Court Opinion

ID: 9627755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:53:11.123543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:47:00.606436
License: Public Domain

RUSSON, Justice,
dissenting:
¶24 I dissent. In my opinion, the gang enhancement statute is simply a sentencing statute. It does not create a separate offense with a separate penalty, nor does it add elements to the underlying offense. Rather, it merely enhances the minimum sentence for the underlying offense once the accused has been found guilty of that offense; the maximum sentence remains the same regardless of whether the enhancement applies. In fact, the statute specifically states, “This section does not create any separate offense but provides an enhanced penalty for the primary offense.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203.1(5)(a) (1995).
¶ 25 As a general principle, the legislature has broad authority to define crimes and corresponding punishments, and its decision in this regard should not be proscribed unless it offends some fundamental principle of justice. See McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 85-86, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986); see also State v. Angus, 581 P.2d 992, 994-95 (Utah 1978) (“It is the prerogative of the legislature to prescribe the punishment for crimes.”). With respect to Utah’s firearm and gang enhancement statutes, this court has recognized and upheld the legislature’s authority to require a trial judge to enhance a defendant’s statutory minimum sentence if certain requirements are met during the sentencing phase. See, e.g., State v. Alvarez, 872 P.2d 450, 461 (Utah 1994) (affirming, trial court’s imposition of enhanced minimum sentence under section 76-3-203.1 upon court’s finding that defendant committed underlying offense “in concert” with others); State v. Deli, 861 P.2d 431, 434-35 (Utah 1993) (affirming trial court’s imposition of enhanced minimum sentence under section 76-3-203 for use of firearm during commission of offense); Angus, 581 P.2d at 995 (same).
¶ 26 Notably, with respect to the firearm enhancement statute, we have consistently held that the statute does hot create a separate, additional penalty for the underlying offense; it merely “enhances” the minimum sentence. For example, in Angus, after the defendant had been convicted of aggravated assault, the trial court imposed an enhanced minimum sentence pursuant to the firearm enhancement statute. See 581 P.2d at 993. Rejecting the defendant’s argument that the statute created a separate offense which must be charged separately, we stated:
The punishment for a crime, is not and has never been considered a part of the pleading charging a crime.... After conviction, the penalty to be imposed is an entirely separate proposition to be determined by the court as a matter of law on *198the basis of the penalty prescribed by the statutes.
Angus, 581 P.2d at 995.
¶ 27 More recently, in Deli, we affirmed a firearm enhancement imposed after the defendant was convicted of a number of crimes, including murder. Once again, we emphasized that the enhancement penalties of the firearm enhancement statute are not separate sentences; instead, “the legislature intended the penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a felony to simply ‘increase’ or ‘enhance’ the original sentence imposed, not to stand alone as a separate sentence.” Deli, 861 P.2d at 434.
¶28 In Alvarez, we upheld an enhanced penalty imposed pursuant to the gang enhancement statute, see 872 P.2d at 461-62; however, in that case we did not address whether section 76-3-203.1 creates a separate offense with a separate penalty. I would hold that it does not. Before a defendant is subject to an enhanced penalty under either the firearm or the gang enhancement statute, the defendant first must be convicted of an underlying offense.1 Thereafter, the sentencing judge must impose an “indeterminate” sentence prescribed by statute.2 While the judge ordinarily has the power to suspend the defendant’s sentence,3 under the firearm and gang enhancement statutes the judge must enhance the minimum sentence for the underlying offense if certain requirements are met. Thus, the gang enhancement statute operates in exactly the same manner as the firearm enhancement statute — that is, it merely increases the minimum sentence which the legislature has prescribed for the underlying offense. It does not affect the maximum sentence.
¶29 The majority opinion holds that the “in concert” requirement defined in section 76-3-203.1 creates a separate offense because it combines a separate mens rea — i.e., “in concert” mental culpability — with a criminal act. This reasoning is flawed. While a defendant may be charged with a crime and held accountable as an accomplice under section 76-2-202,4 the mere fact that a statute may operate to impose criminal liability does not preclude its use as a sentencing factor, so long as its use in sentencing does not carry a separate or additional penalty. Like the firearm enhancement statute, the gang enhancement statute does not impose an additional or separate penalty upon the judge’s finding that the defendant would be criminally liable under that statute; it simply enhances the minimum sentence.
¶ 30 The mere fact that the statute requires the judge to make a certain finding before imposing a sentence does not make that finding an additional element of the predicate offense. For instance, in connection with sentencing, a judge is called upon to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors, and those factors do not thereby become additional elements of the underlying offense;
*199In all cases where an indeterminate sentence is imposed, the judge imposing the sentence may ... mail to the [Board of Pardons and Parole] ... any information he may have regarding the character of the offender or any mitigating or aggravating circumstances connected with the offense for which the offender has been convicted.
Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-13(5)(a) (Supp. 1998); see also id. § 76-3-201(6)(a) (Supp. 1998) (“If a statute under which the defendant was convicted mandates that one of three stated minimum terms shall be imposed, the court shall order imposition of the term of middle severity unless there are circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of the crime.”); id. § 76-3-201(6)(c) (Supp. 1998) (“In determining whether there are circumstances that justify imposition of the highest or lowest term, the court may consider ... statements in aggravation or mitigation submitted by the prosecution or the defendant, and any further evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing.”).
