareunawareoftheirdiscretiontoreinstateprobationafterathirdviolation.Insuchacase,aremandforresentencingshouldberequired.(Peoplev._Belmontes_Ԁ(1983)34Cal.3d335,348,fn.8[remandisrequired $  whenthecourtwasunawareofthescopeofitsdiscretionaryauthority].) ` Itshouldbenotedthatthe_Hazle_Ԁcourtwasoftheopinionthatthe ($$ injunctionissuedintheAlamedaCountySuperiorCourtprecludesapplication *&& ofthenewprovision.(_Hazle_,supra,157Cal.App.4th567,577,fn.1.)  However,thisconclusionisdebatable.Asacourtofsuperiorjurisdiction,aCourtofAppealenjoysampleauthoritytodisregardtheinjunction.Indeed,inanunpublishedcase,theSixthDistrictgrantedreliefunderthenewstatute.(Peoplev.Jefferson(2007)2007_Cal.App.Unpub_.Lexis6822at*2126.)   Uponrequest,SDAPwillmaketheJeffersonbriefingavailable.     VII.$8 ` WHENTHEDEFENDANTISSENTENCEDUNDERPENALCODESECTION667.6,APPELLATECOUNSELSHOULDCAREFULLYEXAMINETHERECORDINORDERTOENSURETHATTHESTATUTEWASPROPERLYAPPLIED. ` x` x  ` PenalCodesection667.6,subdivision(c)providesthecourtwiththediscretiontoimposeafullconsecutivetermforaspecifiedsexoffensewhenanothertermisbeingimposedunderPenalCodesection1170.1foranonsexoffense.(People_v._ԀJones(1988)46Cal.3d585,589.)PenalCodesection  667.6,subdivision(d)mandatestheimpositionoffullconsecutivetermsformultiplespecifiedsexconvictionsiftheoffenseswerecommittedon separateoccasionsoragainstseveralvictims.Amongotherissues,twocontentionsfrequentlyariseundertheseprovisions. ` Aswasnotedabove,subdivision(d)comesintoplayonlywhentherearetwoormorespecifiedsexconvictions.However,inanumberofcases,the *&& trialcourtwillerroneouslystatethatitisrequiredtoimposeafullconsecutivesentenceforasinglesexcrimepursuanttosubdivision(d).Insuchacase,reversaliscompelledsincethecourtwillhaveimposedasentencewithoutknowledgeofitsdiscretionaryauthoritytoimposeadifferentterm.(People   v._Belmontes_,supra,34Cal.3d335,348,fn.8.)    ` Adifferentkindoferroroftenoccurswhenthetrialcourtimposesaconsecutivesentenceundersubdivision(c).Becausetheimpositionofafulltermconsecutive_sentence_Ԁisaharshdisposition,thetrialcourtisrequiredtoexpresslystatereasonswhichjustifytheuseofsubdivision(c).(CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule4.426(b).)Althoughthereasonsmaybeidenticaltothoseusedbythecourtinimposingotherconsecutivesentencesinthecase,therecordmust reflectrecognitiononthepartofthetrialcourtthatitismakingaseparateandadditionalchoiceinsentencingundersection667.6,subdivision(c).(_Belmontes_,supra,34Cal.3d335,348fn.omitted.)   ` Section667.6isadraconianstatute.Thus,appellatecounselshouldensurethatitsprovisionswereproperlyemployedbythetrialcourt.  "   VIII..8 ` WHENEVERADEFENDANTHASBEENDENIEDPRESENTENCECREDITBASEDON MIXEDCONDUCTRELATEDTOAPROBATIONORPAROLEREVOCATION,APPELLATECOUNSELSHOULDOBTAINTHEDOCUMENTSUNDERLYINGTHEREVOCATIONINORDERTODETERMINEIFACLAIMCANBEMADEFORADDITIONALCREDITS. ` x` x  ` Inmanycases,thecommissionofacriminaloffensewillleadtobothanewprosecutionandtherevocationofapreexistinggrantofprobationorparole.Ifprobationorparoleisrevokedsolelyonthebasisofthenewoffense,thedefendantwillbeentitledtopresentencecreditagainsthissentenceforthenewconviction.(Peoplev._Bruner_Ԁ(1995)9Cal.4th1178,  11931194,fn.10.)However,ifprobationorparolewasrevokedforatleastonereasonunrelatedtothenewcharge(_i.e._Ԁmixedconduct),presentencecreditmustbedeniedforanyperiodofcustodyservedintheprobationorparolecase.