This case involves two sentencing guidelines rules. One rule, directs trial courts , to count a
defendant's convictions at the time of sentencing in calculating the defendant's .criminal-.history.
OAR 213-004-0006(2), The other rule limits the length of a consecutive sentence that a trial court
, - ' ' J, ; "
can impose. OAR 213-012-0020(2).

"After the trial court determined the sentence on defendant's first conviction, it counted that
conviction as part of his criminal history in determining, the presumptive sentence for defendant's
second conviction. Including the first conviction as part of defendant's criminal history increased
his criminal history score and, for that reason, resulted in a higher presumptive sentence for the
second conviction. The court followed the same course in determining the presumptive sentences
for the remainder of defendant's convictions. "

"On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that both rules increased defendant's sentence based
on facts that, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U:S. 466,120 S.Ct. 2348,147 L.Ed.2d435 (2000),
a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Cuevas, 263 Or.App. 94,114, 326 P.3d 1242
(2014). Although the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court, shopld have submitted those
facts to the jury, it held that the failure to do so was harmless error: Id. On review, we hold that
the two sentencing guidelines rules do not implicate Apprendi and affirrn the Court of Appeals
decision on that ground. "

"We affirm the Court of Appeals decision and the trial court's judgment on that ground.
- 'The decision'of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed. "

In this case Supreme Court of Oregon denying consideration of Habeas Corpus review
of a trial court 's trial judge 's omission to poll the jury and no jury poll record available
impacts it's very own holding affirmance of the Appellate court and the trial court
judgment. And impacted petitioner 's constitutional rights to a jury concurrence and
for higher degrees of offenses penalties that are beyond the max of the lesser degree
under Apprendi v. New Jersey; 530 tl.S. 466,120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

At initial post-conviction collateral review the unavailable jury poll should have
been raised, under federal law, and federal law has yet to determine that a post
conviction court has the judicial power to render a judgment contrary to the state 's
■ -fi ■ 1
highest court that involves a published opinion on a jury trial federal constitutional
right. .

Holdings of Courts ' of opinion- and the same court denying consideration of State
Habeas Corpus Petition Writ to correct the error cannot be presumed to be correct
it's holdings under state law lacked standard of proof requirement of Federal law
are only voidable by this court not by any post-conviction court.

1.) May a defendant raise and challenge an Extradition and arrest when a
Federal district court of extraditing state does not appoint counsel on state
petition for writ of habeas corpus prejudice grounds for lack of governor 's
warrant and challenge his

Whether a defendant can challenge sentencing guidelines rules that increase criminal history score and sentence length without jury fact-finding under Apprendi