With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". this as a maximum sentence, but the sentencing judge retains discretion. 12 To reiterate, the following sections — Parts 7.D and 7.E — do not represent the majority view of the court. 13 See, e.g., State v. Magers, 164 Wn.2d 174, 193, 189 P.3d 126 (2008) (approving this court’s holding in State v. Ball, 127 Wn. App. 956, 959-60, 113 P.3d 520 (2005), review denied, 156 Wn.2d 1018 (2006), concluding that Blakely has no application in sentencing under the POAA); State v. Thiefault, 160 Wn.2d 409, 418, 158 P.3d 580 (2007) (the State is not required to submit prior convictions to a jury and prove them beyond a reasonable doubt under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), and its progeny); State v. Smith, 150 Wn.2d 135, 143, 75 P.3d 934 (2003) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 909 (2004). 14 See

A: holding that we are bound to follow almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 even though it has been called into question unless it is explicitly overruled by the supreme court
B: holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 remains good law and rejecting the contention that prior convictions must be admitted by the defendant or found by the jury
C: holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 s ct 1219 140 l ed 2d 350 1998 expressly held that a prior conviction need not be proved to a jury and the united states supreme court has not held otherwise since
D: holding that the supreme courts holding in almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 that the government need not allege in its indictment and need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had prior convictions for a district court to use those convictions for purposes of enhancing a sentence remains binding precedent
C.