Opinion ID: 2570367
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Judges' Discretion under Section 18-1.3-401(6)

Text: One Blakely -compliant or Blakely -exempt factor is sufficient to support an aggravated sentence. A sentencing judge can constitutionally consider any fact that was admitted by the defendant, found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury, found by a judge after the defendant assented to judicial fact-finding for sentencing purposes, or related to a prior conviction. Under state law, that constitutionally permissible fact opens a wider sentencing range under section 18-1.3-401(6). The legislature may not require judges to impose enhanced sentences based on constitutionally impermissible judicial fact-finding. See Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 757 (it is no longer possible to maintain the judicial fact-finding that Congress thought would underpin the mandatory Guidelines system). Section 18-1.3-401(6) does not mandate a restricted or increased sentencing range based on judicial fact-finding. Rather, under that section, the existence of a constitutionally-permissible aggravating or mitigating fact widens the sentencing range on both the minimum and maximum ends, to a floor of one-half the presumptive minimum up to a ceiling of double the presumptive maximum. The sentencing judge then has full discretion to sentence within this widened range according to traditional sentencing considerations. See Leske, 957 P.2d at 1043. Sentencing within this widened range under section 18-1.3-401(6), based on Blakely -compliant or Blakely -exempt factors, is both constitutionally and statutorily sound even if the sentencing judge also considered factors that were not Blakely -compliant or Blakely -exempt. One such valid factor supporting a discretionary aggravated sentence within the broadened section 18-1.3-401(6) range satisfies constitutional and statutory requirements for the protection of defendants. Thus, we do not consider whether the failures at the treatment program, [and] the hot UAs that had been given were proper aggravators in this case. See Leske, 957 P.2d at 1043 (where the sentencing court finds several factors justifying a sentence in the aggravated range, only one of those factors need be legitimate to support the sentencing court's decision)(internal citations omitted).