Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Habitual Offender topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsors seek procedural fix to make jury decide habitual-offender findings after U.S. Supreme Court ruling
Summary
Senate sponsors introduced a procedural amendment to require juries, rather than judges, to decide habitual-offender findings that require factual determinations — a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Erlanger ruling.
Senators introduced a procedural change to Colorado law Monday intended to conform habitual-offender proceedings to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. Sponsors said Senate Bill 189 would require juries to decide whether a defendant’s prior convictions qualify for enhanced habitual sentences in cases where the question depends on factual findings beyond the mere existence of prior convictions.
"The Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury finding to determine whether defendants' prior offenses were committed on separate occasions," sponsor Senator Snyder said, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Erlanger decision. "This is a technical change that is needed to comply with case law."
Supporters, including the state Attorney General’s office, described SB189 as a narrowly tailored, procedural fix to ensure trial courts' procedures work with constitutional requirements. "The amended statute would expressly recognize a defendant's constitutional right to have this question decided by a jury," an Attorney General appellate attorney said.
Defenders and the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar said they support the jury-right at issue but oppose the broader habitual-offender framework. Witnesses gave examples of what they called extreme and disproportionate habitual sentences: one attorney described a client who received a 64-year mandatory term after prior misdemeanor-era convictions and said judges are often forced to impose multidecade sentences regardless of individual circumstances.
The Office of the State Public Defender and defense groups urged larger statutory reforms to habitual sentencing, citing racial disparity and long mandatory sentences in some cases, and asked the sponsor to consider broader changes. Public defender representatives and defense bar witnesses said that if the legislature keeps the habitual scheme, it should also reduce the mandatory terms and restore judicial discretion.
Sponsors asked to lay the bill over for one week to allow technical amendments; the committee granted the request and will consider the measure again on March 24.
