Source: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2004/juar111804.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:22:24+00:00

Document:
A judge may not constitutionally determine that aggravating factors merit an upper term sentence under Penal Code Sec. 1170, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.
The decision by Div. Seven appears to be the first in this district to address the issue of whether California’s Determinate Sentencing Law passes constitutional muster under the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531. The court joined the Fourth District’s Div. One in holding it does not.
The issue is also before the state Supreme Court, which is expected to expedite review of the unpublished May 17 ruling by this district’s Div. Four in People v. Towne, B166312.
Like the defendant in Towne, Hugo D. Juarez was charged with carjacking. He was convicted by a jury, and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Bruce F. Marrs determined that aggravating factors justified sentencing him to the upper term of nine years in prison.
Marrs also applied a 10-year enhancement based on the jury’s finding Juarez personally used a firearm in committing the offense. The judge based his finding of aggravating circumstances in part on his conclusions that the crime involved planning and sophistication and that the victim was vulnerable.
Writing for the appellate panel, Justice Earl Johnson noted that neither of those findings was made by the jury. While Marrs acted properly under the law applicable at the time, the sentence failed to comply with the standard announced in Blakely, the justice said.
Blakely, Johnson noted, built on the high court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 to find the criminal sentencing scheme of the state of Washington violative of a defendant’s right to have his or her guilt determined by a jury.
Johnson pointed out that two panels of the Fourth District’s Div. One recently reached the same conclusion in People v. George (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 419 and People v. Lemus (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 614. Six different jurists served on those panels and only one—Justice Patricia Benke—dissented, he observed.
The justice went on to reject the contention that Juarez waived his objection under Blakely by not raising it at the time he was sentenced. Such an objection would have been futile given the state of the law at the time, he reasoned.
Justice Fred Woods and Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss concurred.
The case is People v. Juarez, 04 S.O.S. 6100.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.