¶ 31 Furthermore, in considering the pertinent sentencing factors, judges sometimes must take into account the defendant’s mental state. For example, the Utah Code of Judicial Administration requires judges to “[c]onsider [the following] aggravating circumstances only if they are not an element of the offense_ 5. Offense was characterized by extreme cruelty or depravity_ 7. Offender’s attitude is not conducive to supervision in a less restrictive setting.” Utah Code of Judicial Admin, app. C, at 1297 (1998); accord id. app. D, at 1368 (authorizing presentence investigator to consider whether crime was characterized by extreme cruelty or depravity); id. at 1371 (same). Thus, weighing the defendants state of mind is well within the realm of a sentencing judge’s authority.
¶ 32 Moreover, acting with “in concert” mental culpability is not identified as an element of any of the enumerated felonies in the gang enhancement statute. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203.1(4). . In fact, under the statute, a sentencing judge does not even inquire into the defendant’s mental state until after the defendant has been duly convicted of an enumerated felony.
¶ 33 The United States Supreme Court’s decision in McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 91, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986), is instructive. That case involved a constitutional challenge to a Pennsylvania sentencing statute which provides that anyone convicted of certain enumerated felonies is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of five years’ imprisonment if the sentencing judge finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant “visibly possessed a firearm” during the commission of the offense. . McMillan, 477 U.S. at 81, 106 S.Ct. 2411. Recognizing that states • have broad authority to define crimes and prescribe penalties, the Court observed that
the Pennsylvania Legislature has expressly provided that visible possession of a firearm is not an element of the crimes enumerated in the mandatory sentencing statute ... but instead is a sentencing factor that comes into play only after the defendant has been found guilty of one of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
Id. at 86-86,106 S.Ct. 2411.
¶ 34 In upholding the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania statute, the McMillan Court reasoned that (1) the enhancement implied no presumption of guilt, nor was the prosecution relieved of its burden of proving the defendant guilty of an enumerated offense, see id. at 87, 106 S.Ct. 2411; (2) the enhancement did not extend the period of incarceration beyond the terms provided for any of the enumerated felonies to which it applied, nor did it create a separate offense calling for a separate penalty, but rather merely limited the trial court’s sentencing discretion in selecting a penalty within the range already available to it, see id. at 87-88, 106 S.Ct. 2411; (3) “[t]he statute [gave] no impression of having been tailored to permit the visible possession finding to be a tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense,” i.e., the argument that the enhancement was really an element of the offense lacked.even superficial appeal because it did not expose the defendant to greater or additional punishment, see id. at 88, 106 S.Ct. 2411; and (4) the Pennsylvania legislature “did not change the definition of any existing offense [but] simply took one factor that has *200always been considered by sentencing courts to bear on punishment — the instrumentality used in committing a violent felony — and dictated the precise weight to be given that factor.” Id. at 89-90,106 S.Ct. 2411.
In conclusion, the Court stated:
Sentencing courts have traditionally heard evidence and found facts without any prescribed burden of proof at all.
[[Image here]]
Sentencing courts necessarily consider the circumstances of an offense in selecting the appropriate punishment, and we have consistently approved sentencing schemes that mandate consideration of facts related to the crime without suggesting that those facts must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Id. at 91-92, 106 S.Ct. 2411 (citations omitted).
¶ 35 Under McMillan’s reasoning, the gang enhancement statute at hand is clearly constitutional. First, the Utah Legislature expressly chose to make group criminal activity a sentencing factor rather than a separate offense. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203.1(5)(a) (“This section does not create any separate offense but provides an enhanced penalty for the primary offense.”). This is clear not only from the language of the statute, but also because the statute does not impose an additional, separate penalty to the penalty for the underlying offense. Second, the statute comes into play only after the defendant has been duly convicted of violating one of the enumerated offenses in section 76-3-203.1(4). The statute implies no presumption of guilt, and the prosecution is not relieved of its burden of proving each element of an enumerated felony. Third, the statute does not expose the defendant to a greater maximum term; it merely increases the minimum sentence prescribed by statute for the underlying offense. Thus, the statute in no way operates as “a tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense.” McMillan, 477 U.S. at 88,106 S.Ct. 2411. Fourth, even if the commission of an offense “in concert with two or more persons” has not traditionally been a sentencing factor, that fact alone should not limit the legislature’s authority to prescribe an enhanced penalty for such conduct. If the legislature has the authority to determine that committing a crime while visibly possessing a firearm is a factor that should be given precise weight during sentencing, it should also have the authority to determine that committing a crime “in concert with two or more persons” justifies imposition of an enhanced minimum sentence if certain requirements are met.5
¶ 36 Finally, I disagree with the majority’s description of the claimed constitutional right allegedly impinged upon by the gang enhancement statute. The majority contends that because the statute enhances the minimum sentence on the basis of findings concerning the defendant’s mental culpability, those findings somehow become additional elements of a separate crime. As already indicated, I disagree with this premise. More disturbing, however, is that from this, the majority extrapolates that under both the state and the federal due process clauses, the statute violates a criminal defendant’s fundamental right to be presumed innocent until each element of the offense is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. While criminal defendants certainly have a right to such a presumption of innocence, the majority identifies no authority that this right is infringed when a sentencing judge makes findings relevant to sentencing without the state having to prove those findings beyond a reasonable doubt. Without any articulated constitutional basis, the majority simply states that this is required.
¶ 37 In sum, because the gang enhancement statute creates neither a separate crime with a separate penalty nor an additional element to an underlying offense, I *201would hold that Lopes was not denied any fundamental rights. I would affirm. .
¶ 38 Chief Justice HOWE concurs in Justice RUSSON’S dissenting opinion. •

