***FOR PUBLICATION***
The parties cite and refer to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Blakely v. Washington, -- U.S. --, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), and this court's recent decision in State v. Rivera, 106 Hawai`i 146, 102 P.3d 1044 (2004). None of the parties cite to United States v. Booker, -- U.S. --, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), in any post-briefing communication. See Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(j) (2005). (1) It would appear inapposite to use the instant case as a vehicle for expounding on matters in Booker inasmuch as this case does not raise the issues with which Booker was concerned, see Booker, -- U.S. at -- n.1, 125 S.Ct. at 747 n.1 ("The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Sixth Amendment is violated by the imposition of an enhanced sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines . . . and 2. If the answer to the first question is 'yes,' . . . whether . . . the Sentencing Guidelines as a whole would be inapplicable[.]" (emphases added) (internal quotation marks, citation, and block format omitted)), or share a commonality of fact and law with the situation in Booker. Until the parties before us argue the relevance and materiality of Booker in a specific case presented on appeal, I do not believe that the discussion the majority undertakes is germane. Based on the dissent in Rivera, I would vacate the extended terms of imprisonment and remand for resentencing in conformance with Apprendi.
1. HRAP Rule 28(j) states: