Opinion ID: 2633019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proceedings On Remand From Federal Court

Text: On July 31, 2006, the prosecution filed its second motion in the first circuit court to resentence Jess to an extended term of imprisonment on Count I in a manner consistent with the order of the United States District Court by empaneling a jury to make the necessity findings required by HRS §§ 706-662(1) and 706-662(4)(a). In the declaration of counsel submitted in support of the motion for an extended term of imprisonment, after reciting Jess's prior convictions, counsel averred: 30. [Jess] is a persistent offender and a multiple offender whose commitment for an extended term is necessary for the protection of the public because of the following facts: a. [Jess] was on probation in [another criminal matter] when he committed the instant offenses. b. [Jess] has an extensive criminal history. c. [Jess]'s criminality has continued despite his prior contacts with the criminal justice system. d. [Jess] has failed to benefit from the criminal justice system. e. [Jess] has demonstrated a total disregard for the rights of others and a poor attitude toward the law. f. [Jess] has demonstrated a pattern of criminality which indicates that he is likely to be a recidivist in that he cannot conform his behavior to the requirements of the law. g. Due to the quantity and seriousness of [Jess]'s past convictions and the seriousness of the instant offenses, [Jess] poses a serious threat to the community and his long term incarceration is necessary for the protection of the public. On October 5, 2006, Jess filed an amended motion to preclude empaneling a jury, arguing, inter alia, that extended term sentencing was wholly a statutory creature in Hawai`i and that HRS § 706-662 expressly entrusts the requisite fact-finding to `the court,' not a jury. A hearing on the motion was scheduled for November 10, 2006, but, on November 6, 2006, the prosecution filed an alternative motion to reserve consideration of the jury-empanelment question to this court. Jess filed a memorandum in opposition on December 26, 2006. On February 21, 2007, the circuit court, the Honorable Virginia Lea Crandall presiding, determined that empaneling a jury for the purpose of making the necessity finding raised a novel question of law and, therefore, reserved the question, see supra, to this court, pursuant to Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 15. [8] The prosecuting attorney for the County of Kaua`i filed an amicus brief on July 11, 2007, and the attorney general filed an amicus brief on September 18, 2007. On April 26, 2007, this court entered an order accepting the reserved question, and, on November 26, 2007, this court requested supplemental briefing addressing the following question: In light of Cunningham v. California, [549 U.S. 270,] 127 S.Ct. 856, 864[, 166 L.Ed.2d 856] (2007), and State v. Merino, 81 Hawai`i 198, 212, 915 P.2d 672, 686 (1996), what is the significance, if any, of the fact that the March 2, 2000 complaint fails to allege that Jess, in committing the offenses of robbery in the first degree and unauthorized control of a propelled vehicle, was a persistent and/or multiple offender such that imposing upon him an extended term of imprisonment, pursuant to HRS §§ 706-661 and 706-662, was necessary for the protection of the public? Jess filed his supplement brief on December 26, 2007, the prosecution filed its supplemental brief on December 31, 2007, and the attorney general filed an amicus brief December 31, 2007.