[brief] In order to sentence [...] to an extended term, the court had to find that [...] was eligible as a persistent offender based on the dates of his prior convictions.  (8T 41-2 to 9, 9T 5-1 to 7-21)  This finding violated [...]’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because judicial fact-finding increased the minimum term that the court could impose.  “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime. . . must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. ”  *Apprendi v. New Jersey*, 530 U.S. 466, 489 (2000).  This maxim applies with equal force whether it increases the sentencing range at the top, *Blakely v. Washington*, 542 U.S. 296, 303 (2004), or at the bottom.  *Alleyne v. United States*, 570 U.S. 99, 103 (2013).  In *Erlinger*, the Supreme Court applied these well-established rules and held that it violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights to sentence him under the Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA) based on judicial fact-finding.  Under the ACCA, if the defendant had “three prior convictions for ‘violent felon[ies]’ or ‘serious drug offense[s]’ that were ‘committed on occasions different from one another,” the sentencing range increased from zero to ten years to 15 years to life in prison.  *Id.* at 1846 (alterations in original).  The sentencing court in *Erlinger* had determined that the defendant’s prior convictions were committed on different occasions and therefore imposed the ACCA mandatory minimum of 15 years.  *Ibid.*  The Supreme Court held that this judicial fact-finding violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.  “[T]here is no doubt what the Constitution requires in these circumstances: Virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt (or freely admitted in a guilty plea). ”  *Id.* at 1851 (internal quotation marks omitted).  Thus, the defendant was “entitled to have a jury resolve ACCA’s occasions inquiry” – whether the prior convictions were committed on different occasions – “unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. ”  *Id.* at 1852.  In New Jersey, a defendant may be sentenced to an extended term as a “persistent offender” – if he “has been previously convicted on at least two separate occasions of two crimes, committed at different times.  . . .”  N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a).  Here, as in *Erlinger*, whether [...]’s prior convictions happened “on at least two separate occasions” and were “two crimes, committed at different times” are facts that increase his sentencing exposure.  As such, they must be found by a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.  It violated [...]’s Sixth Amendment rights for the judge, rather than the jury, to make this determination.  As with every other new rule announced under the Apprendi framework, Erlinger must be given pipeline retroactivity.  See, e.g., State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 317, 335 (2015) (affording pipeline retroactivity to Alleyne); State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458, 494 (2005) (affording pipeline retroactivity to Blakely claims).  In sum, [...]’s extended-term sentence is excessive both for the reasons stated in his original brief and because such a sentence violates [...]’s Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights.  The sentence should be vacated and remanded for resentencing.