. The underlying offenses are enumerated in Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203.1(4) and include crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, and robbery.

. Under Utah's indeterminate sentencing scheme, the sentencing judge must impose a sentence and judgment of imprisonment for an indeterminate term "of not less than the minimum and not to exceed the maximum term provided by law for the particular crime.” Utah Code Ann. § 77-18-4(2). Unless otherwise expressly provided by law, every sentence “shall continue until the maximum period has been reached unless sooner terminated or commuted by authority of the Board of Pardons and Parole.” Id. § 77-18-4(3); see also Padilla v. Board of Pardons, 947 P.2d 664, 669 (Utah 1997) ("By its very term, the 'indeterminate' sentence shall continue until the maximum period expires unless the Board, in its discretion, terminates or commutes the punishment or pardons the offender”.). Under section 77-27-9(l)(b) (Supp.1998), the Board of Pardons and Parole may release an offender before the minimum term has been served if mitigating circumstances justify the release.

. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-18-1 (Supp.1998).

. See State v. Comish, 560 P.2d 1134, 1136 (Utah 1977) (explaining that accomplice is one who participates in crime in.such a way that he could be charged with same offense as the principal defendant); State v. Murphy, 26 Utah 2d 330, 489 P.2d 430, 431 (1971) (concluding that defendant who drove co-defendant to store that was robbed, waited in car with engine running, and then drove co-defendant to another car one block away after co-defendant had allegedly killed store owner was "principal”).

. While Lopes does not question the reasoning upholding the Pennsylvania statute in McMillan, he asks this court to invalidate the gang enhancement statute, which actually makes it more difficult for a judge to enhance a defendant's sentence. Under the Pennsylvania statute, the sentencing judge was merely required to make a factual finding that the defendant visibly possessed a firearm. Under the gang enhancement statute, the sentencing judge must make a factual finding and must further determine that the defendant possessed the mental state required for liability as an accomplice to the underlying offense. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-202.