Opinion ID: 2511656
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Law of Apprendi-Blakely

Text: The trial court has broad discretion in sentencing, and we give deference to its factual determinations. Villanueva v. People, 199 P.3d 1228, 1231 (Colo.2008); Lopez v. People, 113 P.3d 713, 720 (Colo.2005). However, we review legal questions and constitutional challenges to sentencing schemes de novo. Villanueva, 199 P.3d at 1231; Lopez, 113 P.3d at 720. Thus, we review Misenhelter's Apprendi-Blakely challenge de novo but review factual determinations on the record for an abuse of discretion. The Apprendi-Blakely rulespecifically the prior conviction exceptionevolved from a string of U.S. Supreme Court cases beginning with Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 241, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). There, the defendant was convicted of violating title 8, section 1326(a) of the United States Code (1998), which made it a crime for an alien to return to the United States after being deported. Normally, the sentence for such an offense would be two-years imprisonment, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), but Congress passed a sentence enhancer allowing up to twenty-years imprisonment if the initial deportation was subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). The Court upheld the sentence enhancer despite the fact that the crime was not proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt because the statute here involves a sentencing factorthe prior commission of an aggravated felonythat is neither `presumed' to be present, nor need be `proved' to be present, in order to prove the commission of the relevant crime. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 241, 118 S.Ct. 1219. In outlining the genesis of the prior conviction exception, the Court emphasized the long tradition in the common law and prudent policy of using recidivism to modify sentencing without proof to a jury. See id. at 241-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219 (and cases cited therein) ([R]ecidivism is a traditional, if not the most traditional, basis for a sentencing court's increasing an offender's sentence.). The Court renewed its adherence to the prior conviction exception in Apprendi and Blakely, which together provide the modern framework for Due Process in sentencing. The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments demand that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. However, the Court has enumerated four types of facts not subject to that general rule: (1) facts supported by a jury verdict; (2) facts admitted by a defendant; (3) facts found after a defendant stipulated to judicial fact finding; and (4) the fact of a prior conviction. Blakely, 542 U.S. at 302-10, 124 S.Ct. 2531. Thus, the Court has now firmly established that the fact of a prior conviction is specifically exempted and need not be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.; see also Oregon v. Ice, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 711, 714, 172 L.Ed.2d 517 (2009); Ice, 129 S.Ct. at 720 (Scalia, J., dissenting); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 224, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. We have adopted the prior conviction exception within the Apprendi-Blakely framework, referring to such facts as  Blakely -exempt. Lopez, 113 P.3d at 720-23. In Lopez, the defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance but received a deferred sentence. Id. at 715. During the deferral period, he was convicted of vehicular homicide. Id. Subsequently, the trial court used the homicide conviction to aggravate his sentence for the controlled substance offense pursuant to section 18-1.3-401(6). Id. at 718-19. Lopez challenged his aggravated sentence, claiming that Apprendi-Blakely rendered section 18-1.3-401(6) unconstitutional because the statute permitted judicial factfinding. Id. at 719-20. We engaged in a thorough review of Supreme Court precedent, endorsed the Apprendi-Blakely reasoning, and upheld Lopez's sentence based on the prior conviction for vehicular homicide. Id. at 720-23, 726. In applying the prior conviction Blakely exception, we reasoned: Prior conviction facts are Blakely -exempt in large part because these facts have been determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant in a knowing and voluntary plea agreement. Thus, as long as the prior proceedings were not constitutionally flawed, the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were adequately protected in the prior conviction proceeding. Id. at 730. We further explained, The critical point is that the underlying fact in a prior conviction analysisthat the defendant was previously convicted of certain crimesis one that has passed through the safeguards of the jury right or plea proceedings, and sentencing judges may consider these facts without further jury involvement. Id. Thus, our paramount objective in weighing an Apprendi-Blakely challenge must be to protect the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. Id.; see also Villanueva, 199 P.3d at 1237-38. In Lopez, we also commented on the timing of a prior conviction. We found that although the homicide conviction postdated the possession offense, the convictions for the homicide were entered before the possession sentencing. Lopez, 113 P.3d at 730 (emphasis added). The defendant's Sixth Amendment protections had attached and were followed regarding the homicide conviction before the sentencing court used the conviction to aggravate the possession offense. The timing of the underlying crime is irrelevant so long as the conviction itself, with all its attendant procedural protections, is entered before being used to aggravate a sentence. Thus, a conviction is prior under our precedent so long as it is entered before sentencing takes place. See id.; see also Villanueva, 199 P.3d at 1237-38 (reemphasizing that the focus of our inquiry lies in protecting a defendant's constitutional rights, not necessarily in chronology). In turn, the facts that substantiate such a prior conviction can be Blakely -compliant as admissions by the defendant. Lopez, 113 P.3d at 719; People v. Watts, 165 P.3d 707, 709-12 (Colo.App.2006).  Blakely does not permit a sentencing court to use a defendant's factual admissions to increase his sentence unless the defendant first effectuates a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his Blakely rights. People v. Isaacks, 133 P.3d 1190, 1195 (Colo.2006). The principle that a defendant can waive his rights and admit to facts derives from the Supreme Court's reasoning in Blakely. [5] 542 U.S. at 310, 124 S.Ct. 2531. Whether the defendant makes a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver to the specific facts later used to aggravate a sentence is a question of fact for the trial court based on the record. Isaacks, 133 P.3d at 1194-96; Watts, 165 P.3d at 712.