Does this Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington establish an 'unpled but admitted facts' exception to the rule set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey?

QUESTION PRESENTED Does this Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) establish an “unpled but admitted facts” exception to the rule set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), wherein this Court interpreted the Sixth Amendment as requiring a state government to prove any fact that increases the permissible penalty for a crime (other than the fact of a prior conviction) to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt? ii