Full opinion text
BERZON, Circuit Judge: Frank Butler alleged in his petition for writ of habeas corpus that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the California state trial court imposed an “upper term” sentence based on two aggravating factors not proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court, relying on Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), agreed, and granted the writ. The State contends that Cunningham, which struck down California’s determinate sentencing law (“DSL”), announced a “new rule” that cannot be applied on collateral review. In the alternative, the State maintains that the requirements for habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) have not been met, and that, even if they were, there was no constitutional violation. We conclude that the result in Cunningham was clearly dictated by the Supreme Court’s Sixth Amendment case law, in particular by Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), decided before Butler’s conviction became final. The state court decision in Butler’s case was contrary to this clearly established law. Further, Butler’s constitutional rights were violated when the statutory maximum for his crime was increased on the basis of facts found by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than admitted or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We cannot, however, determine whether this violation was harmless in the absence of further factfinding about what evidence was presented to the state trial court judge in support of the allegation that Butler was on probation at the time of his crime. For that reason, we remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. I. Background. A. Trial. Frank Butler was tried in California state court for an assault on his former wife, Daria Butler. At trial, the Butlers provided conflicting accounts of the assault. The judge’s finding with regard to one of the aggravating factors turned, to some degree, on whose story was believed. 1. Daria testified: She and Butler married in 1989 and had two children together, Barbara and La-quan, prior to their divorce in 1993. Her fights with Butler had been physical in the past, and she had hit him on more than one occasion. Daria had obtained at least three restraining orders against Butler, and she and Butler had repeatedly ended their relationship. In the summer of 2000, they reconciled once again, and Daria drove to St. Louis to pick up Butler and bring him back to California. Several months after Butler’s return to California, Daria and Butler separated once more, and Daria obtained a restraining order against Butler, still in place at the time of the June 28, 2001 incident. The Butlers reconciled yet again in January or February of 2001 and were living together, with their two children, at the time of the assault. In 1977, Daria was in an abusive relationship with a different boyfriend. She obtained a gun and asked her boyfriend to meet her in an alley, where she shot and seriously injured him. At that time, she “didn’t have any knowledge of shelters or restraining orders or anything.” On the evening of June 28, 2001, Daria and Butler had a dispute about a letter she had received from another ex-husband asking for help. Butler left the room; Daria “could tell that he was kind of getting upset.” Later in the evening, Daria tried to talk with Butler in their bedroom, but he left the room, slamming the door behind him. Daria decided to sleep in the downstairs office, but soon after she had gotten into bed downstairs, Butler entered the office and began yelling at her about her ex-husband. He then turned and left the room. Soon thereafter, Daria decided to return to the bedroom, and Butler followed her there, “cursing and screaming” at her. Daria retrieved Butler’s suitcase from the bedroom closet; as she turned and placed it on the bed, she felt a blow to the back of her head and “the blows kept coming.” At some point during the attack, Daria realized that she was being hit with an iron. The attack left “blood spattered all across the room for several feet on the walls, the door,” and the fan. Daria began screaming for her children. Laquan testified that when he responded to his mother’s screams, he found his mother on the floor of the bedroom crying and “bleeding in the back of her head.” The police arrived shortly thereafter, and Daria was taken to the hospital, where she received six to eight staples in the back of her head. Deputy Calvo, the sheriffs deputy assigned to investigate the case, confirmed that when he arrived at the scene he found a shattered iron. 2. Butler testified: Daria was the one who had instigated physical confrontations in their relationship, attacking and slapping him during marriage counseling sessions, and throwing things at him during arguments. At one point several months before the incident in question, Daria bit him on the chest after an argument. After Daria told him about the letter from her ex-husband, he responded that she should tell her ex-husband that she could not help him because she was with Butler now. Daria became visibly angry. Butler attempted several times throughout the evening to speak with her, but she refused to have a conversation with him. After his final attempt to speak with her in the downstairs office, he concluded that it was better if he simply left, so he went upstairs to pack. Daria followed him upstairs to the bedroom, and he saw that she had a knife in her left hand. She came at him with the knife, and he grabbed the iron from his closet and hit her with it until she dropped the knife. Laquan, Barbara, and Deputy Calvo all testified that they did not see a knife in the bedroom after the attack. 3. The jury found Butler guilty of corporal injury to a spouse (Cal.Penal Code § 273.5(a) (2001)) and assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (CaLPenal Code § 245(a)(1) (2000)). The jury also found as “enhancements” that Butler used a deadly and dangerous weapon and that he inflicted great bodily injury during the commission of the crime. See Cal.Penal Code §§ 12022(b)(1) (2003), 12022.7(a) (2003). B. Sentencing. Under California’s DSL as it existed at the time Butler was sentenced, “[w]hen a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies three possible terms, the court shall order imposition of the middle term, unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime.” Cal.Penal Code § 1170(b) (2005). The California Rules of Court (“Rules”) effective at the time of Butler’s sentencing also provided that “[t]he middle term must be selected unless imposition of the upper or lower term is justified by circumstances in aggravation or mitigation.” Cal. R. Ct. 4.420(a) (1977). Under the Rules, “[circumstances in aggravation and mitigation must be established by a preponderance of the evidence,” and “[s]election of the upper term is justified only if, after a consideration of all the relevant facts, the circumstances in aggravation outweigh the circumstances in mitigation.” Rule 4.420(b). The Rules also specify a non-exhaustive list of aggravating and mitigating factors, including factors relating to the crime and factors relating to the defendant. See Cal. R. Ct. 4.421, 4.423. Both the crimes of which Butler was convicted specify three possible terms, so his sentencing was governed by section 1170(b). See Cal.Penal Code §§ 273.5(a), 245(a)(1). At Butler’s sentencing, the court indicated that it had “read and considered the probation report in this case.” The court then found that although