Calironia Court Cases - Case Law from CA - California Court

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		California Case Law & California Court Opinions - California Law
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This court case was taken from the California Court's web site. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

Filed 10/13/04
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

A101799
v.

WILLIAM FELTON BUTLER,
(Humboldt County
Super. Ct. No. CR024877S)

Defendant and Appellant.

BY THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 27, 2004, be modified in
the following particulars:

The text contained in footnote 7 on page 20 is deleted. The deleted text is
replaced with the following language:

"We are not persuaded otherwise by the People's troubling reliance on two federal
cases, United States v. Cotton (2002) 535 U.S. 625 (Cotton) and United States v. Ameline
(2004) 376 F.3d 967 (Ameline). The People erroneously contend these cases support
their view that a Blakely claim can properly be deemed `forfeited' under California law,
and thus not subject to review at all, even when, as here, Blakely was decided after the
defendant's sentencing hearing.

"As any fair analysis of these federal cases should acknowledge, characterizing a
claim as `forfeited' under federal law does not mean the claim is not reviewable on
appeal. Rather, such a claim is reviewed for `plain error' pursuant to rule 52(b) of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (See Cotton, supra, 535 U.S. 625, 631-632;
Ameline, supra, 376 F.3d 967, 978-979.) In their supplemental brief, the People

acknowledge that a plain error analysis was applied in Cotton but then argue that such an
analysis is inapplicable in this state appeal. We agree. But, by the same token, these
federal cases are not sound authority for denying any review of a state law claim which
arose while the criminal appeal was pending.

"In any event, California has a well-recognized waiver rule (see, e.g., People v.
Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351-356) applicable in circumstances of this sort and, as
noted above, we have no problem in holding there was no waiver of Blakely error. (See,
to the same effect, People v. Ochoa (1994) 121 Cal.App.4th 1551 [2004 Cal.App. LEXIS
1464, at p. 6]; People v. George (September 15, 2004, D042980) ___Cal.App.4th _____
[2004 Cal.App. LEXIS 1532].) To the extent the recent decision of the Third District in
People v. Sample (September 13, 2004, C044445) ___Cal.App.4th___ [2004
Cal.App.LEXIS] holds to the contrary, we respectfully disagree with it."

This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.

Both petitions for rehearing are denied.