Does the 1883 rule set forth in People v. Soto, 63 Cal. 165 (1883) — that facts which expose a defendant to increased punishment need not be charged in the accusatory pleading — violate the Sixth Amendment as interpreted in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013)?

Does the 1883 rule set forth in People v Soto, 63 Cal. 166 -that facts which expose a defendant to substantially enhanced punishment need not be pled in the charging document -violate the notice requirements of the common law codified in the Sixth Amendment guarantee that 'in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be informed