Butler had one prior misdemeanor offense, his lack of a significant prior record was a factor in mitigation. The court noted that “on the other side of the coin are factors in aggravation”: “the vulnerability of the victim with her back turned to the defendant when she was attacked from behind” and “the fact that [Butler] was on probation at the time the crime was committed.” Butler’s counsel objected to the use of Butler’s probationary status as an aggravating factor, arguing that “there is no indication that he was noncompliant except for this.” The court rejected .this argument, and went on to conclude that the aggravating factors “outweigh the factor in mitigation.” Based on these findings, the court imposed the upper term of four years in state prison for corporal injury to a spouse. The court then also imposed sentences of one year and three years, respectively, for the use of a deadly weapon and the infliction of serious bodily injury enhancements, for a total of eight years in state prison. On count two, assault with a deadly weapon, the court imposed the middle term of three years as well as the three-year enhancement for causing serious bodily injury, but stayed imposition of the sentence. C. State Direct Appeals and Post-Conviction Relief. On direct appeal, Butler raised a Sixth Amendment challenge to the imposition of an upper term sentence based on facts found by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The California Court of Appeal initially held, on September 22, 2004, that Butler’s “sentence was erroneous under compulsion of Blakely v. Washington [, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004),]” because “[t]he court imposed the high term ... based on factual findings it made without a jury.” Shortly before the California Court of Appeal’s first decision on Butler’s direct appeal, the California Supreme Court had decided People v. Black, 35 Cal.4th 1238, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 740, 113 P.3d 534 (2005) {“Black I”), in which it held that “the judicial factfinding that occurs when a judge exercises discretion to impose an upper term sentence ... under California law does not implicate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.” Id. at 1244, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 740, 113 P.3d 534. The California Supreme Court granted review of the Court of Appeal’s initial decision in Butler’s case and remanded with directions to vacate and reconsider the appeal in light of Black I. On September 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals reconsidered its earlier ruling and held that Butler’s sentence did not violate the Sixth Amendment. Butler did not appeal the Court of Appeal’s second decision, but did file a petition for state postconviction relief in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on the merits without comment or citation. D. District Court Proceedings. In December 2006, Butler filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, maintaining that his sentence violated Blakely. Shortly thereafter, in January 2007, the Supreme Court decided Cunningham. Cunningham addressed a challenge to California’s DSL and concluded that “the middle term prescribed in California’s statutes, not the upper term, is the relevant statutory maximum” for purposes of analysis under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). 127 S.Ct. at 868. Because “the DSL authorized] the judge, not the jury, to find the facts permitting an upper term sentence,” it violated the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 871. The State responded to Butler’s petition by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing that Butler’s claim of sentencing error was unexhausted. The State contended that, “because the recent Cunningham decision casts petitioner’s [claim] in a significantly different light, his petition should be dismissed and proceedings stayed while petitioner returns to state court to seek relief under Cunningham.” The magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny the state’s motion because Cunningham “did not effect an intervening change in federal law.” In its objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the State argued for the first time that Cunningham constitutes a “new rule of constitutional law” within the meaning of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied the motion to dismiss, holding, inter alia, that the State’s “Teague argument fails.” Having failed in its effort at dismissal, the State filed an answer to the first amended petition on May 16, 2007, in which it maintained that granting relief to petitioner would violate Teague. Moreover, the State argued, the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court’s decisions did not unreasonably apply “clearly established” Supreme Court precedent' because Butler’s probation status falls within the “recidivism” exception to Apprendi v. New Jersey and, under California’s DSL, a trial court’s finding of a single aggravating factor is sufficient to render a defendant eligible for the upper term. The State further contended that any error was harmless because the jury would have found the two aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. Butler filed a traverse in response, contesting each of the State’s arguments. The magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus. The magistrate judge determined that the failure to obtain a jury-verdict on the probation aggravating factor was harmless, but that the state had not met its burden of demonstrating harmlessness with regard to the “vulnerability of the victim” finding. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus. II. Analysis. A. Retroactivity. In Cunningham, the Supreme Court addressed a Sixth Amendment challenge to California’s DSL. The petitioner in Cunningham was convicted of “continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14.” 127 S.Ct. at 860. That crime, like the crimes of which Butler was convicted, was punishable under California law by a lower, middle, or upper term. Id. Finding several aggravating factors, the judge imposed an upper term. Id. Observing that, under Cal.Penal Code § 1170(b) (2005), the judge was required to impose a middle term sentence unless he found one or more aggravating factors, the Court held: In accord with Blakely, ... the middle term prescribed in California’s statutes, not the upper term, is the relevant statutory maximum. Because circumstances in aggravation are found by the judge, not the jury, and need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt, the DSL violates Apprendi’s, bright-line rule: Except for 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 868 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). California’s DSL thus “violates a defendant’s right to trial by jury safeguarded by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Id. at 860. The State argues that the Supreme Court’s holding in Cunningham — that California’s DSL violates the Sixth Amendment because it raises the statutory maximum based on facts found by a judge, rather than a jury-is a “new rule” of constitutional law and therefore cannot be applied retroactively on collateral review under Teague v. Lane When a State raises the issue of retroactivity, “federal habeas courts must apply Teague before considering the merits” of a claim. Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406, 412, 124 S.Ct. 2504, 159 L.Ed.2d 494 (2004) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore address the Teague argument first. Under Teague, “old” rules of criminal procedure apply “both on direct and collateral review, but a new rule is generally applicable only to cases that are still on direct review.” Whorton v. Bockt-ing, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 1180, 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007). Butler’s conviction became final on November 7, 2005, when the time for seeking direct review of the California Court of Appeal decision in his case expired. See Caspari v. Bohlen, 510 U.S. 383, 390, 114 S.Ct. 948, 127 L.Ed.2d 236 (1994); Cal. R. Ct. 24(a), 28(b), 45(a). The decision in Cunningham is thus a “new rule” that cannot be applied to Butler’s habeas petition if “the result was not dictated by precedent” as of November 7, 2005. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. at 301, 109 S.Ct. 1060 (emphasis in original). The “new rule” principle “validates reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents made by state courts even though they are shown to be contrary to later decisions.” Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 414, 110 S.Ct. 1212, 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990). To determine whether precedent dictated the holding that California’s DSL is inconsistent with the Sixth Amendment, we must “ascertain the legal landscape as it ... existed [before November 7, 2005] and ask whether the Constitution, as interpreted by the precedent then existing, compelled] the rule.” Beard, 542 U.S. at 411, 124 S.Ct. 2504(citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Teague, 489 U.S. at 301, 109 S.Ct. 1060 (“[A] case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government.”). Teague does not, however, require a habeas petitioner to show that “the Supreme Court ha[s] decided a case involving identical facts, circumstances, and legal issues.” See Keating v. Hood, 191 F.3d 1053, 1061 n. 11 (9th Cir.1999), overruled in part on other grounds by Payton v. Woodford, 346 F.3d 1204, 1216 (9th Cir.2003). Rather, when a general rule must be applied in a new situation, “it can hardly be thought to have created a new principle of constitutional law.” Tanner v. McDaniel, 493 F.3d 1135, 1144 (9th Cir.2007), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 722, 169 L.Ed.2d 565 (2007). In particular, in the context of applying rules of constitutional law to statutory schemes from different states, we have noted that “applying existing constitutional rules to different state sentencing schemes d[oes] not implicate Teague.” Beardslee v. Brown, 393 F.3d 1032, 1040 (9th Cir.2004) (citing Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222, 229, 112 S.Ct. 1130, 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992) (holding that the Supreme Court’s conclusion that California’s death penalty statute was a “weighing” statute, where the definition of “weighing” had been established in a case involving a Mississippi statute, was not a new rule)). Looking at the legal developments prior to Cunningham, we conclude that the Supreme Court’s Sixth Amendment case law at the time Butler’s conviction became final compelled the conclusion that California’s DSL was unconstitutional. First in the line of pertinent cases was Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), which held that “ ‘any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. at 476, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (quoting Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 243 n. 6, 119 S.Ct. 1215, 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999)). Next, Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), clarified that “the ‘statutory maximum’ for Ap-prendi 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 ” and reaffirmed Apprendi’s “bright-line rule.” Id. at 303, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (emphasis in original). Finally, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were invalid because, as in Blakely, “ ‘the jury’s verdict alone does not authorize the sentence. The judge acquires that authority only upon finding some additional fact.’ ” Id. at 235, 125 S.Ct. 738 (quoting Blakely, 542 U.S. at 305, 124 S.Ct. 2531). Taken together, Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker, firmly established that a sentencing scheme in which the maximum possible sentence is set based on facts found by a judge is not consistent with the Sixth Amendment. That the California DSL squarely violated this principle-and that the result in Cunningham was compelled by precedent-is best illustrated by comparing the Washington sentencing statute at issue in Blakely with California’s DSL. The Washington law in Blakely provided that “[a] judge may impose a sentence above the standard range if he finds ‘substantial and compelling reasons justifying an exceptional sentence.’ ” 542 U.S. at 299, 124 S.Ct. 2531. California’s DSL similarly required imposition of the middle term unless the judge found factors in aggravation or mitigation. See Cal.Penal Code § 1170(b); Cal. R. Ct. 4.420(a). Like California’s DSL, Washington law provided a non-exhaustive list of possible reasons for an exceptional sentence, and stated that “a reason offered to justify an exceptional sentence [could] be considered only if it t[ook] into account factors other than those which are used in computing the standard range sentence for the offense,” i.e., factors other than those found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Blakely, 542 U.S. at 299, 304, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. Cal. R. Ct. 4.421, 4.423 (lists of factors in aggravation and mitigation); id. 4.408(a) (judge may consider additional criteria); id. 4.420(d) (“A fact that is an element of the crime upon which punishment is being imposed may not be used to impose the upper term.”). A judge’s decision to impose an exceptional sentence under Washington law was reversible if “there [wa]s insufficient evidence in the record to support the reasons for imposing an exceptional sentence.” Blakely, 542 U.S. at 299-300, 124 S.Ct. 2531. A judge’s sentencing decision under the DSL was also reviewable. See, e.g., People v. Osband, 13 Cal.4th 622, 728, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640 (1996) (reviewing a sentence imposed under the DSL). Finally, like a judge applying the California DSL, the Washington sentencing judge was not required to impose an exceptional sentence if he found a single aggravating fact, but rather could make a judgment that a lower sentence was appropriate based on all the facts, as long as he provided sufficient reasons. Blakely, 542 U.S. at 305 n. 8, 124 S.Ct. 2531; cf. Cal. R. Ct. 4.420(b), (e). Examining the Washington law at issue in Blakely, the Supreme Court recognized both that the judge had discretion to determine whether to impose an exceptional sentence and that there was not an exhaustive list of mitigating and aggravating factors. Blakely, 542 U.S. at 305 & n. 8, 124 S.Ct. 2531. These factors did not affect the Court’s conclusion that the Washington sentencing scheme violated the Sixth Amendment. Id. Instead, because the maximum possible penalty for the crime was set based on facts that had been found by a judge and not by a jury, the sentence was invalid. Id. Cunningham reiterated these same points, rejecting arguments already disapproved in Blakely. See 127 S.Ct. at 869 (noting that the Court had already held in Blakely that “broad discretion to decide what facts may support an enhanced sentence, or to determine whether an enhanced sentence is warranted in any particular case, does not shield a sentencing system” from the brightline rule of Apprendi). In short, Cunningham did not add “ ‘any new elements or criteria for’ ” determining when a state statute violates the Sixth Amendment. Boyd v. Newland, 467 F.3d 1139, 1146 (9th Cir.2006), cert. denied - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2249, 167 L.Ed.2d 1089 (2007) (quoting Murphy v. Dretke, 416 F.3d 427, 439 (5th Cir.2005)); see also Beardslee, 393 F.3d at 1040. It simply applied the rule of Blakely to a distinct but closely analogous state sentencing scheme. That the Supreme Court held for the first time that California’s sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment does not render its decision in Cunningham a new rule. The State advances a number of objections to this conclusion, but each fails for the same reason: the State cannot identify any relevant difference between the sentencing scheme in Blakely and that in Cunningham. The State points, first, to the fact that we have held that Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker announced “new rules.” See Jones v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1227, 1236-37 (9th Cir.2000) (Apprendi); Schardt v. Payne, 414 F.3d 1025, 1035-36 (9th Cir.2005) (Blakely); United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1120 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (Booker). But Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker were each sufficiently distinguishable from the cases that preceded them that courts might reasonably have disagreed as to the application of precedent. And, of course, the status of Ap-prendi, Blakely, and Booker as new rules has little bearing on whether they, collectively, compelled the result in Cunningham. Second, the State maintains that the existence of two dissents in Cunningham shows that not all reasonable jurists would have felt compelled to hold that California’s sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment. Dissents to the decision announcing a rule are relevant to the new rule analysis, but their existence does not alone “suffice[ ] to show that the rule is new.” Beard, 542 U.S. at 416 n. 5, 124 S.Ct. 2504; see Boyd, 467 F.3d at 1145-46 (holding that Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 125 S.Ct. 2410, 162 L.Ed.2d 129 (2005), a case that engendered a dissent in the Supreme Court, did not create a new rule). For one thing, dissents do not always rest on the assertion that the precedents do not support the legal rule applied by the majority. They are sometimes used to argue for a modification or overruling of existing precedent, or to express an ongoing disagreement with an entire line of cases. See, e.g., Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 258-59, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting) (arguing that Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), which dictated the result in Desist, was wrongly decided and that new constitutional decisions must be applied to all cases on direct review); Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 677-81, 91 S.Ct. 1171, 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (continuing to argue that new rules must be applied to all cases on direct review); Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 674-75, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990) (Brennan, J., dissenting), overruled by Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) (adhering to his view “that the death penalty is in all circumstances a cruel and unusual punishment”). Also, dissents often disagree with the majority’s application of established legal principles to discrete factual circumstances, and do not suggest that the majority has adopted a “new rule” of constitutional law. See, e.g., Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 377, 385-86 & n. 3, 125 S.Ct. 2456, 162 L.Ed.2d 360 (2005) (holding, despite a dissent, that the petitioner was entitled to habeas relief because counsel’s failure to examine evidence that the government intended to present in aggravation at sentencing phase violated the standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). Neither variety of dissent indicates that there are reasonable alternative interpretations of the constitutional rule existing at the time they are written. In contrast, when the Supreme Court has relied in part on dissents in earlier cases in applying Teague, the dissents in question have addressed considerations pertinent to the Teague analysis. See Beard, 542 U.S. at 414-16, 124 S.Ct. 2504 (considering whether the decisions in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 108 S.Ct. 1860, 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), and McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 110 S.Ct. 1227, 108 L.Ed.2d 369 (1990), which held that the Constitution prohibits states from requiring jurors to find mitigating factors unanimously, announced a new rule, and pointing to the dissents in Mills and McKoy as evidence that there was a significant difference between the issues addressed in Mills and McKoy and earlier cases). The dissents in Cunningham were not of the variety relied on in Beard. Justice Kennedy’s Cunningham dissent, joined by Justice Breyer, did not contend that Cunningham was wrongly decided, but instead maintained that “the Apprendi line of cases remains incorrect.” See Cunningham, 127 S.Ct. at 872 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). The dissent then went on to suggest a modification of the Apprendi rule for future cases which would have limited it to facts related to the nature of the crime, rather than the nature of the offender, but did not argue that its proposed modification was consistent with the Court’s Sixth Amendment precedents. See id. at 872-73. Instead, Justice Kennedy’s Cunningham dissent relied on the dissents in Blakely. See id. at 872 (“As dissenting opinions have suggested before, the Constitution ought not to be interpreted to strike down all aspects of sentencing systems that grant judicial discretion with some legislative direction and control.”) (citing Blakely, 542 U.S. at 314, 124 S.Ct. 2531) (dissenting opinion of O’Connor, J.), and id. at 326-27, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (dissenting opinion of Kennedy, J.). Because the dissent did not present an argument that Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker can be interpreted to reach a result different from that reached in Cunningham, it does not shed light on the Teague inquiry. Justice Alito’s dissent is similarly unhelpful to the State, as that dissent also presented no argument that Blakely could be applied in Cunningham to reach a different result. Instead, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Kennedy and Breyer, contended, primarily, that the majority misapprehended California law, not that the DSL, as the majority understood it, passes constitutional muster under Ap-prendi, Blakely, and Booker. Id. at 876-79, 127 S.Ct. 856 (Alito, J., dissenting). Moreover, the dissent argued that the practical effect of the California DSL, as Justice Alito understood it, was indistinguishable from the federal sentencing system after Booker. The Cunningham majority pointed out, however, that the dissent’s discussion depended on assumptions about aspects of the operation of the federal sentencing guidelines after Booker that had yet to be established. See id. at 873. In this focus on the practical effects of the California and federal sentencing