In People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, the defendant was charged with 12 counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 years, based on three victims, with an enhancement for committing the offenses against more than one victim, and faced a maximum possible sentence of 180 years to life. (Id. at p. 42.) The defendant pleaded no contest to six counts, under an agreement whereby he would receive a sentence of no more than 18 years in prison and dismissal of the remaining counts and the enhancement. (Ibid.) At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed the upper term for one count, with consecutive subordinate midterms on the other five counts, for a total of 18 years. (Id. at p. 43.) The court stated it selected the upper term because " 'defendant took advantage of a position of trust and confidence to commit the crime,' " and imposed consecutive terms because the offenses were committed on different occasions or at separate locations. (Ibid.) In reversing and remanding for resentencing, French held that that: "(1) defendant was not required to obtain a certificate of probable cause in order to raise his claim of Cunningham error on appeal, because that claim implicates his sentence only and does not constitute a challenge to the plea agreement; (2) defendant did not forfeit his Cunningham claim by failing to raise it in the trial court because, under the circumstances of this case, an express waiver of jury trial on aggravating circumstances was required and no such waiver occurred; (3) in pleading no contest pursuant to a plea agreement providing for a sentence not to exceed a stipulated maximum and further stipulating to a factual basis for the plea, defendant neither waived his right to a jury trial on aggravating circumstances nor admitted facts that established an aggravating circumstance; (4) imposition of the upper term sentence violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, and the constitutional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." (French, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pp. 41, 55.) Citing its decision in People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825 (Sandoval), the court noted that when a defendant pleads guilty or no contest, a prejudice assessment is quite problematic because the record generally does not contain a full presentation of evidence. (French, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 53.) Thus, a " 'reviewing court cannot necessarily assume that the record reflects all of the evidence that would have been presented had aggravating circumstances been submitted to the jury.' (Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 839.)" (French, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 53.) In French, in addressing the application of Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 to cases in which the defendant has pleaded guilty or no contest, the court held that that: "(1) defendant was not required to obtain a certificate of probable cause in order to raise his claim of Cunningham error on appeal, because that claim implicates his sentence only and does not constitute a challenge to the plea agreement; (2) defendant did not forfeit his Cunningham claim by failing to raise it in the trial court because, under the circumstances of this case, an express waiver of jury trial on aggravating circumstances was required and no such waiver occurred; (3) in pleading no contest pursuant to a plea agreement providing for a sentence not to exceed a stipulated maximum and further stipulating to a factual basis for the plea, defendant neither waived his right to a jury trial on aggravating circumstances nor admitted facts that established an aggravating circumstance; (4) imposition of the upper term sentence violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, and the constitutional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." (French, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 41.)