Case Title: State v. Emch

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2008-02-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LIBRARY

 

[NOP FOR PUBLICATION IM WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

No. 28009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent,

aA 8

 

(CR. NO. 05-1-0335)

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Duffy, JJ.,
‘and Acoba, J., dissenting)

 

on January 11, 2008, the defendant-

 

ppellant-petitioner
Bob Ench filed an application for a writ of certiorari, urging us
to review the summary disposition order (S00) of the Intermediate
Court of Appeals (ICA) affirming the May 31, 2006 order of the
circuit court of the first circuit, the Honorable Dexter D. Del
Rosario presiding, denying his motion to correct an illegal
sentence. He argues that the ICA gravely erred in concluding
that the circuit court's imposition of an extended term sentence

under Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) $5 706-661 (Supp. 2005)* and

 

+ tn 2005, HRS § 106-661 provided:

In the cases designated in [HRS $) 706-662 [see infra

note 2], a persen who hat been convicted of a felony may De

Sentenced te an extended indeterminate tern of imprisonment. When

Grdering such a sentence, the court shall impose the maximus

length of imprisonment which shall be as follow

(0) Fer murder in the second degree -- life without the
possibility of parole:

(2) Fora class A felony
inprlsenment

(3) Fora class B felony
imprisonment and

(4) Fora class € felony ~~ indeterminate ten-year term of
imprisonment

 

 

indeterminate life term of

 

indeterminate twenty-yeer term of
 

1° NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAZ'T REFORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

‘The minimum length of imprisonment for sections 2, 3, and ¢
shell be determined by the Hewei("]i paroling authority ie
accordance with [HRS $] 706-669

Effective June 22, 2006, the legislature amended HRS §§ 706-661 and -662, axe
2006 Haw, Sess. L: Act 230, $6 23, 24, and $4 at 1012-13, 1025, to address,
Concerns raised by the Hawai": Judicial Council that Hawii’s extended sere
sentencing achene faced challenges in federal court thet it violated @
Gefendant’s right tos jury trial, protected under the sixth azendsent to the
United States Constitution, as articulated in auprendi 2, New Jersey, $30 0-5.
466" (2000}, and its progeny. see of the = a

sive Review wat st 271-274 (2005); Sen. Stand.
Comm. Rep. No. 3215, in 2008 Senate Jourhal, at 1987) Hae. Stand. Comm. Rep
Now G65-06, in 2006’ House Journal, at 1358." The amended version of HRS
§ 706-661 provided in relevant part

 

 

‘The court say sentence a person who satisfies the criteria
for any of the catagories set forth in’ [aks §) 206-662 te en
extended term of inpriscnent, which shall have e maximum length

 

  

Ss follows:
(2) for murder in the second dagres -- life without the
possibiisty of parole,
(2) Fora class A felony -- indeterminate life term of
imprisonment;
(3) For a class B felony -- indeterminate twenty-year term
of imprisonment; and
(4) For a'clasa © felony ~~ indeterminate ten-year tern of
Imprisonment.
x oft mnt or aval ntenciy
Fr = of re
a ea Th

‘When Ordering” sn extended term sentence, the court shall
impose the raximum length of imprisonment.

(Emphasis added.) Effective June 30, 2007, the amended version of HRS
§ 706-661 expired and the Supp. 2003 version, supra this note, wes reenacted.
See 2006 Haw. Sess. L. Ret 290, § S¢ at 1025.

Finally, effective october 31, 2007, the legislature amended HRS
8706-661 as part of' its reform of the state's extended term sentencing laws £0
bring then into compliance with the requirenente of Apuzandi and its progeny.
HRS'§ €06-661 was amended to read:

 

 

 

Extended terms of imprisonment. The court may sentence » person
who satisfies the criteria for any of the categories set forth in
(nks $1 706-662(, dntza note 3,) to an extended term of
smprisonnent, which shall have’ the maximum length a3 follows:

 

 

 

(1) For murder in the second degree =~ lite without the
possibility of parole:

(2) For a class & felony ~~ indeterminate life term of
imprisonment;

(3) For g cless 8 felony

 

indeterminate twenty-year term

2
   

NOP FOR FUBLICATION IN WEST'S HANAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REFORTER

706-662(1) (Supp. 2005)? did not violate his rights under the

 

of smprisonment; and

(4) For a class C felony -- indeterminate ten-year term of
inprisonaent.

When oxdering an extended term sentence, the court shall impose

the maximum. length of impriscnnent. ‘The minimum length of

inprisonment for an extended term sentence under paraarahs (2),

(3), ana (4) shall be determined by the Havai(")i paroling

Suthority in sccordance with [HRS 3] 706-669-

H.8. 2, 24th Leg., Second Spec. Sexs, (2007), at
hetps//eapitol.naweis.gov/eplevesion2007b/pills/HE2_-htm (enacted as Act 1 on
October 31, 2097), aga nttp! //capitol .hawaii .gov/sitel/archives/200%b/
getstatus2.asp2DiilnosHE2.

 

 

+ tn 2005, HRS § 706-682 provided in relevant part

A convicted defendant may be subject to an extended term of
imprisonment uncer [HRS §] 706-661, if the convicted satisfies one
Or nore of the following criteria
12) “The defendant is a persistent offender whose
Imprisonment for an extended term is necessary for
protection of the public. ‘The court shell not make
Enis finding unless the defendant hae previously Deen
convicted of two felonies committed at different tines
hen the defendant wes eighteen years of age or older

 

 

 

In section 24 of Act 230, effective June 22, 2006, the legislature
mended HRS § 706-662 to address the same alleged constitutional infireiti
Giscussed supra in note 1, Act 230 anended HRS § 106-662 to provice in
relevant part!

