I have no idea how many cases would be affected by retro application. I do know this: if it is unconstitutional for a judge to make the fact finding that enhances a sentence without that fact having been found to be true by agreement of 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt, it casts great doubt on that sentence. What the law would be saying, in effect, is it is alright to deprive someone of his Constitutional right to a jury trial provided that you deprived him of that right long ago and it's ok to let him suffer forever under that unfair and unjust sentence. It just doesn't sit right. But, I must admit, I haven't reviewed the sentencing transcript and I don't know how the Court reached that lengthy sentence. It might comply with all Constitutional guidelines and rules. But, I have seen murderers go free in far less time. I have also seen many guilty never charged or charged less than the crimes warranted. This one seems on the surface to be harsh. One should not forget that the Supreme Court recently upheld a case here in California where a guy got 25 yrs for 3 golf clubs valued at $1100, with two prior strikes for theft, fraud type crimes. But, that did not violate Apprendi, nor the 8th Amendment.
The issue I have here is not with the justice or injustice of the sentence, it's the fact that every time I try to do a little digging on this article, it turns out that the article is blatantly misrepresenting the facts of the case. That makes me real suspicious about the parts that I haven't done any digging on.