the “writing is on the wall” that they will someday be overruled. He makes this prognostication based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 521, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Quite apart from the fact that we must take Supreme Court law as it is, not as it might become, we note that the Apprendi Court acknowledged the continued validity of Monge and Almendarez-Torres as applied to subsequent offender sentencing statutes. 530 U.S. at 488 n. 14, 120 S.Ct. 2348. 5 . See also Jaramillo v. State, 823 N.E.2d 1187, 1188-90 (Ind. 2005) (overruling, based on Monge, Bell v. State, 622 N.E.2d 450, 456 (Ind. 1993), and other prior cases holding that double jeopardy bars retrial of habitual offender sentencing enhancements); State v. Nelson, 262 Neb. 896, 905, 636 N.W.2d 620 (2001) (<HOLDING>); State v. Eggleston, 164 Wash.2d 61, 187 P.3d
holding that constitutional protections against double jeopardy apply to a defendant prosecuted as an habitual criminal holding based on monge that floridas double jeopardy clause does not preclude granting the state a second opportunity to demonstrate that the defendant meets the criteria for habitualization holding that under monge double jeopardy does not prevent retrial of an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court holding based on the rationale of monge that double jeopardy principles do not apply to habitual criminal sentencing enhancement proceedings overruling state v gray 8 nebapp 973 606 nw2d 478 2000 which had relied upon bowman