produced the 12-year term of imprisonment that Apprendi received; Apprendi’s actual sentence was thus within the range authorized by statute for the three offenses to which he pleaded guilty. .. . The constitutional question, however, is whether the 12-year sentence imposed on count 18 was permissible, given that it was above the 10-year maximum for the offense charged in that count. The finding is legally significant because it increased — indeed, it doubled — the maximum range within which the judge could exercise his discretion, converting what otherwise was a maximum 10-year sentence on that count into a minimum sentence. The sentences on counts 3 and 22 have no more relevance to our disposition than the dismissal of the remaining 18 counts. 11 See Blakely, 124 S. Ct. at 2538 n.8 (<HOLDING>). 12 See former RCW 9.94A.535(2)(i) (“The
holding that arizona rule of civil procedure 52a requires the court to find only the ultimate facts not the evidentiary facts upon which the ultimate facts are based holding that an upward departure based on judges finding of deliberate cruelty violated the sixth amendment when the facts supporting that finding were neither admitted by defendant nor found by a jury recognizing judges authority after aggravating facts are found to make a judgment that the facts present a compelling ground for departure from the standard sentence recognizing only that the guidelines must be advisory not that judges may find no facts holding that the determination whether relevant facts are extraordinary aggravating circumstances  is a conclusion of law that remains within the discretion of the trial court if it is based on blakelycompliant or blakelyexempt facts