Answering the question noted in this post Friday, the California Supreme Court has decided that Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007) is an application of  Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), not a "new rule" within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). Cunningham claims in cases that became final after Blakely but before Cunningham can be addressed on state habeas corpus. The opinion in In re Sotero Gomez, S155425 is available here.

The court passes on the Danforth v. Minnesota question of whether broader retroactivity would be provided under state law, finding the question unnecessary to decide.