relies on an aggravating factor in violation of Apprendi and Blakely to subject a defendant to an increased maximum sentence, a reviewing court should not assume the role of a sentencing judge and seek out new aggravating circumstances, not found below, to save the constitutionally flawed sentence. ¶ 19 Furthermore, to embrace the State’s argument would require us to address several important issues that are unnecessary to resolve the case before us. The State assumes that Arizona’s sentencing scheme permits the use of juvenile adjudications as an aggravating factor in adult sentencing and that juvenile adjudications fall within the Apprendi prior conviction exception. These propositions are far from established. Compare United States v. Tighe, 266 F.3d 1187, 1194 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Jones, 332 F.3d 688,
holding that juvenile adjudications may not be used for impeachment purposes because the disposition of a juvenile does not constitute a criminal conviction holding apprendi exception for prior convictions encompasses juvenile adjudications holding that a nonjury juvenile adjudication that  afforded all constitutionallyrequired procedural safeguards can properly be characterized as a prior conviction for apprendi purposes holding that a juvenile adjudication should not be counted as a prior conviction for apprendi purposes holding that the prior conviction exception should not extend to nonjury juvenile adjudications