With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not advise him of his appellate rights at the resentencing hearing and that he was diligent in pursuing his right to appeal the new sentence. The State does not dispute that Hull was not advised of his appellate rights at resen-tencing .... [W]e are unaware of any additional information that Hull could have provided in support of his motion. Id. at 1254. With respect to Hull’s Blakely claim, however, the court stated, Hull did not file a timely notice of appeal and thus, Hull’s direct appeal was not pending at the time Blakely was decided. It was nearly ten months after Blakely that Hull filed his motion to file a belated notice of appeal. In short, although it was later revived, Hull’s case was not on direct review when Blakely was decided. See Robbins v. State, [839 N.E.2d at 1199,] (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Hull’s claims under Blakely must

A: holding that the court of appeals has held that blakely does not apply to sentencing under the poaa blakely being specifically directed at exceptional sentences ball 127 wn app at 957 95960 we agree with this conclusion and determine that blakely has no application to the instant case
B: holding that blakely did not apply to a case that was final but not on direct review when blakely was decided and in which the trial court later allowed a belated appeal
C: holding that blakely does not apply to the federal sentencing guidelines
D: holding that blakely does not apply retroactively to  2255 motions
B.