Opinion ID: 3164766
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rutterâs Triggering Offense Was Grave or Serious

Text: Â¶22Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Rutterâs triggering offense, and the offense on which his habitual criminal sentence is based, was the crime of manufacturing methamphetamineâa schedule II controlled substance.Â Previously, we determined that manufacturing methamphetamine is grave or serious, and there is no reason for us to alter that determination here. See Deroulet, 48 P.3d at 524. Â¶23Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Although it would not have been dispositive in any event, we note that the legislature did not reclassify Rutterâs triggering offense of manufacturing methamphetamine; instead, it only lessened the penalties for drug users and possessors, not for drug manufacturers or sellers. See Ch. 268, sec. 28, Â§ 16-11.3-103(2.7)(a)(I), 2012 Colo. Sess. Laws 1391, 1403 (stating that these changes are part of sentencing and drug reforms aimed primarily at âusers and addicts,â and differentiating them from âmore serious offenders who are involved in drug distribution, manufacturing, or traffickingâ). 6 Even in the eyes of the legislature, the nature of manufacturingÂ methamphetamine is unchanged. Thus, Rutterâs triggering offense was outside the purview of the sentencing reforms for drug offenses. The legislative changes to the drug possession and use statutes do not give us cause to reexamine our prior determination that manufacturing methamphetamine is a grave or serious crime. See Deroulet, 48 P.3d at 524. Hence, our determination is unchanged and manufacturing methamphetamine remains grave or serious. We now turn to the proportionality of Rutterâs sentence to determine whether there is an inference of gross disproportionality.