Opinion ID: 3164766
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Coloradoâs Guiding Principles for Proportionality Reviews

Text: Â¶17Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Our precedent establishes some Colorado-specific principles for proportionality reviews. Each of the following is applicable to this case. Â¶18Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â First, an abbreviated proportionality review is sufficient when the crimes supporting a sentence imposed under the habitual criminal statute include grave or serious offenses. Close, 48 P.3d at 537 (citing People v. Gaskins, 825 P.2d 30, 36 (Colo. 1992)). An abbreviated proportionality review involves scrutinizing two sub-parts in order to determine whether the sentence gives rise to an inference of gross disproportionality: (1) the gravity or seriousness of the offense in relation to (2) the harshness of the sentence imposed. Id. at 542 (citing Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1005; Gaskins, 825 P.2d at 36). We defined the two sub-parts of an abbreviated proportionality review as âscrutiny of the offenses in question to determine whether in combination they are so lacking in gravity or seriousness so as to suggest that the sentence is constitutionally disproportionate to the crime, taking into account the defendantâs eligibility for parole.â Id. at 537 (quoting Gaskins, 825 P.2d at 36). AnÂ extended proportionality review, on the other hand, involves intra- and inter-jurisdictional sentence comparisons. Id. at 536 (citing Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1004â05). Â¶19Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Second, for those crimes determined to be grave or serious in Colorado, courts skip the first sub-part of the abbreviated proportionality review and move directly to the second sub-part. Id. at 537. In other words, a court need not make an individualized determination of the gravity or seriousness of the offense concerning the harm to the victim or to society and the culpability of the offender. Id. Rather, a court may proceed directly to the second sub-part and scrutinize the harshness of the penalty. Id. As we have noted previously, it is âhighly likely that the legislatively mandated sentenceâ will be constitutionally proportionate for grave or serious crimes. Id. at 538. âThus, the ability to proceed to the second sub-part of the abbreviated proportionality review, namely the harshness of the penalty, when a grave or serious crime is involved results in a near-certain upholding of the sentence.â Id. Â¶20Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Our guiding principles establish that, in conducting abbreviated proportionality reviews when the crime is grave or serious, courts only scrutinize the harshness of the penalty. Also, it is highly likely that the sentence will be proportionate. Now we turn to the facts of this case.