How have the courts dealt with the issue of charging errors and errors at trial?

Defendant, acting in propria persona, filed a supplemental brief alleging charging errors and errors at trial. These should have been raised in his appeal from the judgment, and indeed were related to the errors actually raised (and rejected) in that appeal, namely insufficiency of the evidence to support findings that his prior convictions constituted first degree burglaries and the failure of the instructions and verdict forms to specify "first degree burglary" as opposed to merely "burglary." With respect to the latter category, defendant asserts error under Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 [120 S.Ct. 2348], which essentially requires any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum to be charged,

Page 3