Summary
The Colorado Supreme Court held that courts conducting an abbreviated proportionality review of habitual criminal sentences must consider relevant legislative amendments enacted after the triggering and predicate offenses, even when those amendments do not apply retroactively. The court concluded that the trial court improperly applied such amendments retroactively and reversed the court of appeals. The case was remanded for a new proportionality review addressing the gravity and seriousness of the offenses and the potential gross disproportionality of the sentence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a court conducting an abbreviated proportionality review may consider relevant legislative amendments enacted after the dates of the triggering and predicate offenses, even when those amendments do not apply retroactively.
- Whether the trial court improperly applied later-enacted legislative amendments retroactively by using the amended sentencing scheme to determine McRae's sentence.
- Whether the court of appeals erred by remanding for an extended proportionality review rather than requiring entry of the 64-year sentence.
Holdings
- In determining the gravity or seriousness of triggering and predicate offenses during an abbreviated proportionality review, a court should consider relevant legislative amendments enacted after the dates of those offenses, even if the amendments do not apply retroactively.
- The trial court erred by applying later-enacted, prospective statutory amendments retroactively to McRae's sentence.
- Relevant legislative amendments are not dispositive of whether an offense is grave or serious. If amendments justify abandoning a per se grave-or-serious designation, the court must assess whether the specific offense was grave or serious based on the amendments and the surrounding facts and circumstances; if the designation remains, no further gravity-or-seriousness analysis of that offense is proper.
- A new abbreviated proportionality review was required because additional factual determinations were necessary concerning the triggering and predicate offenses.
Key quotations
“in determining the gravity or seriousness of triggering and predicate offenses during an abbreviated proportionality review, the court should consider any relevant legislative amendments enacted after the dates of those offenses, even if the amendments do not apply retroactively.” (¶ 2)
“Whether statutory revisions apply retroactively ‘is a separate and distinct question from whether a defendant’s sentence is constitutionally proportionate.’” (¶ 15)
“Once an offense has been designated per se grave or serious, it is improper for the court to engage in further analysis of the gravity or seriousness of a defendant’s commission of that offense.” (¶ 18)
Factual background
McRae sold 6.86 grams of methamphetamine for $350 to his girlfriend, who was working as a confidential informant. He was convicted of selling or distributing a schedule II controlled substance, a class 3 felony, and possessing drug paraphernalia. He was adjudicated a habitual criminal based on six predicate felony convictions, including drug offenses and attempted theft. The trial court compared the 64-year sentence required under the law in effect when the triggering offense occurred with the 16-year sentence that would have applied under later amendments, and sentenced him to 16 years.
Procedural history
McRae was convicted of selling or distributing a schedule II controlled substance and possessing drug paraphernalia. After a bench trial, he was adjudicated a habitual criminal based on six predicate felony convictions. The trial court found an inference of gross disproportionality, applied later-enacted sentencing amendments to impose a 16-year sentence instead of the required 64-year sentence, and declined to conduct an extended proportionality review. The Colorado Court of Appeals vacated the sentence and remanded for an extended proportionality review; the Colorado Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new abbreviated proportionality review.
Remand instructions
The Colorado Court of Appeals must return the case to the trial court for a new abbreviated proportionality review consistent with Wells-Yates, Melton, and McRae. The trial court must make the necessary factual determinations concerning the triggering and predicate offenses, consider relevant legislative amendments without applying them retroactively, and then determine whether the combined offenses raise an inference of gross disproportionality. If they do, the court must conduct an extended proportionality review; otherwise, it must reject McRae's proportionality challenge.