Defendant, who was convicted following a jury trial of various crimes, appeals, challenging the trial court’s authority to impose consecutive sentences for several of those convictions. The trial court imposed various presumptive-sentencing-guidelines sentences and ORS 137.700 mandatory minimum sentences, and determined that certain sentences should be served consecutively. Defendant argued to the trial court and reiterates on appeal that, under the reasoning of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), the court’s imposition of consecutive sentences pursuant to ORS 137.123(5) violated his right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution because (1) in the circumstances presented here, ORS 137.123(4) presumptively required the imposition of concurrent, not consecutive, sentences; and (2) the trial court imposed consecutive sentences based on facts found by the court by a preponderance of the evidence rather than by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We are thus squarely faced with the same issue that we expressly reserved in State v. Herrera-Lopez, 204 Or App 188, 193, 129 P3d 238, rev den, 341 Or 140 (2006).1 We conclude that the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences did not violate the Sixth Amendment. We therefore affirm.
The facts material to our review are undisputed. Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of first-degree robbery with a firearm, ORS 164.415, first-degree rape, ORS 163.375, first-degree unlawful sexual penetration, ORS 163.411, first-degree kidnapping, ORS 163.235, and first-degree burglary, ORS 164.225, all arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct directed against the victim, T, on January 31,1999. In the same jury trial, defendant was also convicted of another count of first-degree robbery with a firearm and second-degree kidnapping, ORS 163.225, which arose out of the same continuous and uninterrupted *73course of conduct directed against a different victim, S, on January 31, 1999.2 Defendant appealed those convictions and, in State v. Tanner, 190 Or App 299, 78 P3d 132 (2003), modified on recons, 192 Or App 670, 87 P3d 688, rev den, 337 Or 160 (2004) (Tanner I), we affirmed defendant’s convictions but remanded for resentencing. On remand in Tanner I, and over defendant’s objections, the court imposed either presumptive sentences under the sentencing guidelines or Measure 11 mandatory minimum sentences under ORS 137.700 and directed that those sentences be served consecutively to others.
Defendant objected that the imposition of consecutive sentences pursuant to ORS 137.123(5)(a) was unconstitutional under the rationale announced in Blakely and Apprendi:
“I view ORS 137.123(5)(a) * * * as requiring factual findings. The law presumes concurrent sentences in Oregon. And without additional factual findings by a judge, it is the defense’s position that [defendant] only could be given concurrent sentences with the primary offense.”
The court rejected defendant’s contention that the imposition of consecutive sentences pursuant to ORS 137.123(5)(a) required additional findings of fact by the court. Rather, the court concluded that the determination necessary to support the imposition of consecutive sentences was “a legal conclusion.” Proceeding from that premise, the court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 616 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, defendant reiterates his contention that the imposition of consecutive sentences pursuant to ORS 137.123(5)(a) was unconstitutional under Apprendi and Blakely. ORS 137.123 provides, in pertinent part:
“(1) A sentence imposed by the court may be made concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence which has been previously imposed or is simultaneously imposed upon the same defendant. The court may provide for consecutive sentences only in accordance with the provisions of *74this section. A sentence shall be deemed to be a concurrent term unless the judgment expressly provides for consecutive sentences.
“(2) If a defendant is simultaneously sentenced for criminal offenses that do not arise from the same continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, or if the defendant previously was sentenced by any other court within the United States to a sentence which the defendant has not yet completed, the court may impose a sentence concurrent with or consecutive to the other sentence or sentences.
* * * *
“(4) When a defendant has been found guilty of more than one criminal offense arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, the sentences imposed for each resulting conviction shall be concurrent unless the court complies with the procedures set forth in subsection (5) of this section.
“(5) The court has discretion to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment for separate convictions arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct only if the court finds:
“(a) That the criminal offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated was not merely an incidental violation of a separate statutory provision in the course of the commission of a more serious crime but rather was an indication of defendant’s willingness to commit more than one criminal offense [.]”
