A long time ago (after Apprendi) we argued that, although Apprendi left a "prior conviction exception," that exception should be limited to the fact of the prior conviction, not other facts proved by extrinsic evidence about the prior conviction.
A common example of this is proof of the prior/nonperson nature of pre-1993 burglary convictions in Kansas. Before 1993, it didn't matter whether a burglary was of a residence or just some other building. After 1993, it makes a big difference in criminal history (burglary of a residence is a person felony, which is much worse for criminal history purposes). So how do we count pre-1993 convictions today? The statute says the judge looks back at the surrounding facts of the prior burglary-if it was of a residence classify it as a person felony. The problem, is that this finding requires determination of facts about the prior conviction, not just the fact of the prior conviction. Often times court services officers simply brought in charging documents specified burglary of a "home" or other extrinsic evidence But that was merely surplusage at the time--it was not a well-pleaded fact.
We raised this after Apprendi with no success in many cases and some have continued to raise it without success. But look at this language from Descamps discussing how the federal court would classify a prior California burglary conviction under the ACCA at page 14 of the majority opinion:
This seems right on point. If a judge has to look beyond the statute to figure out something about a prior conviction, Apprendi applies.
So I think you should be object to any pre-1993 burglary conviction being scored as a person felony. Because there is no constitutional mechanism to allow juries to make these findings, all pre-1993 prior burglary convictions should be scored as nonperson.
This is just one example. There are probably others. Classification of out of state convictions (including whether out of state DUI convictions are equivalent to Kansas DUI convictions)? Predicate offenses under many statutes? Whether a prior conviction involved sexual motivation? Basically, any time the judge is finding facts about a prior conviction, not just the fact of the prior conviction, you could (and should) argue that Apprendi applies.