(Id._at_Ԁpp.11931194[presentencecreditmaynotbeawarded  unlessthedefendantcanshowthathewouldhavebeenreleased butforhisnewcriminalconduct].) ` Regrettably,manytriallawyersdoapoorjobofinvestigatingpresentencecreditsissues.Asaresult,appellatecounselmustoftendotheinvestigationinthefirstinstance.Inanycasewheretherecordshowsadenialofpresentencecreditdueto mixedconduct,counselshouldobtainthe *&& underlyingdocuments.Bydoingso,counselwilloftenfindanissuewhichwouldotherwiseremainundiscovered.AninterestingexamplecanbefoundintheunpublishedSixthDistrictcaseofPeoplev._Levell_Ԁ(2007)2007  Cal.App._Unpub_.Lexis6763. ` In_Levell_,thedefendantwaschargedwithfalseimprisonmentand   dissuadingawitness.Afterthechargeswerebrought,thedefendantsparolewasrevokedonthreegrounds:(1)thecommissionofanassaultwithadeadlyweapon;(2)thecommissionoffalseimprisonment;and(3)absconding.GiventhefindingthatMr._Levell_Ԁhadcommittedanassaultwithadeadlyweapon,theparoleboarddenied_worktime_ԀcreditpursuanttoPenalCodesection3057,subdivision(d)(2)(C)[_worktime_Ԁcreditdisallowedwhentheparoleehascommittedanassaultwithadeadlyweapon].)Asaresult,Mr._Levell_Ԁwascompelledtoserveafullparolerevocationtermwithoutthebenefitoftheonethird_worktime_Ԁcreditavailableforapersonservingaparolerevocationinthecountyjail.(See15_CCR_Ԁsection2743(c).) ` Atthetimeofsentencing,noneofthesefactsweremadeknowntothecourt.Thus,presentencecreditwasdeniedfortheperiodduringwhichMr._Levell_Ԁservedhisparolerevocation. ` Appellatecounselobtainedtheparolerevocationdocumentsfromtheparoleboard.Counselrecognizedthatthecasewasonlypartiallyoneof *&&  mixedconduct.InsofarasthetrialtranscriptshowedthatMr._Levell_Ԁhadassaultedthevictim,theparoleboardsfindingofassaultdidnotinvolve mixedconduct.ThiswassoeventhoughtheDistrictAttorneyhadelectednottofileanassaultcharge.(_Bruner_,supra,9Cal.4th1178,11931194,fn.   10).Althoughtheparoleboardsabscondingfindingdidinvolve mixedconduct,Mr._Levell_Ԁwasstillentitledtoadditionalpresentencecredits. ` Theparoleboardsuseofsection3057,subdivision(d)(2)(C)involvedthe identicalconductunderlyingthenewcriminalcase.Thus,theCourtofAppealawardedadditionalpresentencecreditsbyapplyingtheusualrulethataparolerevocationtermisshortenedbyonethirdwhenthetermisservedincountyjail. ` Thepointoftheunusualandcomplicated_Levell_Ԁcaseisnottoconfuse  thereader.Rather,themessageisthatareviewoftheparoleboarddocumentsledtoasignificantremedyfortheclient. ` Finally,itmustbeemphasizedthatthenewlydiscoveredfactsmustbebroughttotheattentionofthetrialcourtinanoticedmotion.(PenalCodesection1237.1.)Underexistinglaw,thetrialcourthascontinuingjurisdictiontocorrectitsawardofpresentencecredits.(People_v._ԀLittle(1993)19 &"" Cal.App.4th449,452.)Ifthetrialcourtdeniesthemotion,therulingisappealableasanordermadeafterjudgment.(PenalCodesection1237,subd. *&& (_b_).)  IX.C8 ` WHENEVERADEFENDANTISSENTENCEDTOATERMOFCONFINEMENTOFATLEASTSIXMONTHS,ANYAWARDOFATTORNEYSFEESSHOULDBESUBJECTTOCHALLENGEFORINSUFFICIENCYOFTHEEVIDENCE. ` x` x  ` Whenanindigentcriminaldefendantreceiveslegalservicesfromthegovernment,thecourtisauthorizedtoimposeanattorneysfeesaward.(PenalCodesection987.8.)However,ifthedefendantissentencedtoatermofatleastsixmonths,itispresumedthatthedefendantlackstheabilitytopay_attorneys_Ԁfees.(Section987.8,subd.(_g_)(2)(B).)Thus,ifthecourtimposes_attorneys_Ԁfeesinacasewhereasentenceofatleastsixmonthsisordered,theawardoffeescanlikelybereversedonappeal.