schemes, Justice Alito’s dissent echoed a position rejected by the majority in Blakely, see 542 U.S. at 320-22, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). Further, to the extent that Justice Alito’s dissent suggested that the existence of appellate review of the ultimate sentence mitigates that principle, see Cunningham, 549 U.S. at 277-78, 127 S.Ct. 856, it was, in essence, an argument for overruling Blakely, which involved a sentencing scheme including judicial review, see Blakely, 542 U.S. at 299-300, 124 S.Ct. 2531. For these reasons, Justice Alito’s Cunningham dissent does not suggest that reasonable alternative interpretations of Blakely were available. In the end, the State’s position would require us to hold that each time a rule of general applicability, such as that announced in Blakely, is applied to a discrete circumstance, a new rule of constitutional law is created. Not only is that result inconsistent with the pertinent case law, it is not supported by the purposes of nonretroactivity on collateral review. In Teague, the Supreme Court adopted Justice Harlan’s view that habeas “ ‘serves as a necessary additional incentive for trial and appellate courts ... to conduct their proceedings in a manner consistent with established constitutional standards.’ ” 489 U.S. at 306, 109 S.Ct. 1060 (quoting Desist, 394 U.S. at 262-63, 89 S.Ct. 1030 (Harlan, J., dissenting)). Habeas courts can maintain this incentive without applying new constitutional standards to cases in which state courts had complied with “the constitutional standards that prevailed at the time the original proceedings took place.” Id. To apply new rules to final state court convictions would threaten important principles of finality in criminal proceedings as well as of respect for state courts. Id. at 308-10, 109 S.Ct. 1060. In this case, Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker made “courts throughout the land” aware that sentencing schemes that raise the maximum possible term based on facts not found by a jury violate the constitutional rights of defendants. Id. at 306, 109 S.Ct. 1060. No principles of comity or federalism would be served by refusing to apply this rule to functionally indistinguishable state sentencing schemes on collateral review. Cunningham thus did not announce a new rule of constitutional law and may be applied retroactively on collateral review. B. Exhaustion. The State also argues that Butler’s ha-beas petition must be dismissed for failure to exhaust, because Cunningham constitutes an intervening change in federal law that casts the legal issue in a fundamentally different light. See Blair v. California, 340 F.2d 741, 745 (9th Cir.1965). Before Teague, we sometimes held a habeas petition unexhausted because of changes in federal law. See, e.g., id. at 743-45 (holding that an issue was not exhausted where Supreme Court subsequently decided Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 357, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963) (holding that indigent defendants are entitled to counsel in their first appeal as of right)); Davis v. California, 341 F.2d 982, 986 n. 11 (9th Cir.1965). After Teague, an intervening change in federal law that casts the legal issue in a fundamentally different light is a “new rule” that cannot be applied on collateral review under any circumstances, regardless of whether the petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies. In other words, after Teague, the Douglas line of cases no longer serves any function. Where there is no new rule announced, the state court has had a fair chance to address the issue when it was raised, and there is no reason to require further exhaustion. We hold that when a petitioner raises a claim in state court that is later resolved in a case that announced no “new rule,” a petitioner is not obligated to return to state court to exhaust his remedies under that case. C. AEDPA. Butler’s petition was filed, after April 24, 1996, so the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act apply to his petition. See Fields v. Brown, 503 F.3d 755, 763 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), cert. denied — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 1875, 170 L.Ed.2d 752 (2008). Under AEDPA, we cannot grant habeas relief to Butler unless the State court’s decision in his case was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States:” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Supreme Court precedents that “qualify as an old rule under [:Teague ] ... constitute ‘clearly established Federal law* ” within the meaning of AEDPA. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). We therefore proceed from the premise that the case law on a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights was clearly established when Butler’s conviction became final and address only the other requirements of AEDPA. “A state court decision is contrary to clearly established federal law if the state court either applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth by the Supreme Court or arrives at a different result when confronted by a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of the Supreme Court.” Sims v. Rowland, 414 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir.2005) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. at 405-06, 120 S.Ct. 1495). An unreasonable application of federal law results when a state court “applies [Supreme Court] precedents to the facts in an objectively unreasonable manner,” or unreasonably fails “to extend the holding or legal principles of a Supreme Court decision to a situation in which it should have controlled.” Id. at 1152 (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing a state court decision under § 2254(d)(1), we “look to the last reasoned decision of the state court as the basis of the state court’s judgment.” Polk v. Sandoval, 503 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir.2007). The California Court of Appeal issued the last reasoned state court decision when it rejected Butler’s direct appeal. In denying Butler’s challenge to his sentence, the California Court of Appeal relied entirely on the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in Black I. We therefore look to the reasoning of Black I to determine whether the AEDPA requirements have been met. Black I reached its result — upholding the DSL — by applying a rule of decision contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent. The California Supreme Court articulated the relevant question as whether a trial judge’s decision to impose an upper term sentence under the California determinate sentencing law involves the type of judicial factfinding that traditionally has been performed by a judge in the context of exercising sentencing discretion or whether it instead involves the type of factfinding that traditionally has been exercised by juries in the context of determining whether the elements of an offense have been proved. Black I, 35 Cal.4th at 1253-54, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 740, 113 P.3d 534. Applying that rule, the court concluded that the upper term is the relevant statutory maximum, because California’s DSL “simply authorize[s] a sentencing court to engage in the type of factfinding that traditionally has been incident to the judge’s selection of an appropriate sentence.” Id. at 1254, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 740, 113 P.3d 534. The California Supreme Court so ruled even though a sentencing court “cannot impose the upper term unless there is at least one aggravating factor.” Id. The rule applied in Black I is nowhere to be found in Supreme Court precedent. Instead, it parallels the position of the dissenters in several of the Supreme Court’s sentencing cases. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 235-36, 125 S.Ct. 738 (rejecting the dissent’s reliance on the traditional authority of judges to engage in factfinding as to matters relevant to sentencing); Ap-prendi, 530 U.S. at 535, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (arguing that it is acceptable to allow judges to engage in factfinding as to matters that have traditionally been treated as affecting punishment rather than as elements); accord Black I, 35 Cal.4th at 1270, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 740, 113 P.3d 534 (Kennard, J., concurring and dissenting) (“Nothing in the high court’s majority opinions in Apprendi Blakely, and Booker suggests that the constitutionality of a state’s sentencing scheme turns on whether, in the words of the majority here, it involves the type of factfinding that traditionally has been performed by a judge.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In fact, “the ‘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.” Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303, 124 S.Ct. 2531. Rather than applying this bright-line rule, Black I applied a “traditional judicial fact-finding” rule inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. Its decision was therefore “contrary to” the clearly established law of the Supreme Court, and the requirements of AEDPA are met. See Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634, 640, 123 S.Ct. 1848, 155 L.Ed.2d 877 (2003) (noting that a decision is contrary to clearly established law if it “applies a rule” that contradicts Supreme Court precedent). D. Constitutional Violation. Our conclusion that the decision of the California Court of Appeal was “contrary” to clearly established Supreme Court precedent is not the end of our inquiry. Our power to grant the writ of habeas corpus to a state inmate depends on his actually being “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws ... of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Having held that the requirements of AEDPA have been met, we must also determine, applying a de novo review standard, whether there has been a constitutional violation. See Frantz v. Hazey, 513 F.3d 1002, 1013 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (holding that, “[w]hen ‘the requirement set forth in § 2254(d)(1) is satisfied, a federal court must then resolve the constitutional claim without the deference AEDPA otherwise requires’ ”) (quoting Panetti v. Quarterman, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2842, 2858, 168 L.Ed.2d 662 (2007)). We therefore proceed to a de novo analysis of whether, under a correct understanding of Supreme Court precedent, Butler’s sentence violates the Sixth Amendment. The State contends that Butler’s sentence does not violate the Constitution because, under California law, the existence of a single aggravating factor is sufficient to authorize an upper term sentence, and the “probation” aggravating factor comes within the exception for “prior convictions” created by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Almendarez-Torres held that the fact of a prior conviction need no.t be pleaded in an indictment or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 244, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219. We agree that, under California law, only one aggravating factor is necessary to authorize an upper term sentence. So the probation factor alone would suffice to render the sentence constitutional were it found applicable in a manner consistent with the Sixth Amendment. We conclude, however, that whether the defendant was on probation at the time of commitment of a crime does not come within the narrow Almendarez-Torres exception to the fact-finding requirements established in the Apprendi line of cases and so cannot suffice to make Butler’s sentence constitutional. 1. California law. The California Supreme Court revisited its decision in Black I after a remand from the United States Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Cunningham. See People v. Black, 41 Cal.4th 799, 805, 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 569, 161 P.3d 1130 (2007) (“Black II ”). Black II once again upheld Black’s sentence, on the ground that, “under the DSL[,] the presence of one aggravating circumstance renders it lawful for the trial court to impose an upper term sentence.” Id. at 815, 161 P.3d 1130. Black II observed that, under Supreme Court precedent, “as long as a single aggravating circumstance ... has been established in accordance with the requirements of Apprendi and its progeny, any additional fact finding engaged in by the trial court in selecting the appropriate sentence ... does not violate the defendant’s right to jury trial.” Id. at 812, 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 569, 161 P.3d 1130. One of the aggravating factors in Black’s case was the existence of a prior conviction. The California Supreme Court concluded, applying Almendarez-Torres, that that factor had been established in a manner consistent with the Constitution; so Black’s sentence was not unconstitutional. Id. at 816, 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 569, 161 P.3d 1130. Butler argues that we should not accept the Black II court’s interpretation of the California DSL as requiring only a single aggravating factor to authorize the upper term. As an initial matter, Butler waived this argument by failing to raise it either in the district court or in his brief on appeal, mentioning it for the first time at oral argument. See Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 923 (9th Cir.1988). Even were the issue not waived, however, Butler’s argument would fail. We are bound to accept a state court’s interpretation of state law, except in the highly unusual case in which the “interpretation is clearly untenable and amounts to a subterfuge to avoid federal review” of a constitutional violation. Knapp. v. Cardwell, 667 F.2d 1253, 1260 (9th Cir.1982); see Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 691 n. 11, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975). The California Supreme Court’s interpretation of the DSL is not so inconsistent with prior case law or the statute itself as to suggest that it is merely a subterfuge. Before Black II, the California courts had frequently held that only a single aggravating factor is required to support an upper term sentence. See, e.g., People v. Osband, 13 Cal.4th 622, 728, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640 (1996); People v. Forster, 29 Cal.App.4th 1746, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 705, 713 (1994) (“[A] single valid factor in aggravation is sufficient to justify the imposition of the upper term.”); People v. Piceno, 195 Cal.App.3d 1353, 241 Cal.Rptr. 391, 395 (1987) (same). Although the state courts before Cunningham were addressing a somewhat different question-whether the trial court had abused its discretion in selecting the upper term sentence from among those available-it is consistent with these earlier cases to hold that only one aggravating factor was necessary to set the upper term as the statutory maximum. Indeed, it would be strange if more aggravating factors were required to set the upper term as the statutory maximum than