Because appellant did not raise an Apprendi objection in the trial court to the imposition of the upper term and the imposition of consecutive terms, and factors used in imposing the upper term and consecutive sentencing were uncontested at trial and supported by overwhelming evidence, he was barred from raising the claim of Apprendi/Blakely error. Further, his contentions fail on the merits. Apprendi and Blakely do not apply to California’s consecutive sentencing scheme, and imposition of the upper term here was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.