With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Bruce Lee Scott challenges his 18-year aggravated sentence for second degree murder. His claim is that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the trial judge, and not a jury, found statutory aggravating factors and increased his sentence beyond the presumptive one, citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The district court denied the petition, holding that Scott had procedurally defaulted on the Apprendi claim under Ariz. R.Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3). 1. The right Scott seeks to invoke was not clearly established until Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), a decision announcing a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure. See Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1038 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). In Blakely, the Court applied Apprendi to a

A: holding that the act is retroactive
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 blakely not retroactive
D: holding retroactive application
C.