At the outset, we respectfully disagree with the trial court’s determination that ORS 137.123(5)(a) calls for “legal conclusions” rather than “factual findings.” ORS 137.123(5)(a) requires a court to “find” that the commission of one offense was not “merely incidental” to another but, instead, was “an indication of defendant’s willingness to commit more than one criminal offense.” A determination as to a defendant’s willingness to commit more than one criminal offense is innately factual, requiring an assessment of the defendant’s state of mind. Cf. Apprendi, 530 US at 492-93 (factfinding concerning a defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime “is perhaps as close as one might hope to come to a core criminal offense ‘element’ ”).3
*75Thus, we agree with defendant that, under ORS 137.123(5)(a), in order to impose consecutive sentences for crimes arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, a court must make factual findings. Judicial fact-finding at sentencing may, in some circumstances, run afoul of the Sixth Amendment, as set forth by the Court in Apprendi and later Blakely. The black-letter rule of law from Apprendi that is at issue here is the following: “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 US at 490. Defendant maintains that the “prescribed statutory maximum” for a series of crimes that arise from a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct equals the greatest sentence he could receive for any one of the crimes, because certain other crimes must be sentenced concurrently in the absence of judicial factfinding required by ORS 137.123(5)(a). The state suggests that the rule from Apprendi applies to “the penalty for a crime,” 530 US at 490 (emphasis added), singular, and that the rule has no *76application to determining the relationship between sentences when a defendant is being sentenced for multiple crimes.
As explained below, in states having statutes similar to ORS 137.123(5), the vast majority of courts that have considered this question in the wake of Apprendi and Blakely have reached the conclusion that judicial factfinding in support of consecutive sentences does not violate the Sixth Amendment. As explained below, we agree with that proposition. Apprendi and Blakely concern what facts must be found by a jury in order to impose a specific sentence for a specific offense. They say nothing about when sentences for separate offenses should begin to run. The Court’s decisions in Apprendi and Blakely make clear its concern that sentencing courts should not usurp factfinding functions that traditionally have been left to juries. Defendant offers no support — and we are aware of none — for the proposition that determining when sentences should run on multiple convictions, that is, the relationship between sentences, has ever been a part of a jury’s traditional function.
The Oregon Supreme Court recently summarized the pve-Apprendi law concerning when Sixth Amendment jury trial rights attach:
“[Before Apprendi was decided], the Court twice had considered and rejected the argument that a sentencing factor constituted an ‘element’ of the crime, which a jury had to find beyond a reasonable doubt. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 US 224, 118 S Ct 1219, 140 L Ed 2d 350 (1998); McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 US 79, 106 S Ct 2411, 91 L Ed 2d 67 (1986) (illustrating proposition). The statute at issue in McMillan authorized a trial court to impose a mandatory minimum sentence if it found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant ‘visibly possessed a firearm’ while committing certain underlying crimes. 477 US at 81. The statute explicitly stated that visible possession of a firearm was not an element of the underlying crime. Id. at 83.
“Reaffirming its decision in Patterson v. New York, 432 US 197, 97 S Ct 2319, 53 L Ed 2d 281 (1977), the McMillan Court reasoned that, ‘[w]hile there are obviously constitutional limits beyond which the States may not go in this *77regard, the applicability of the reasonable doubt standard * * * has always been dependent on how a State defines the offense that is charged in any given case[.]’ 477 US at 85 (internal quotation marks omitted). Under the terms of the statute, ‘visible possession’ was not an element of the crime, which the state had to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and the Court rejected the petitioners’ arguments that the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause required a different conclusion. Id. at 86-91.
“In the course of rejecting the petitioners’ argument, the Court observed that their argument ‘would have at least more superficial appeal if a finding of visible possession exposed them to greater or additional punishment’ rather than a mandatory minimum sentence. Id. at 88. * * *
“In Almendarez-Torres, a federal statute authorized sentencing courts to impose two-year sentences on deported aliens who returned illegally to the United States; it also authorized an enhanced sentence of up to 20 years if the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that the returning alien had a prior felony conviction. See 523 US at 226 (describing federal statute). Having received an enhanced sentence under that statute, the petitioner in Almendarez-Torres argued that, because a prior conviction authorized imposition of a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum rather than a mandatory minimum sentence, the fact of a prior conviction was an ‘element’ of the offense that the government had to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument. Id. at 245. It reasoned that whether a sentencing factor triggers an increased maximum sentence or a mandatory-minimum sentence, which the Court had held constitutional in McMillan, is not dispositive because ‘the risk of unfairness to a particular defendant is no less, and may well be greater, when a mandatory minimum sentence, rather than a permissive maximum sentence, is at issue.’ Id. Thus, the Court declined to ‘adopt a rule that any significant increase in a statutory maximum sentence would trigger a constitutional “elements” requirement [,]’ reasoning that ‘such a rule would seem anomalous in light of existing case law[.]’ Id. at 247.
