Whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (Rule 14.1(a)) — Whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law,by permitting sentencing | Judges to impose enhanced sentences based on their determination of facts not found by the jury’or admitted by the defendant,violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, pursuant to Appredi v. New Jersey,530 U.S.466,490(2000) and Blakely v. Washington ,542 U.S.296 (2004). The identical question is in Gmmingham v.California (No. 05-6551) ,cert U.S. 2006 U.S.LEXIS 1136 (Feb.21,2006). . Petitioner De Lara was sentence to a unauthorized sentence on the personal use of a firearm enhancement and it was given with a gang enhancement both were imposed on petitioner which violates the dual use of facts prohibition pursuant to Penal Code Section 1170.1 Subd (f) and it also violates petioners Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Right to the Constitution (People v Rodriguez) The Trial Court can not impose multiple enhancements. . Petitioner De Lara does not purport to challenge the validity of the Nolo° Contendere Plea but only seeked to Appeal the Constitutionality of the sentenc and/or the unauthorized sentence ,on the personal use of a firearm enhancement Penal Code 12022.5 (A) and the gang enhancement Penal Code 186.22(B)(1) Both were impose on petitioner . ; q.