 

A defendant who has been convicted of 2 felony qualifies for

fan extended term of imprisonsent under [HRS §) 706-66 if the

Convicted defencent satisfies one or sore of the following

criters

(1 "the degendant is a persistent offender in that the defendant
hos previously been convicted of two felonies conmittes at
Gitterent tines when the defendant was eighteen years of age
or older?

 

 

 

Effective June 30, 2007, the amended version of HRS § 706-662 expired and the
Supp, 2008 version, gunta this note, was reenscted. Sex 2006 Hau, Sees. 1
Ret 230, § 54 at 1025.

 

Effective October 31, 2007, the legislature again amended URS § 706-662
ac part of its reform of the state's extended sentencing scheme to bring it
{neo compliance with Beprendi end Cunningham v, Califermia, $49 U.s 127
So Gel "G56 (2007). The amended version of FASS 706-662 provides in Felevant
pare

 

criteria for extended terms of imprisonment: A defendant who has
been convicted of a felony may be subject to an extended ter of
Smprisorment under [HRS §] 706-661(, gee aupra nove 2,] if it ie

3
‘t+* NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'E REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

 

fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments to the United States

Constitution, as explicated in Apprendi v, New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000), and its progeny, including State v. Maugaotega, 115
Hawai'i 432, 168 P.3d 562 (2007) (Maugactega IT). See ICA's S00

at 2. We accepted his application on February 20, 2008 for the
reason that the ICA’s decision was inconsistent with our opinion
in Maugaotega It.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we vacate Emch’s
extended term sentence and remand this case to the circuit court
for resentencing consistent with our opinion in State v. Jess,
No. 28463, Slip Op. (Haw. March 31, 2008).

Four days after the ICA entered its summary disposition
order upholding Emch’s extended term sentence, we decided
Maugacteca II. In that case, the defendant was sentenced under
HRS § 706-662 (4) (a), because the circuit court determined that
the defendant was a multiple offender whose extended imprisonment
was necessary for the protection of the public. 115 Haw. at 436,

168 P.3d at 566. In light of Cunningham, we held that HRS

 

proven beyond 3 reasonable doubt that an extended tern of
isprisonment is necessary for the protection of the public and
that the convicted defendant satisfies one or more of the
following criteria:

(LI "The defendant is « persistent offender in that the
Sefendant has previcusly seen convicted of two or more
felonies connitted at different times when the

endant was eignteen yeare of age or older

       

 

HB. 2, 24th Leg., Second Spec. Sess. (2007), available at
heep: //eapitol hawaii .gov/splsession2007b/bii1s/HE2_-ht= tenacted as Act 1 on
Getober 31, 2007), sea ntepe//eapitol awais.gov/eitel archives 200%)
getstatusz.asp20i Linosnbe
 

+ Not FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HANAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER +++
§ 706-662 was unconstitutional on its face, insofar as the
statute, in all of its iterations, (1) “authorize[d] the
sentencing court to extend a defendant’s sentence beyond the
‘standard term’ authorized solely by the jury’s verdict” and (2)
required “the sentencing court, rather than the trier of fact, to
make an additional necessity finding that . . . does not fall
under Apprendi’s prior-or-concurrent-convictions exception.

115 Hawai'i at 446, 168 P.3d at 576. Consequently, we concluded
that the “extended term sentences imposed by the circuit court
violated [the defendant’ s] sixth amendment right to a jury trial
and were illegal.” Id, In the present matter, the circuit court
imposed an extended term sentence on Emch pursuant to HRS

§ 106-662(1) because it found Emch to be a persistent offender
whose imprisonment for an extended term is necessary for the
protection of the public. As such, under Maugaotega IT, the
sentence violates Ench’s sixth amendment right to a jury trial
and is therefore illegal. See id.

In addition to requesting a vacatur, Emch also asks us
to order the circuit court to resentence him to non-extended
terms on remand. In Jess, we held that a defendant, whose
extended term sentence imposed under HRS § 706-662 (Supp. 1996)
was invalidated, may be resentenced to an extended term of
imprisonment pursuant to either (1) a judicially reformed version
of the statute where the circuit court exercises its inherent
judicial authority or (2) the legislatively amended incarnation
of the statute, Act 1, see aupra notes 1-2. See No. 28483, Slip

Op. at 7-8, 59-67. Hence, upon appropriate motion, the circuit
 

Nor FOR PUBLICATION IN WISI’ KAWAI'S REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER +++
court may resentence Emch to an extended term of imprisonment by
exercising its inherent authority to judicially reform HRs
§ 706-662 (Supp. 2005) or by utilizing the provisions set forth
in Act 1.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Emch’s extended term sentence
43 vacated and this case is remanded to the circuit court for
resentencing consistent with our opinion in Jess.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 21, 2008.
on the briefs:
Stephen K. Tsushima,

Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney, for the

Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent

‘The State of Hawai'i Streets

Phyllis J. Hironaka,
Deputy Public Defender, Nae CoN eantene are
for the Defendant- “

Appellant-Petitioner

Bob Emch’ Game Reine -