commentators where the ok so now what how do these proceedings get conducted which i think in the remeron hearing context can the easily answer if there is evidence of tense related conduct charge or on charges that the prosecutor anticipates relying on at a romero hearing in the event of a conviction to prove that the defendant falls within the spirit of three strikes all he has to do to comply with a premie blakeley and so on is  decision is for this world but it does not apply doesn't change the fact that the initial that the first conviction you look at corcoran the purpose is the simple conviction of simple possession of the jury found true and then you then you have to  agree with you then you have the three strikes sharing and then a penny doesn't apply to that because it's all just part conviction so you know you start with the proposition here is the defendant the subject the three strikes and you want to romero  strikes true but once you move into that next phase that romero phase which is in every single three strikes case that you're going to see you're going to have the question of whether or not the defendant is within the spirit of the three strikes and initiative and yes you are at that point asking the judge to reduce the sentence but you have already bumped up from that that first conviction of the qualifying third strike now also as a policy matter of friendly applies to the romero proceedings because the supreme court is making it very clear through a club or through a friend through blakeley this court's making made it clear and i am aligned that right or wrong whether or not the jury is a more accurate fact finder which is the supreme court's take that it doesn't matter i think this court took a different view and an ally that accuracy is enhanced by jury fact finding that there is no justification in light of this whole universe of  w that has come down to say ok all of a sudden the trial judge can take what the jury did was required to do by the sixth amendment and throw it out which is what went on here mr stevens charged was not held answer on a weapons possession charge for being a felon in possession the jury did not convict him of possessing drugs for sale the jury did not because they could not convict him of possessing drugs for sale they did not find t the fact that he possessed the eight ross on the coffee table as opposed to just the one rock in his pocket that was the basis for count two and it's clear that that was the basis for cancer that's on page one of six of the excerpts of record so for the judge to say well i heard the trial as you know i saw it differently that doesn't total violence to the defendant sixth amendment rights as the supreme court is construed in a printing and i don't see any basis in law or policy to allow the judge to do that and it is not a difficult matter to comply with a friendly in these in this situation all the prosecutor has to do is submit a special verdict with the offense related not the prior conviction the offense related factors that he wants the jury to find true that he can rely on at a subsequent romero hearing and this is not going to be a very long list because as a practical matter anything that's going to be on that list probably will already have been charged in a separate count like the possession for sale or like the gun possession or would perhaps have been charged as an enhancement the possession of a certain quantity of rocks that often figures into and has roots in drug cases under various guidelines it's not going to be a very long list and so then once in this case we have no such findings it is it is not unreasonable to have the judge say well whatever i think doesn't matter the jury did not convict mr stevenson of possessing drugs for sale the jury did not convict it really comes down to then is that the your position must be that the entire romero hearing has to be before a jury well that was that was not easy ways that's not a certified issue and i'm not sure that would have to be before a jury i think there is certainly an argument a technical argument under a frenzy and under blakely the fact is that what you're saying and what it what are you saying i'm focusing on the burden of proof at this point that when you have a jury when you have a jury verdict that's come down a pretty and blake we stand for the proposition that sentence says cannot be enhanced based on facts other than those found by the jury or remitted by the defendant and that's exactly what happened in mr stevenson's case to ignore the context in which this litigation occurs that the romero hearing is effectively a part of the three strikes litigation as the standard jury waiver of the jury trial on the priors in the rubber stamp of the trial  very briefly your honor i'm not proposing the dramatic expansion it's mostly for the united states that has worked with the dissenters and commentators view as a dramatic expansion of rights a jury trial and and it's like the station in many cases i do want to touch briefly on  prejudice which i didn't get a chance to it's very clear that the court gave extreme weight to not just his prior poor performance on parole and so on but the nature of the extent of the instant offense went so it's clear to me that this case doesn't