The imposition of consecutive sentences does not violate the proscription of Apprendi and Blakely where the basis for that sentencing choice is supported by the express findings of the jury verdicts. Here, appellant was convicted of two counts of attempted murder, three counts of assault, three counts of discharging a firearm, plus numerous enhancements. The offenses arose from a drive-by shooting of seven people, where appellant was the actual shooter. On appeal, he contended that Blakely precluded the imposition of consecutive unstayed sentences because the trial court determined that the offenses involved different objectives and different victims. The appellate court rejected the argument. The information charged separate assaults for each victim, and each jury verdict found that appellant had committed an assault against a different named person. Because the imposition of consecutive sentences was based upon the jury’s verdicts rather than the court’s independent findings of fact, appellant’s sentence did not run afoul of Blakely.