When a factual finding that multiple counts arose out of 'separate acts or transactions' is necessary to authorize an increase in punishment, must this finding be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Petitioner Kyle Krill (“Krill”) was sentenced to multiple prison terms based upon a finding by the trial judge —not the jury —that the multiple acts forming the basis for his convictions were not committed as part of the “same act or transaction.” Under state law, in the absence of this factual finding , only a single prison term would have been authorized. After the court below affirmed, this Court held that “the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury” to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether “a defendant’s past offenses were committed on separate occasions” to authorize an increase in punishment under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Erlinger v. United States , 602 U.S. 82 1 (2024). The questions presented are: When a factual finding that multiple counts arose out of “separate acts or transactions” is necessary to authorize an increase in punishment, must this finding be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Upon Krill’s timely Motion for Leave to File a Delayed Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Erlinger , should the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eighth Judicial District have reconsidered its pre-Erlinger opinion that a trial court may validly impose an otherwise unauthorized prison term on the basis of its own factu al finding that multiple counts of an indictment arose out of separate acts or transactions ? Should this Court grant Krill’s petition, vacate the judgment below, and remand for further consideration in light of Erlinger ?