“Although later cases have recast Almendarez-Torres as establishing only a ‘prior conviction’ exception to the rule in *78Apprendi, the decision in Almendarez-Torres, read on its own terms, stands for a far broader proposition: The Court held in Almendarez-Torres that, as a general rule, sentencing factors that enhance the statutory maximum sentence do not constitute elements of an offense that the state must prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, the dissent in Almendarez-Torres invited the majority to apply the constitutional rule that the Court later announced in Apprendi — an invitation that the Court declined. See 523 US at 251 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (urging rule later adopted in Apprendi).”
Miller v. Lampert, 340 Or 1, 14-16, 125 P3d 1260 (2006) (footnotes omitted) (some brackets in original).
Apprendi brought about a major change in the law. In Apprendi, the defendant pleaded guilty to two second-degree firearm possession charges and one charge of third-degree unlawful possession of a bomb. Based on a judicial finding that the defendant committed the crime because of racial bias, the court imposed an enhanced sentence of 12 years for one of the firearms offenses, which otherwise would have carried a maximum sentence of 10 years. The question at issue in that case was whether the defendant “had a constitutional right to have a jury find such bias on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi, 530 US at 475-76. The Court’s description of the facts and its analytical approach shed some light on the issue at hand:
“Because the plea agreement provided that the sentence on the sole third-degree offense (count 22) would run concurrently with the other sentences, the potential sentences on the two second-degree counts were critical. If the judge found no basis for the biased purpose enhancement, the maximum consecutive sentences on those counts would amount to 20 years in aggregate; if, however, the judge enhanced the sentence on count 18, the maximum on that count alone would be 20 years and the maximum for the two counts in aggregate would be 30 years [.] * * *
* ‡ * *
“It is appropriate to begin by explaining why certain aspects of the case are not relevant to the narrow issue that we must resolve. First, the State has argued that even without the trial judge’s finding of racial bias, the judge could *79have imposed consecutive sentences on counts 3 and 18 that would have produced the 12-year term of imprisonment that Apprendi received; Apprendi’s actual sentence was thus within the range authorized by statute for the three offenses to which he pleaded guilty. * * * The constitutional question, however, is whether the 12-year sentence imposed on count 18 was permissible, given that it was above the 10-year maximum for the offense charged in that count. * * * The sentences on counts 3 and 22 have no more relevance to our disposition than the dismissal of the remaining 18 counts.”
Id. at 470, 474 (emphasis added). Thus, the Court in Apprendi specifically declined an invitation to analyze the constitutional issue in terms of whether the aggregated sentences, as a whole, exceeded the statutory maximum for the group of offenses. Although Apprendi certainly does not answer the question whether there are potential constitutional problems with judicial factfinding in imposing consecutive sentences, it explicitly provided a framework only for determining whether the sentence for an individual count was constitutionally impermissible: “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 490 (emphasis added).
None of the Court’s cases that have followed and elaborated on Apprendi contains any discussion that is relevant to the question at hand here — whether or how the rule applies to limit the aggregate sum of sentences for multiple crimes when the sentence for each individual crime does not exceed the statutory maximum.4 In Harris v. United States, 536 US 545, 122 S Ct 2406, 153 L Ed 2d 524 (2002), the Court considered whether the rule from Apprendi was implicated in *80a case in which the imposition of a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment was required if a judge found at sentencing that a firearm had been “brandished” during the commission of the offense. The Court concluded that it was not:
“Apprendi said that any fact extending the defendant’s sentence beyond the maximum authorized by the jury’s verdict would have been considered an element of an aggravated crime — and thus the domain of the jury — by those who framed the Bill of Rights. The same cannot be said of a fact increasing the mandatory minimum (but not extending the sentence beyond the statutory maximum), for the jury’s verdict has authorized the judge to impose the minimum with or without the finding.”
536 US at 557. Thus, the Court made clear that not all judicial factfinding at sentencing presents constitutional problems. The Court did, however, go on to find a constitutional flaw in a sentencing scheme that required judicial factfinding of the aggravating circumstances necessary for imposition of the death penalty, Ring v. Arizona, 536 US 584, 122 S Ct 2428, 153 L Ed 2d 556 (2002), and found similar constitutional flaws in other sentencing schemes that required judicial factfinding of aggravating circumstances necessary to impose upward durational departure sentences, see Blakely, 542 US at 303-04; United States v. Booker, 543 US 220, 125 S Ct 738, 160 L Ed 2d 621 (2005). None of those cases contains any suggestion that the Apprendi analysis must be applied to a challenge concerning the length of aggregated sentences under circumstances where the sentence on each individual conviction does not exceed the statutory maximum sentence prescribed for each individual crime.
Thus, the issue before us is one of first impression, and the resolution of it is not dictated by prior decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Other courts throughout the nation, however, have grappled with the issue in the wake of the Apprendi line of cases, reaching various results. Defendant relies on State v. Foster, 109 Oh St 3d 1, 845 NE2d 470, cert den, _ US _, 127 S Ct 442 (2006), which involved a statute not unlike ORS 137.123 that places limitations on the *81court’s imposition of consecutive sentences.5 The Ohio Supreme Court held that the judicial factfinding required under Ohio law for imposition of consecutive sentences ran afoul of the rule of law announced in Apprendi. The court stated:
“Ohio appears to be unique in having a rule that sentences of imprisonment shall be served concurrently. R.C. 2929.41(A) states, ‘Except as provided in [specific sections including R.C. 2929.14(E)], a prison term, jail term, or sentence of imprisonment shall be served concurrently with any other prison term.’ Thus, except for certain enumerated statutes imposing nondiscretionary consecutive terms, judicial fact-finding must occur before consecutive sentences may be imposed under R.C. 2929.14(E)(4). We have held previously that R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) * * * require[s] trial courts that impose consecutive sentences to make the statutorily enumerated findings and to give reasons at the sentencing hearing to support those findings for review on appeal.
“Thus, with limited exceptions, the Ohio Revised Code provides that consecutive sentences in Ohio may not be imposed except after additional fact-finding by the judge. In State v. Lett, 161 Ohio App 3d 274, 829 NE 2d 1281 [2005], an en banc decision, the Eighth Appellate District found Blakely is inapplicable to consecutive sentencing because ‘the facts found by the court do not increase the maximum penalty for an individual offense.’ This is true; nevertheless, because the total punishment increases through consecutive sentences only after judicial findings beyond those *82determined by a jury or stipulated by a defendant, R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) violates principles announced in Blakely”
109 Oh St 3d at 21-22, 845 NE2d at 490-91 (citations, footnotes, and emphasis omitted).6
By contrast, the Washington Supreme Court took a narrower view of the rule of law announced in Apprendi: “Apprendi does not have any application to consecutive sentences; to conclude otherwise would extend Apprendi’s holding beyond the narrow grounds upon which it rested.” State v. Cubias, 155 Wash 2d 549, 553, 120 P3d 929, 931 (2005). Washington, like Ohio, has a sentencing scheme for consecutive sentences that requires judicial factfinding under certain circumstances. Under the Washington scheme, generally, sentences for multiple “current offenses” are to be served concurrently, Revised Code of Washington (RCW) § 9.94A.589(1)(a), but if “a person is convicted of two or more serious violent offenses arising from separate and distinct criminal conduct,” then the sentences for those offenses “shall be served consecutively to each other.” RCW § 9.94A.589(1)(b). In Cubias, the question presented was whether judicial factfinding that the defendant’s offenses arose from “separate and distinct criminal conduct” was permissible under Apprendi. In rejecting the argument that *83judicial factfinding of “separate and distinct criminal conduct” ran afoul of the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial, the Washington Supreme Court noted (as have we in the discussion above), that the Court in Apprendi specifically declined to analyze the question in terms of cumulative sentences, and in fact “deemed them irrelevant for purposes of its holding.” Cubias, 155 Wash 2d at 553, 120 P3d at 931, citing Apprendi, 530 US at 474. The Washington court continued:
“We are also satisfied that the Blakely decision does not preclude a sentencing court from imposing consecutive sentences in a case such as we have here. While it is true that the imposition of consecutive sentences increases a defendant’s aggregate term of imprisonment, it is significant that in Blakely, like Apprendi, the court was not concerned with consecutive sentences. Indeed, the court considered the sentence on an additional count irrelevant. Blakely, 542 US at 299 n 2. It seems clear from Blakely that so long as the sentence for any single offense does not exceed the statutory maximum for that offense, as is the case here, Blakely is satisfied. Additionally, we note that consecutive sentences increase a defendant’s total sentence because he or she was convicted of multiple serious violent offenses, not because the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for any single offense.”
Cubias, 155 Wash 2d at 554-55, 120 P3d 931-32 (footnote omitted).
The Illinois Supreme Court likewise found no constitutional flaw in a consecutive sentencing scheme that bears some resemblance to ours. In People v. Wagener, 196 Ill 2d 269, 752 NE2d 430, cert den, 534 US 1011 (2001), the court considered the constitutionality of a statute that allowed a court to impose a consecutive sentence after the court had found that such a sentence was “required to protect the public.” Id. at 280, 752 NE2d at 439 (quoting 730 Illlinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) § 5/5-8-4(b)). The court first noted that “Apprendi explicitly disclaimed any holding regarding consecutive sentencing,” 196 111 2d at 284, 752 NE2d at 441, pointing to the Court’s explicit framing of the issue as “ ‘whether the 12-year sentence imposed on count 18 was permissible,’ ” id. (quoting Apprendi, 530 US at 474), and the *84Court’s rejection of the state’s invitation to consider the constitutionality of the sentences in the aggregate. The Illinois Supreme Court thus concluded that “it is clear that the decisions [of lower Illinois courts] holding that consecutive sentencing triggers Apprendi concerns are extending that case beyond its facts.” 196 Ill 2d at 285, 752 NE2d at 441. The court concluded:
“We recognize that Apprendi contains isolated statements which on their face might appear to support the conclusion that the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt each and every fact which might have any real-world impact on the length of time the defendant might spend in prison. For instance, the Court stated:
“ Tf a defendant faces punishment beyond that provided by statute when an offense is committed under certain circumstances but not others, it is obvious that both the loss of liberty and the stigma attaching to the offense are heightened; it necessarily follows that the defendant should not — at the moment the State is put to proof of those circumstances — be deprived of protections that have, until that point, unquestionably attached.’
“Apprendi, 530 US at 484. See also Apprendi, 530 US at 494 (‘the relevant inquiry is one not of form, but of effect— does the required finding expose the defendant to a greater punishment than that authorized by the jury’s guilty verdict?’).
“However, these statements cannot be taken out of context. The issue in Apprendi was ‘whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a factual determination authorizing an increase in the maximum prison sentence for an offense from 10 to 20 years be made by a jury on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’ (Emphasis added.) Apprendi, 530 US at 469. See also Apprendi, 530 US at 490 (‘[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt’ (emphasis added)). The Court specifically stated that consecutive sentencing was ‘not relevant’ to the ‘narrow issue’ under consideration. Apprendi, 530 US at 474.
*85“We are bound to follow the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. * * * But we are not bound to extend the decisions of the Court to arenas which it did not purport to address, which indeed it specifically disavowed addressing, in order to find unconstitutional a law of this state.”
196 Ill 2d at 286-87, 752 NE2d at 442-43 (some citations omitted).
In sum, a number of jurisdictions have grappled with the issue presented here and, while all have considered the implications that Apprendi and Blakely may have on judicial factfinding in support of consecutive sentences, all but one have declined to extend the rule of law from Apprendi and Blakely into this context, generally on the ground that the Apprendi Court itself appeared to indicate that the rule was inapplicable to multiple sentences.
We agree with the majority of courts that have considered this matter. First, and most importantly, we agree with the Illinois court that, while our court is bound to apply the constitution in the manner dictated by the Court, it is “not bound to extend the decisions of the Court to arenas which it did not purport to address.” Wagener, 196 Ill 2d at 287, 752 NE2d at 442. We would, however, not hesitate to do so if we perceived the result to flow inevitably from the Court’s announced decisions, despite the fact that the Court did not address the exact circumstance. Here, however, we do not perceive an extension of Apprendi and Blakely into the realm of consecutive sentencing to be inevitable.
