Whether or not vwsf te * j
w heVh tr net f Ae s'^.rioi/s h>w <JC A v
^5 'A. jjirvK^, f cdM^cdVon fh<ff Q&pofe$ F&l'* bi&Trt&r
i~o a. ter-rn <?r b bt in^o

3< \tfW^€r C a liT PtTr/j iV Cade Se.^ Bon 5i/^ai v\s'i c/«5
anJ (c) 5'k(?u'/J b'C <^-5 6y {^4.
of C«h'ftfrn?<a to auHijri '^e./ I n ffce c^xre o?
comml HeJ after a j> < * s' J ^e r \<M s jcrfxo r c^vtyj CcKchz
Hot ctjv thL of eaVer wi <xk i rvx/ m
ViAi/er 5U& J» u f <al$# iko_ ti<9vi 2?f a </</» f' cnxl
£'<5*1^£C(/fvv£ Q-fe^A'^r' no f >7 ? rn |/rri er life t^.r^ pu n\S^ no^nt^

3t Wlit:tli£Y' jlie Fx fbfT fkctb yoe<mjf$ tb chany^
the ckAt'acter of t/?e Former J uc^h^eul'fsj tc? Iny?ore
hmt 'vif tha*i th^t owe vvi^er the.
01J h& h \ t(/a( c r f rhfn <aI stkh/lc f

Whether the California Supreme Court's interpretation of state sentencing law improperly restricts judicial discretion in resentencing proceedings for previously convicted defendants