are required to justify selection of the upper term once the maximum has been raised. Further, although the California Rules of Court state that “[sjelection of the upper term is justified only if, after a consideration of all the relevant facts, the circumstances in aggravation outweigh the circumstances in mitigation,” Cal. R. Ct. 4.420(b) (emphasis added), the statute itself provides that “the court shall order imposition of the middle term, unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime,” CaLPenal Code § 1170(b). The weighing language of the Rules of Court can reasonably be interpreted as guiding a judge’s discretion to select a term within the statutory maximum set by section 1170(b) after an aggravating factor has been found. In short, California’s interpretation of the DSL is not “clearly untenable.” Having established that, under California law, only one aggravating factor is necessary to set the upper term as the maximum sentence, we turn to analyzing whether Butler’s sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment does not prevent judges from “exercising] discretion — taking into consideration various factors relating both to offense and offender-in imposing a judgment within the range prescribed by statute.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 481, 120 S.Ct. 2348. In imposing a sentence, judges may “implicitly rule on those facts [they] deem[ ] important to the exercise of [their] sentencing discretion.” Blakely, 542 U.S. at 309, 124 S.Ct. 2531. For that reason, if at least one of the aggravating factors on which the judge relied in sentencing Butler was established in a manner consistent with the Sixth Amendment, Butler’s sentence does not violate the Constitution. Any additional factfinding was relevant only to selection of a sentence within the statutory range. 2. Probation and the “Prior Conviction” Exception. The trial court imposed an upper term sentence on Butler based on two aggravating factors: his victim was particularly vulnerable, and he was on probation at the time he committed the assault. The State argues that Butler’s sentence does not violate the Constitution because the fact that Butler was on probation at the time of the crime was found in a manner consistent with the Constitution. We cannot agree with the State’s premise — ’that the narrow exception for prior convictions extends to a defendant’s probationary status at the time of the instant crime. In Almendarez-Torres, the Supreme Court determined that the fact of a prior conviction for an aggravated felony need not be pleaded in an indictment or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 523 U.S. at 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Subsequent sentencing cases, however, have substantially undermined the basis for this conclusion. Distinguishing Almendarez-Torres, Apprendi characterized the “prior conviction” exception as at best “an exceptional departure from” historic sentencing practice, 530 U.S. at 487, 120 S.Ct. 2348, and observed that it is “arguable that Almen-darez-Torres was incorrectly decided, and that a logical application of our reasoning today should apply if the recidivist issue were contested,” id. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348. See also id. at 518-19, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (Thomas, J., concurring) (concluding that Almendarez-Torres was wrongly decided); Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 27-28, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and in the judgment) (observing that “a majority of the Court now recognizes that Al-mendarez-Torres was wrongly decided” and suggesting that, “in an appropriate case, this Court should consider Almenda-rez-Torres’ continuing viability”). Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has not overruled the Almendarez-Torres exception for prior convictions, continuing to hold that “[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.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (emphasis added); see also Booker, 543 U.S. at 244, 125 S.Ct. 738; Blakely, 542 U.S. at 301, 124 S.Ct. 2531. Concommittantly, we have repeatedly recognized our obligation to apply the Almen- darez-Torres exception, unless and until it is rejected by the Supreme Court. See, e.g., United States v. Lopez, 500 F.3d 840, 848 (9th Cir.2007), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 950, 169 L.Ed.2d 782 (2008); United States v. Diaz-Argueta, 447 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005). We are left, then, with the task of determining the outer bounds of the “prior conviction” exception after Apprendi. We find some guidance in Shepard, which addressed the kind of evidence on which a court may rely in determining whether a prior conviction constitutes a crime of violence for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (“ACCA”). 544 U.S. at 15-16, 125 S.Ct. 1254. Shepard noted Almendarez-Torres’ exception for prior convictions, but also recognized that a district court’s findings of fact about the basis for a prior guilty plea or conviction at some point “raise[ ] the concern underlying ... Apprendi,” that is that the Constitution “guaranteed a jury’s finding of any disputed fact essential to increase the ceiling of a potential sentence.” Id. at 25, 125 S.Ct. 1254. Without delineating precisely the line between those facts that come within the Almendarez-Torres exception and those that do not, Shepard “avoid[ed] serious risks of unconstitutionality” by “limit[ing] the scope of judicial factfinding” under the ACCA to whether a prior guilty plea or jury verdict necessarily constitutes a conviction for the “generic” crime at issue. Id. at 25-26, 125 S.Ct. 1254. Specifically, where the conviction is by guilty plea, a judge may consider only “the statutory definition, charging document, written plea agreement, transcript of plea colloquy, and any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented.” Id. at 16, 125 S.Ct. 1254; see also Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602, 610, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990) (indicating the documents which may permissibly be considered in a case where conviction is by jury verdict). Shepard thus strongly suggests that the Almendarez-Torres exception does not extend to any and all facts related to a prior conviction. Rather, to avoid a potential conflict with the Sixth Amendment, Shepard limited the consideration of prior convictions at judicial sentencing to those facts that can be established by the “prior judicial record” of conviction. Heeding the Supreme Court’s cautions about Almendarez-Torres and Shepard’s guidance, we have been hesitant to broaden the scope of the prior conviction exception to facts not apparent on the face of conviction documents. United States v. Kortgaard, 425 F.3d 602, 610 (9th Cir.2005) (concluding that we must treat Almendarez-Torres as a “narrow exception to the general rule”). Under our precedents, the exception does not extend to qualitative evaluations of the nature or seriousness of past crimes, because such determinations cannot be made solely by looking to the documents of conviction. See id. at 607 (holding that “seriousness” of past crimes and “likelihood of recidivism” are not facts that come within the “prior conviction” exception); Stokes v. Schriro, 465 F.3d 397, 404 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that the determination whether the present offense is “strikingly similar” to a past offense does not come within the “prior conviction” exception). Nor does the Almendarez-Torres exception apply to past convictions as a juvenile or to prior removal proceedings, because those underlying proceedings lack full Sixth Amendment protections. See United States v. Tighe, 266 F.3d 1187, 1193-95 (9th Cir.2001) (“[T]he ‘prior conviction’ exception to Apprendi’s general rule must be limited to prior convictions that were themselves obtained through proceedings that included the right to a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citing Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 496, 120 S.Ct. 2348)); United States v. Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d 1090, 1097-98 (9th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 1866, 167 L.Ed.2d 355 (2007) (holding that prior removal proceedings are not within the exception because they “are civil, not criminal, lacking both juries and the reasonable doubt standard”). Our case law on criminal penalties for illegal reentry is especially instructive. In United States v. Salazar-Lopez, 506 F.3d 748 (9th Cir.2007), cert. denied — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2523, - L.Ed.2d -, 2008 WL 1881475 (U.S. May 27, 2008) (No. 07-10561), we addressed a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1), which raises the maximum term for illegal reentry from two to ten years if the relevant prior “removal [i]s subsequent to a conviction for commission of ... a felony.” The jury had found that Salazar-Lopez was removed from the United States at some point, but was not required to find the date of that removal. Salazar-Lopez, 506 F.3d at 751. We held that a district judge could determine whether there was a prior felony conviction without committing Apprendi error, but that the timing of the subsequent removal must be pleaded in an indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 751-52. This was so, even though the statutory maximum was based in part on the fact and timing of a prior conviction reflected in conviction documents, and even though the date of the later removal was reflected in documents from an immigration court. In other words, where the basis for the higher statutory maximum depends on facts that occurred after the prior conviction and is not evident on the face of conviction documents, application of the higher statutory maximum violates Apprendi. Id. at 752. In sum, our case law establishes three prerequisites for applying the Almendarez-Torres exception. First, “[t]he fact of a prior conviction is the only fact that both increases a penalty beyond the statutory maximum and can be found by a sentencing court.” Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d at 1097. Second, the narrow prior conviction exception applies only to facts directly reflected in the documents of conviction, not to secondary “facts that are derived or inferred” from a prior conviction or from the conviction documents. Kortgaard, 425 F.3d at 610. Third, as the prior conviction exception is justified by the reliability of court documents created as part of a process with Sixth Amendment safeguards, it does not extend to facts that may be proven only by reference to documents that were not developed as a result of such a process. See Covian-Sandoval, 462 F.3d at 1097-98; Tighe, 266 F.3d at 1195. Applying these established principles to the determination of a defendant’s current probation status, we conclude that such status does not come within the narrow prior conviction exception. That the defendant was initially sentenced to probation should be ascertainable from the conviction documents and, we may assume, would be a fact coming within the prior conviction exception. The fact that a defendant was on probation at the moment of the current crime, however, is not reflected in the documents of a prior conviction nor, for that matter, may it be conclusively inferred from those documents. Under California probation law, for example, a judge retains the authority to modify the terms of an individual’s probation at any time, including terminating probation early or extending it for a longer term. California Penal Code § 1203.3(a) provides: The court shall have authority at any time during the term of probation to revoke, modify, or change its order of suspension of imposition or execution of sentence. The court may at any time when the ends of justice will be sub-served thereby and when the good conduct and reform of the person so held on probation shall warrant it, terminate the period of probation, and discharge the person so held. A probation term can therefore be terminated early, or be extended, or be revoked as a result of a probation violation. See, e.g., People v. Butler, 105 Cal.App.3d 585, 587, 164 Cal.Rptr. 475 (Cal.Ct.App.1980) (describing early release from probation after determination that probationer was totally disabled); People v. Cookson, 54 Cal.3d 1091, 1097, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 176, 820 P.2d 278 (1991) (extending probation for nonwillful failure to pay restitution). Such changes would not appear in the original conviction documents, as they would occur later. As a result, the fact that an individual was sentenced to a term of probation at the time of a prior eonviction-a fact that may be reflected in conviction documents of the kind approved by Shepard — is not sufficient to prove that he was on probation at the time of the current crime. That determination — like the timing of a prior removal in Salazar-Lopez — can only be made by drawing inferences from the prior conviction documents and by considering facts and circumstances that occurred after the prior conviction. The fact of having been terminated from probation, placed on extended probation, or having probation revoked is, of course, likely to be recorded in court documents. But like a removal proceeding or juvenile adjudication, probation revocation hearings are not conducted with the safeguards that attend a criminal conviction. See, e.g., People v. Shepherd, 151 Cal.App.4th 1193, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 616, 619 (2007) (for revocation of probation, a violation must be proved only by a preponderance of the evidence). Due process does not require that they be so conducted. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 787-90, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). Requests to modify, extend, or terminate probation may be attended by even fewer procedural formalities than probation revocation hearings, which can lead to incarceration. See, e.g., Cookson, 54 Cal.3d at 1096-97, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 176, 820 P.2d 278 (probation may be extended in circumstances under which it would not be constitutional to revoke probation). We are therefore convinced that the fact of being on probation at the time of a crime does not come within the “prior conviction” exception and must be pleaded in an indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We are aware that decisions of several of our sister circuits suggest that whether a defendant was on probation at the time of the crime is a fact that comes within the prior conviction exception and so may be found by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Corchado, 427 F.3d 815, 820 (10th Cir.2005); United States v. Williams, 410 F.3d 397, 399, 402 (7th Cir.2005); United States v. Fagans, 406 F.3d 138, 141-42 (2d Cir.2005). We do not find these cases helpful in analyzing the issue before us. As far as we can ascertain from the opinions, our sister circuits were not asked