Andy Furillo of the SacBee has a more extensive article now on the hearing on SB 40, the fix to the Cunningham problem. This prospective-only fix was supported by representatives of both the prosecution and defense sides. The measure will probably sail through the Legislature from this point.

But what about the old cases? The L.A.D.A.'s representative is quoted saying they are bracing for the wave of habeas petitions. They do not intend to roll over and allow the worst felons to have their sentences reduced to the middle term. They intend to ask to have juries empaneled to find the requisite aggravating fact where necessary and to take up on appeal any decision by a trial judge refusing to do so. This could get very expensive.

Just how expensive depends on how far back Cunningham is retroactive for cases already final on appeal. The possible dates are the dates of Cunningham itself (not likely), Blakely (the correct answer, IMHO) or Apprendi. We would know the answer to the Blakely retroactivity question if the Supreme Court had chosen an appropriate vehicle to answer it, but they misstepped with Burton, as previously noted here.