In Re Gomez

In Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 ( Apprendi ), the United States Supreme Court held that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." In Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, 303 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 ( Blakely ), the high court stated that "the `statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. "

In Cunningham v. California (2007) ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 856, 868 , 166 L.Ed.2d 856 ( Cunningham ), the high court stated, "In accord with Blakely , ... the middle term prescribed in California's statutes, not the upper term, is the relevant statutory maximum." The court invalidated the California determinate sentencing law (DSL) to the extent it authorized the trial court to impose an upper term sentence based on facts that were found by the court, rather than by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Cunningham, supra, at p.…