AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM.

(concurring in the result).

I agree that the judgment is due to be affirmed. I note that the appellant’s case was filed before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). See my special writing in Poole v. State, [Ms. CR-99-1200, August 31, 2001] - So.2d - (Ala.Crim.App. 2001) (Shaw, J., concurring in the result).

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I agree with the majority’s unpublished memorandum except insofar as it affirms *276the trial judge’s judgment concerning the enhancement provision applied to Havis’s conviction. See Judge Shaw’s special writing in Poole v. State, [Ms. CR-99-1200, August 31, 2001] - So.2d - (Ala.Crim.App. 2001), with which I concurred as to this issue. However, as I stated in my special writing in Poole, I believe that Apprendi applies retroactively; therefore, I believe Havis’s Apprendi claim should be addressed.