(Peoplev._Viray_Ԁ(2005)134  Cal.App.4th1186,12171218.) ` Importantly,theissueshouldberaisedasaclaimofinsufficiencyoftheevidence.Inthisway,noobjectionneedhavebeenmadeinordertopreservetheclaim.(_Viray_,supra,134Cal.App.4thatp.1217.) "   X.;H8 ` ABRIEFWORDABOUTTHEREMNANTSOFCUNNINGHAM_v._ԀCALIFORNIA(2007)549U.S.____[166 '## L.E.2d856]. ` x` x  ` Atthispoint,mostofushavedepletedourenthusiasmforthefederal *&& constitutionalissuewhichwassuccessfullyadjudicatedinCunninghamv.  California,supra,166L.E.2d856.Nonetheless,itisworthnotingthatthere  aretworemainingaspectsofCunninghamwhichmightcomeintoplay.   ` InCunningham,theSupremeCourtheldthatthefederalConstitution   wasviolatedwhenaCaliforniatrialcourtmadefactualfindingswhichservedtoincreasethedefendants maximumsentencebyimposingtheupperterm.(Cunningham,supra,166L.E.2d856,864.)TheholdinginCunninghamwas   basedonformerPenalCodesection1170,subdivision(b)whichcreatedapresumptionforimpositionofthemiddleterm. ` InMarch2007,theLegislatureamendedPenalCodesection1170,subdivision(b)inordertoremovethepresumptionforthemiddleterm.Underthenewstatute,thetrialcourthasfulldiscretiontoimposetheupperterm.Thus,thespecificproblemidentifiedinCunninghamhasbeencured.  However,theLegislaturefailedtodealwitharemainingdefect. ` PenalCodesection1170.1,subdivision(d)governsthesituationwherethetrialcourthastheauthoritytoimposealower,middleoruppertermforanenhancement.Theprovisionstatesapresumptionforimpositionofthemiddleterm.Asaresult,theprovisionfallsafouloftheholdinginCunningham.(People_v._ԀLincoln(2007)157Cal.App.4th196,205206 ($$ [judgmentreversedandresentencingorderedonPenalCodesection12022.5 *&& enhancement].) ` InlightofLincoln,aCunninghamclaimstillliesregardinganycase  wheretheuppertermwasimposedforanenhancement.However,sinceCunninghamhasbeeninexistenceforsometimenow,itwillprobablybe   necessarytoraisetheissueasanineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaimifanobjectionwasnotmadeinthetrialcourt. ` Theremaybeafewremainingcasesonappealwhichdealwithformersection1170,subdivision(b).Insuchacase,Peoplev.Cardenas(2007)155  Cal.App.4th1468isausefulcase. ` InCardenas,thetrialcourtimposedtheuppertermbyrelyingonthe   planningand sophisticationbehindthecrime.ThePeopleurgedthaterrorshouldnotbefoundunderCunninghamsincethedefendanthadprior  convictions.TheCourtofAppealrejectedthisargumentsincethetrialcourthadnotcitedthepriorconvictionsasajustificationfortheupperterm.(Cardenas,supra,155Cal.App.4thatp.1483[it isnotfortheappellatecourt   toconjurethereasonsthetrialcourtcouldhaverecitedtosupportitssentencingdecisionfromthemanyoptionslistedinthestatutesandcourtrules.Wereviewthetrialcourtsreasonswedontmakethemup.].) ` Inshort,thelegacyofCunninghamwillbeshortlived.However,for ($$ themoment,Cunninghammaystillapplyinafewcases. *&&   XI.V8 ` NOTWITHSTANDINGTHECASELAWTOTHECONTRARY,ADEFENDANTWHOISPRESUMPTIVELYINELIGIBLEFORPROBATIONISENTITLEDTOANEWPROBATIONREPORTWHENHEISRESENTENCEDFOLLOWINGASUCCESSFULAPPEAL. ` x` x  ` Onmanyoccasions,theCourtofAppealwillreversethejudgmentanddirectthetrialcourttoconductaresentencinghearing.Inthissituation,CaliforniaRulesofCourt,rule4.411(c)mandatorilyrequiresthepreparationofanewprobationreportiftheresentencingis_tooccur asignificantperiod_oftimeaftertheoriginalreportwasprepared.Thepassageofmorethansixmonthsisdeemedtobea significantperiodoftime.(People_v._ԀDobbins  (2005)127Cal.App.4th176,180181.)   ` Notwithstandingthemandatorylanguageofrule4.411(c),thereisawealthofcaselawwhichholdsthatanewprobationreportisnotnecessarilyrequiredifthedefendantispresumptivelyineligibleforprobation.(People  _v._ԀJohnson(1999)70Cal.App.4th1429,14311432;People_v._ԀMyers(1999)   69Cal.App.4th305,310311;People_v._ԀLlamas(1998)67Cal.App.4th35, " 3841.)Thesecaseswerewronglydecided. ` People_v._ԀLlamas,supra,67Cal.App.4th35isrepresentativeofthe &"" reasoninginthecitedcases.InLlamas,thedefendantwaspresumptively ($$ ineligibleforprobationsincehehadastrikeprior.Thecourtheldthatanew *&& probationreportwasnotrequiredbythenrule411(c)fortworeasons:(1)trialcounselhadforfeitedtheissuebyfailingtorequestanewreport;and(2)rule411(c)mandatorilyrequiredanewreportonlyifthedefendantwaseligibleforprobation.(Id.atpp.3841.)Theseholdingsareerroneoussincethe   defendantwasinfact eligibleforprobation. ` Attheoutset,itisimportanttonotethatthedefendantcannotforfeithisrighttoaprobationreportbyfailingtorequestone.Rather,therighttoareportmustbeaffirmativelywaivedbyawrittenstipulationoranoralstipulationenteredintheminutes.(PenalCodesection1203,subd.(_b_)(4).AccordingtotheLlamascourt,thisprovisiondidnotapplysincethecourtis  onlymandatorilyrequiredtoobtainaprobationreportwhenthedefendantis eligiblefor_probation...._(Section1203,subd.(_b_)(1).)(Llamas,supra,  67Cal.App.4thatp.39.)Forthesamereason,thecourtconcludedthatrule411(c)wasinapplicable.(Id.atpp.3940.)   ` TheflawintheLlamasanalysisisquitesimple.Thestatutoryterm    eligibleforprobationisnotstrictlyconstrued.Rather,thepropermeaningofthetermisthatthedefendantmaybeplacedonprobationifthecourthastheultimatediscretiontograntprobation. ` InreCortez(1971)6Cal.3d78supportsthisconclusion.There,the ($$ defendantfiledahabeaspetitionbasedonanewSupremeCourtcase *&& (_Tenorio_)whichheldthatasentencingcourthadtheauthoritytostrikeaprior  drugconviction.TheSupremeCourtheldthatMr.Cortezwasentitledtoanewsentencinghearing.Inconductingthehearing,thetrialcourtwasdirectedto obtainanewprobationreportand/orareportfromtheDirectorofCorrectionsastotheconductof_petitioner_Ԁinprisonsincehisoriginalsentencing.(Id._at_Ԁp.89.)    ` Significantly,thesentencingschemeatissueinCortezflatlyprohibited   agrantofprobationbasedona provenoradmittedpriorforadrugoffense.(Cortez,supra,6Cal.3datp.84.)InMr.Cortezcase,a prior_narcotics_  felonyconvictionhadbeenfoundtrue.(Id._at_Ԁp.83.)Thus,absentdismissal  ofhispriorconviction,Mr.Cortezwasineligibleforprobation.Nonetheless,theSupremeCourtheldthathewasentitledto anewprobationreportasamatteroflaw.(Id.atp.89.)   ` AtthetimeoftheCortezdecision,PenalCodesection1203was  materiallythesameasitisnow.Likethepresentstatute,thethensection1203providedthecourtwiththediscretiontorefusearequestforaprobationreportwhenthedefendantwasineligibleforprobation.(SeeHistoricalandStatutoryNotestoPenalCodesection1203,50DWestsAnnotatedCaliforniaCodes(_2004ed._)p.223.)Thus,itismanifestthattheSupremeCourtunderstoodsection1203asrequiringaprobationreportsolongasthetrial *&& courthadanydiscretionarypowertograntprobation.   ` Inshort,therearemanycaseswhereadefendantcanbegrantedprobationifthetrialcourtexercisesPenalCodesection1385discretiontodismissaconviction,enhancementorotherfactualfinding.Insuchacase,anewprobationreportismandatorilyrequired. ` Finally,itbearsmentionthatthereisaconflictinthecaselawastowhetherthedenialofaprobationreportisreversibleperseorsubjecttothestandardof