Court Opinion

ID: 9785941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 22:49:23.396788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:21.439687
License: Public Domain

MULLARKEY, Chief Justice.
I. Introduction
We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether, in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), the court of appeals erred in holding that, consistent with the right to a jury trial in the Sixth Amendment, the trial judge properly imposed upon the defendant a sentence of imprisonment in the aggravated range. After this case was briefed and argued, we decided Lopez v. People, 113 P.3d 713 (Colo.2005), applying Blakely to the Colorado sentencing scheme. In the present case, the court of appeals relied on one of its own decisions, People v. Allen, 78 P.3d 751 (Colo.App.2001), overruled by Lopez, 113 P.3d at 729 n. 13, to affirm DeHerrera’s sentence. People v. DeHerrera, No. 03CA0920, slip op. at 1, 2004 WL 1179369 (Colo.App.2004) (not selected for official publication) (holding that under Allen, the trial court’s finding of extraordinary aggravating circumstances was permissible). *993We now apply Blakely and Lopez to the facts of this case and uphold the sentence imposed on the defendant.
II. Facts and Procedural History
Sidney DeHerrera was charged with one count of robbery, section 18-4-301(1), C.R.S. (2002), one count of second degree aggravated motor vehicle theft, section 18-4-409(4)(b), C.R.S. (2002), and one count of third degree assault, section 18-3-204, C.R.S. (2002). In exchange for DeHerrera pleading guilty to the robbery charge, the People agreed to dismiss the other charges.
The factual basis for DeHerrera’s plea was a statement of probable cause agreed to by the defendant. According to that statement, DeHerrera assaulted the victim and stole his car in a “strong arm robbery/carjaeking.”
Although the presumptive sentencing range for robbery is two to six years of imprisonment, the trial court found aggravating factors and imposed an aggravated prison sentence of eight years with three years of mandatory parole. In finding that De-Herrera’s sentence should be enhanced, the trial judge stated:
It’s aggravated by the fact that you have four prior felonies. That’s a lot of felony convictions. It’s aggravated by the fact that this case involves an act of violence against this victim that allowed you to take his car from him and it’s aggravated by the fact that you learned absolutely nothing from your previous experiences .... Within 10 months of your release from discharge after your parole had been violated, you are back here committing violent crimes again.
DeHerrera appealed, arguing that the trial court aggravated his sentence on the basis of uncharged facts not found by a jury in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s sentencing decision in an opinion issued shortly before the United States Supreme Court decided Blakely.
III. Analysis
Except for the fact of a prior criminal conviction, trial courts are prohibited from imposing sentences above the statutory maximum on the basis of facts other than those found by a jury or admitted to by the defendant, unless the defendant stipulated specifically to judicial fact-finding. See Blakely, 124 S.Ct. at 2541; Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489, 120 S.Ct. 2348.
In Lopez, this court considered the effect of Apprendi and Blakely on Colorado’s sentencing system. We held that section 18-1.3-401(6), C.R.S. (2005)1, which permits sentencing in ranges above and below the presumptive range, can be constitutionally applied if the sentencing court finds relevant Blakely-compliant or Blakely-exempt facts that support a departure from the presumptive sentencing range. Lopez, 113 P.3d at 719-20. We explained that “facts admitted by the defendant, found by the jury, or found by a judge when the defendant has consented to judicial fact-finding for sentencing purposes we call ‘Blakely-compliant,’ and prior conviction facts we call ‘Blakely-exempt.’ ” Id. at 723 (quoting Arizona v. Aleman, 210 Ariz. 232, 109 P.3d 571, 580 (Ariz.App.2005)). Applying these principles to our sentencing system, we said:
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.... 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-eompli-ant or Blakely-exempt.
Id. at 731.
We upheld Lopez’s enhanced sentence because the Blakely-exempt fact of a prior criminal conviction opened the aggravated sentencing range, and the trial court proper*994ly sentenced Lopez to a term of imprisonment within that range.
As we explained,
[p]rior conviction facts are Blakely-exempt in large part because these facts have been determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant in a knowing and voluntary plea agreement. Thus, as long as the prior proceedings were not constitutionally flawed, the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were adequately protected in the prior conviction proceeding.
Id. at 730. Although the existence of a prior conviction opens the aggravated sentencing range, the trial judge is not required to impose a sentence within that range. On the contrary, “[wjhether prior convictions are extraordinary aggravating circumstances is a determination made by the judge alone.” Id.
IV. Application
To determine the validity of DeHerr-era’s sentence in the aggravated range, we must resolve whether the sentence imposed was based on Blakely-compliant or Blakely-exempt factors.
As in Lopez, the defendant’s aggravated prison sentence in this case was imposed under section 18-1.3-401(6). This section permits a trial judge to sentence a defendant to a term outside the presumptive range upon finding that such a departure is justified by the existence of an extraordinary aggravating or mitigating circumstance. Here, Blakely-exempt facts clearly opened the aggravated range for sentencing because the defendant had prior felony convictions. To decide whether to impose a sentence in the aggravated range, the trial judge may consider “ ‘unusual aspects of the defendant’s character, past conduct, habits, health, age, the events surrounding the crime, pattern of conduct which indicates whether [the defendant] is a serious danger to society, past convictions, and possibility of rehabilitation.” ’ People v. Leske, 957 P.2d 1030, 1043 (Colo.1998) (quoting People v. Walker, 724 P.2d 666, 670 (Colo.1986)).
In the present case, the trial judge imposed an aggravated sentence on the basis of three factors. First, the trial judge cited DeHerrera’s four prior felony convictions. Second, the trial judge stated “this case involves an act of violence against this victim that allowed you to take his car from him.” Finally, the trial judge noted the short period of time between DeHerrera’s release from prison and the commission of the offense in this case. The first and third factors listed by the trial court are Blakely-exempt factors, and under Lopez, “[o]ne Blakely-compliant or Blakely-exempt factor is sufficient to support an aggravated sentence.” 113 P.3d at 731. Nothing more is constitutionally required and we uphold DeHerrera’s sentence. See id. at 730 (“Because the prior conviction facts adequately support the aggravated sentence, we do not analyze the uncharged conduct constituting the second factor [in the trial court’s sentencing decision].”).
V. Conclusion
DeHerrera’s sentence was properly enhanced under the reasoning of Lopez. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on other grounds, as stated in this opinion.
Justice COATS concurs in the judgment only, and Justice KOURLIS joins in the concurrence.

. For convenience, we refer to the current statutory compilation because the provision has not been changed.