Court Opinion

ID: 9577710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:37:16.803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:06.682778
License: Public Domain

QUINN, Chief Justice,
specially concurring:
I join Part I of the court’s opinion and specially concur in Part II. I write separately because, although I agree with the proposition that section 18-l-105(9)(a)(III), 8 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.), does not violate equal protection of the laws, I reach that result from a somewhat different analysis than that employed by the majority.
The court bases its equal protection analysis on its belief that defendants sentenced under section 18-l-105(9)(a)(III) are not treated in any significantly different constitutional respect from defendants sentenced under other sentencing enhancement statutes. Majority opinion at 114. Ido not share this belief. The habitual criminal statute, for example, requires that the pri- or convictions of an accused be set forth in separate counts of the information, be submitted to the jury in a separate bifurcated proceeding under a separate verdict, and be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. § 16-13-103, 8 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.). Similar charging and proof requirements are set forth in the crime of violence statute. § 16-11-309, 8 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.). These requirements, in my view, are qualitatively distinct from the procedures applicable to the usual sentencing hearing conducted pursuant to section 18-1-105. As the court notes, the only requirements for an enhanced sentencing proceeding under section 18-l-105(9)(a)(III) are that the defendant be given adequate notice of the possibility of an enhanced sentence before the sentencing hearing and that, if he elects to contest the basis on which an enhanced sentence is sought, the prosecution bear the burden of proving the aggravating factor by a preponderance of the evidence.
The fact that the legislature has chosen to impose stringent procedural requirements traditionally associated with the guilt phase of the trial on prosecutions for habitual criminality and crimes of violence, however, does not mean that it must impose identical requirements on all sentencing hearings that may result in an aggravated sentence. The legislature’s decision in such matters is not offensive to equal protection of the laws as long as the statutory differences in treatment have some reasonable basis in fact and the statutory scheme under challenge bears a reasonable relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. E.g., People v. Velasquez, 666 P.2d 567 (Colo.1983); People v. Taggart, 621 P.2d 1375 (Colo.1981); People v. Summit, 183 Colo. 421, 517 P.2d 850 (1974).
There is a rational basis in fact for treating adjudications and sentences for habitual criminality and crimes of violence differently from the enhanced sentencing scheme applicable to one who commits a felony while on probation for another felony. The habitual criminal statute operates to increase the penalty for a felony conviction to a mandatory sentence of twenty-*117five to fifty years when the jury determines that the defendant has been previously convicted of two prior felonies charged against him in the information and to increase the penalty to a mandatory life sentence when the jury determines that the defendant has been previously convicted of three felonies charged against him in the information. These increased penalties apply regardless of the particular classification and penalty otherwise applicable to the substantive crime on which the habitual criminal charges are predicated, so long as that substantive crime is a felony. It was in light of these severe sentences that the legislature obviously decided to engraft on the habitual criminal proceeding the same procedural safeguards applicable to the guilt phase of a criminal trial. E.g., People v. District Court, 711 P.2d 666 (Colo.1985).
In the case of the crime of violence statute, the enhanced sentence becomes applicable because of the manner in which the substantive crime itself was committed. The “crime of violence” element, in my view, amounts to the substantive equivalent of an essential ingredient of a criminal accusation, and, for this reason, the legislature has obviously determined that this form of sentencing enhancement should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in accordance with the traditional safeguards applicable to the guilt phase of a criminal trial.
In contrast to the habitual criminal statute, the imposition of an aggravated sentence under section 18-l-105(9)(a)(III) does not necessarily result in the severe sentences applicable to a habitual criminal adjudication. Nor is the sentencing court precluded by section 18-l-105(9)(a)(III) from granting probation if the offender is otherwise eligible for probation, even if the existence of an aggravating factor is undisputed. Furthermore, in contrast to the statutory scheme for adjudicating and sentencing an offender for a crime of violence, the enhanced sentence authorized by section 18-l-105(9)(a)(III) finds its source not in the conduct of the offender during the commission of the crime on which the prosecution is based but rather on the fact that the offender was previously on probation for another felony at the time of the crime in question. The respective differences in the statutory procedures for habitual criminality and crimes of violence, on the one hand, and the enhanced sentencing provisions applicable to an offender who is on probation at the time of the commission of another felony, on the other, are founded on reasonable differences in fact which are sufficient to withstand an equal protection challenge.
The remaining question to be answered is whether the statutory differential in treatment is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest. I agree with the reasoning of the majority — that is, subjecting a convicted probationer to the likelihood of a prison term in the aggravated range furthers the governmental interest of punishing an offender in a manner commensurate with the seriousness of the offense and serves as a deterrent or prevention to others likely to commit similar offenses.
For the above reasons, I am satisfied that section 18-l-105(9)(a)(III) does not violate equal protection of the laws.
I am authorized to say that LOHR, J., joins in this special concurrence.