The core concern identified by the Court in Apprendi was that a defendant is entitled to “ ‘a jury determination that [he] is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” 530 US at 477 (quoting United States v. Gaudin, 515 US 506, 510, 115 S Ct 2310, 132 L Ed 2d 444 (1995) (emphasis added)). By making the length of a sentence for a specific crime dependent on judicial factfinding, the New Jersey statute at issue in Apprendi was considered “an unacceptable departure from the jury tradition that is an indispensable part of our criminal justice system.” Apprendi, 530 US at 497. The “jury tradition,” however, *86has never included jury factfinding concerning the manner in which sentences for separate crimes should be served.7 Moreover, the manner in which the facts of one crime might relate to the facts of another distinct crime have not, in the vast majority of situations, been considered “elements” of either crime.8 And in fact, the United States Constitution does not require that separate crimes be tried at the same time and to the same jury. See generally United States v. Dixon, 509 US 688, 113 S Ct 2849, 125 L Ed 2d 556 (1993) (double jeopardy bars subsequent prosecution only if crimes have the “same elements”). In light of those considerations, it is difficult to see how judicial factfinding to determine when a defendant should begin to serve sentences for distinct crimes that happen to have been tried in the same proceeding constitutes an “unacceptable departure from the jury tradition.” Apprendi, 530 US at 497.
We understand that it is possible that the United States Supreme Court might, based on the rationale set forth in Apprendi and Blakely, at some point conclude that the Sixth Amendment jury trial right extends to the finding of facts relating to whether sentences on separate crimes should be served concurrently or consecutively. That is, the Court could, in the future, choose to discern the “prescribed statutory maximum,” Apprendi, 530 US at 490, as the total of the sentences that a defendant is required to serve for multiple crimes. Nonetheless, the Court has not done so, and it declined to consider that issue relevant in Apprendi.9 And in *87fact, in the only Sixth Amendment case that we are aware of that even comes close to addressing the question of “aggregating” multiple crimes for purposes of Sixth Amendment analysis, the Court rejected such an approach. In Lewis v. United States, 518 US 322, 116 S Ct 2163, 135 L Ed 2d 590 (1996), the defendant was tried for multiple offenses, each of which carried a maximum penalty of six months. The Court, in earlier cases, had established a presumption that an “offense carrying a maximum prison term of six months or less is presumed petty” and a defendant in such a case is not entitled under the Sixth Amendment to a jury trial. Id. at 326. In Lewis, the defendant argued that he was entitled to a jury trial because the aggregated prison terms authorized for the multiple offenses with which he was charged could exceed six months’ imprisonment. Id. at 323. The Court concluded:
“Certainly the aggregate potential penalty faced by petitioner is of serious importance to him. But to determine whether an offense is serious for Sixth Amendment purposes, we look to the legislature’s judgment as evidenced by the maximum penalty authorized. Where the offenses charged are petty, and the deprivation of liberty exceeds six months only as a result of the aggregation of charges, the jury trial right does not apply.”
Id. at 329. Although Lewis is not controlling here because it has to do with when jury rights attach at all and not with the scope of jury factfinding, it does provide at least some further indication that the Court is inclined to approach Sixth Amendment questions from an “offense-specific” point of view, and thus supports the idea that a jury function should not be altered based simply on whether the state tries a defendant for multiple offenses at the same time or at different times.
In summary, although the Court might in the future extend the Sixth Amendment rule of law announced in Apprendi to factfinding relating to whether a defendant will *88serve sentences consecutively, we are not presently persuaded that the Sixth Amendment requires such factfinding to be made by a jury.
Affirmed.
In a number of other cases, we have declined to review the same question because of lack of preservation. See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 198 Or App 460, 108 P3d 682, rev den, 339 Or 66 (2005); State v. Fuerte-Coria, 196 Or App 170, 100 P3d 773 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 16 (2005).
In addition, defendant was convicted of four counts of second-degree robbery, ORS 164.405, one count of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270, and two counts of solicitation, ORS 161.435. Defendant does not challenge those convictions and the sentences imposed on those convictions on appeal.
We also reject the state’s alternative argument that, even if the determination required to impose consecutive sentences under ORS 137.123(5)(a) is a factual *75finding, the requisite facts were necessarily found by the jury in returning its verdict, obviating any Sixth Amendment concern. Cf. Blakely, 542 US at 303 (“[T]he ‘statutory maximum’ for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” (Emphasis in original.)). In particular, the state reasons that, because the jury found defendant guilty of multiple offenses, it necessarily found that defendant had demonstrated his “willingness to commit” multiple offenses as that term is used in ORS 137.123(5)(a). Thus, the state asserts, the consecutive sentences were, in fact, based on the jury’s verdict and not on some “extramural” judicial factfinding.
