In Re Watson

McINTYRE, J.—

Two recent cases, In re Gomez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 650 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 177 , 199 P.3d 574 ] ( Gomez ) and Butler v. Curry (9th Cir. 2008) 528 F.3d 624 ( Butler ), held that Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 [ 166 L.Ed.2d 856 , 127 S.Ct. 856 ] ( Cunningham ) applies retroactively in collateral review of judgments that became final before Cunningham and after Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [ 159 L.Ed.2d 403 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 ] ( Blakely ). This case presents the question whether Cunningham applies on collateral review of a judgment that became final before Cunningham but after Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [ 147 L.Ed.2d 435 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 ] ( Apprendi )—that is, whether Apprendi established a new rule of law for purposes of retroactivity analysis. We conclude that it did and grant the petition.

In April 1999, a jury convicted petitioner Anthony Mario Watson of murder, robbery, kidnapping, assault with a firearm, and false imprisonment. ( People v. Watson (July 12, 2001, D034448) [nonpub. opn.] ( Watson ); we take judicial notice of the records of this court (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d) & 459, subd. (a)).) Among other things, the…