When a factual finding that multiple counts arose out of "separate acts or transactions" is necessary to authorize an increase in punishment, must this finding be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Upon Krill's timely Motion for Leave to File a Delayed Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Erlinger, should the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Eighth Judicial District have reconsidered its pre-Erlinger opinion that a trial court may validly impose an otherwise unauthorized prison term on the basis of its own factual finding that multiple counts of an indictment arose out of separate acts or transactions?

Should this Court grant Krill's petition, vacate the judgment below, and remand for further consideration in light of Erlinger?

When a factual finding that multiple counts arose out of 'separate acts or transactions' is necessary to authorize an increase in punishment, must this finding be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt?