Appellant argued that under Apprendi and Blakely, the jury, rather than the trial court should have decided his Romero motion, because the trial court, by choosing a “strike” sentence over a “nonstrike” sentence “engaged in factfinding.” The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. Appellant admitted the fact of the prior strike conviction, which means that under Apprendi and Blakely, the trial court was entitled to impose a sentence which took the prior into account. Whatever facts the trial court may have found when it refused to strike the prior did not increase appellant’s sentence within the meaning of Apprendi and Blakely.