We disagree. The logical upshot of the state’s argument is that the legislature intended a court to be able to impose consecutive sentences any time the jury found that a defendant had committed multiple offenses. The text of ORS 137.123 as a whole does not bear such an interpretation. The statute places no restrictions on the court’s ability to impose consecutive sentences when criminal offenses “do not arise from the same continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct,” ORS 137.123(2), but specifically provides that when offenses do arise out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, the sentences “shall be concurrent,” ORS 137.123(4), unless “the court finds” the facts described in ORS 137.123(5). (Emphasis added.) If the legislature believed that a jury’s finding that defendant had committed multiple offenses necessarily demonstrated the requisite “willingness to commit more than one criminal offense” as that phrase is used in ORS 137.123(5)(a), there would be no reason for ORS 137.123(4) and (5)(a) to exist. That is, there would be no need for the court to “find” anything — the imposition of consecutive sentences would be automatic, and the finding requirement would be nugatory. We will not presume that the legislature imposed a useless condition. See generally ORS 174.010.
Although the Court has decided no cases that raise this issue, we note that the Court currently has under advisement the case of Burton v. Stewart, No. 05-9222, a habeas corpus case out of the Ninth Circuit. Burton v. Waddington, 142 Fed Appx 297 (9th Cir 2005). Although the questions presented to the Court in that case concern the retroactivity of the rule of law from Blakely, it appears that the respondent raised, in the first instance in the Supreme Court, a question whether Blakely applied to the sentences at issue, which apparently were challenged only on the basis that they were ordered to run consecutively based on judicial factfinding.
Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) § 2929.14(E)(4) provides, in part:
“If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any of the following:
‡ &
“(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.”
We disagree with the Ohio court’s conclusion that its sentencing scheme was unique in that regard. Although it is true that a number of courts that have upheld consecutive sentences against Apprendi challenges have done so on the ground that the statutory schemes did not require judicial factfinding, see, e.g., United States v. Davis, 329 F3d 1250 (11th Cir), cert den, 124 S Ct 330 (2003) (consecutive sentence was discretionary under federal guidelines); State v. Bramlett, 273 Kan 67, 41 P3d 796 (2002) (consecutive sentence was discretionary under state statute), a number of other jurisdictions have statutes governing consecutive sentencing that bear some resemblance to those at issue here (as well as in Cubias and Wagener, discussed in the text that follows). See Smylie v. State, 823 NE2d 679 (Ind), cert den, 126 S Ct 545 (2005) (judicial factfinding of aggravating factor required to impose consecutive sentence did not violate Sixth Amendment because the consecutive sentences did not exceed statutory máximums for the offenses); People v. Murray, 785 NYS2d 675, 5 Misc 3d 636 (NY Sup Ct 2004) (judicial finding that the defendant formed new intent in committing second crime did not violate Apprendi because “no single sentence exceeds the statutorily authorizedmaximum sentence”); People v. Groves, 107 Cal App 4th 1227, 132 Cal Rptr 2d 744 (2003) (judicial factfinding required for consecutive sentencing concerning whether the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to reflect on his actions after the first offense did not violate Apprendi because it did not increase the maximum possible sentence for any offense).
At common law, courts had inherent authority to determine whether a defendant’s sentence should be consecutive to or concurrent with other sentences. See generally State v. Jones, 250 Or 59, 440 P2d 371 (1968). However, as we recognized in State v. Trice, 146 Or App 15, 21, 933 P2d 345 (1997), the legislature abrogated the court’s inherent authority in that respect with the enactment of ORS 137.123.
For certain specific crimes, such as burglary, where the state must prove that the defendant intended to commit another crime, or felony murder, where the state must prove that a death occurred while the defendant was committing another crime, facts pertaining to multiple crimes must be found by a jury. However, in the normal course, courts guard carefully a defendant’s right to prevent a jury from hearing facts concerning a defendant’s other crimes, generally on the grounds of prejudice. See, e.g., OEC 404 (recognizing constitutional hmitations on the use of “other crimes” evidence in criminal cases); McKinney v. Rees, 993 F2d 1378 (9th Cir), cert den, 510 US 1020 (1993) (recognizing criminal defendant’s due process right to exclusion of prejudicial evidence).
Admittedly, the situation in Apprendi was essentially the obverse ofwhat we have here: In that case, the state urged that, even if the individual sentences were *87constitutionally suspect, the aggregate sentences were not; in this case, by contrast, defendant urges that even though the individual sentences pass constitutional muster under Apprendi, the aggregate sentences do not.