Did the California Supreme Court err in imposing the one strike statute of Penal Code section 667.61, when Souley was convicted of only one kidnapping count pursuant to Penal Code section 209, when the kidnapping enhancement provisions were effectively relied on as one of its special circumstances?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 4) Connon CRAG Cette tal} onion noo Donbdlabe DEIN oe Tee OD fj us oo. 2) O10 Wwe SENFEWCIME COURT ERRED WV UDP OSINE THE ONE STRIKE STATUTE OF pe. SECTION 667.64, LIME SULEY WAS COMMUCTEO OF ONE KIOMALPWIE Coun GEONT Jo SECTION 209, WHEN THE KIONALUME EMMAINCEIIIENT Plisyppe yr pee eh MPECTIVELY RELIC ON THAT OFFERS (2S ONE OF 173 SPECIAL Un sZpapyces ? 3, acres SOULEY OEMED THE RIEHT 70 SULOCUTION tu EN TWE COURT NVEVER y aa HM) 7 go SO ANY, CHAS HE OLED OWE FROCESS OF AUS SUPIUTOR YS lease was WONT 70 C1203 bo D1 70 RECEIWE THE PROBATION REPORT ha FaCr ope) UE (ROR Fo SepTENICIE IW OKOER 0 TIUHIEATE THE SEN FECL 06 1) 0/0 THE FEOEKAL CoWRT FAIL 70 ConNIDE SITLEN' CLAWS CHEM HE EF SAE FINE LINE P25 PIS CBE PETITIONS CIBS PEPLOWE Wd BOIL PRD TI OLLEO “CO CPERIOD BEZWEEN) Lowen COURT TUOCSIENT PUA FUNELY PULA E OF PAS NOTICE OF PUPEDL, DHEA VIVE 0S, SUPRESVE COURT HEED IM BPELLH) OL Y-48-lb, — THAT YTS OCCNLONY Yo DOMMIOM CUPS RETROACTI VE, STATBIC, DECOM. THOT “WERE 9 STPITUIE Pee SUBSTI TNE LE Papa LUHEM TEV SHEED DRE ont CHEK FOR PS UBSOHIVOINE BULLE bb aY THEY SUFER THE RINE OFF “DUCT OR THE CLASS OF psasory PUA FHE LAL) Pitre 2 ) LAS permane UTEOPNO SEA TEDOCEO tH1TB , WER SOULE Y thROMEPULLY CHEREEO, CONVICTEO 1 =p = Skene A SVEUIPIEO STBPUTE, CPC, be), 60), WICH CHANCED JHE LECAL Con BERMAN CE LACS COMME BE Oke oo EVFECIME ONTE (BM, LF 9-20-06 ), WHGY THEA CLA COM Oe NEUE OM THE O18 OF We opis Phoviten Fhpy TAE PERSO HAD 70 bE een, ee OF MOLATIME StCTpON 220, CULE FROWIED FRE Tye Pex SON HUES BEES COATED (OUSLY OF WOLPZIE -, AOR 20, LOR LICH SULEV MOS NOG 2