Sponsors seek technical fix so juries, not judges, decide certain habitual‑offender findings

Senate Bill 189, a procedural change prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger (discussed in committee as "Erlanger v. United States"), was the final item on the Judiciary Committee’s March 7 agenda. Sponsors said the bill is a technical fix that would require juries to decide factual questions that increase a defendant’s penalty under Colorado’s habitual‑offender statute.

Senator Snyder, a sponsor, summarized the issue for the committee: "In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury finding to determine whether a defendant's prior offenses were committed on separate occasions." Senator Liston said the change is intended to avoid constitutional error and to prevent automatic reversals of habitual sentences on appeal.

The measure drew both support and opposition. The Colorado Criminal Defense Bar (CCDB) and the Office of the State Public Defender told the committee they support jury findings in habitual proceedings but oppose the habitual‑offender framework itself and urged broader sentencing reform. Gail Johnson of the CCDB said the organization would prefer abolishing the enhancement or reducing mandatory penalties and restoring judicial discretion; she provided examples of individuals serving very long mandatory habitual sentences for nonviolent conduct that predated present-day sentencing classifications.

Officials from the Attorney General’s Office supported the procedural fix as necessary to align Colorado statutes with Erlinger, and agency counsel urged the committee to pass the bill to give trial courts clear procedures and avoid inconsistent district‑court practices. The attorney general’s witnesses described cases where trial courts had impaneled juries or attempted different remedies to comply with the federal decision.

Sponsors asked the committee to lay the bill over for one week to draft clarifying language and to address technical issues the public defender and appellate counsel raised — for example, the bill’s references to a “sentencing hearing” that will now function as a trial and the statute’s procedures for prosecutors who discover additional prior convictions after a trial.

The committee granted the sponsors’ request and laid Senate Bill 189 over for action on March 20 to permit additional drafting and stakeholder negotiation.

Votes at a glance: Senate Bill 189 — laid over for action (sponsor-requested layover to March 20).