People v. McRae
2016 COA 117
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Clifton McRae was convicted by jury of distribution of a schedule II controlled substance (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- At sentencing McRae qualified as a habitual criminal (three prior felony convictions), which under the then-applicable statute multiplied the presumptive maximum to produce a 64-year mandatory sentence.
- The underlying sale involved 6.97 grams of methamphetamine on July 2, 2013 (after SB 13-250 was enacted but before its October 1, 2013 effective date).
- Senate Bill 13-250 (effective Oct. 1, 2013) reclassified many drug offenses and reduced penalties, and removed certain narcotics convictions from habitual-criminal consideration. Under the new scheme McRae’s triggering offense would carry a maximum habitual term of 16 years.
- The trial court conducted an abbreviated proportionality review, considered SB 13-250 as a legislative indicator of current seriousness, found an inference of gross disproportionality, and reduced McRae’s sentence to 16 years without conducting an extended proportionality comparison.
- The People appealed; the Court of Appeals vacated the sentence and remanded for an extended proportionality review (comparing sentences in Colorado and other jurisdictions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court exceeded authority by considering SB 13-250 (a prospective statute) in proportionality review | Court illegally applied SB 13-250 retroactively; resulting sentence was unlawful | Proportionality review may consider legislative changes as an Eighth Amendment factor even if statute is prospective | Court: trial court did not retroactively apply the statute and did not exceed authority; consideration of SB 13-250 in proportionality review was permissible |
| Whether narcotics offenses are per se grave/serious such that 64-year habitual sentence cannot give rise to gross disproportionality | Because triggering and most priors are per se grave/serious, no inference of gross disproportionality exists | Mitigating facts (nonviolent, small-quantity, personal-use distribution) and legislative reclassification show the punishment is disproportionate | Court: trial court permissibly considered mitigating factual details and legislative reclassification; an inference of gross disproportionality was reasonable |
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing 16-year sentence without further review | People: abbreviated review sufficed; per se grave classification forecloses gross-disproportionality inference | Defendant: after an inference arises, an extended proportionality review is required before final sentence | Court: remanded—trial court must perform an extended proportionality review comparing sentences within Colorado and in other jurisdictions before finalizing sentence |
| Whether proportionality review standard/analysis used was proper | People: trial court improperly ‘‘fine-tuned’’ sentencing and intruded on legislature | Defendant: court legitimately used legislative sentencing scheme as objective criterion | Court: trial court did not improperly fine-tune; use of legislative scheme is appropriate, but extended review is still required |
Key Cases Cited
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (Eighth Amendment proportionality framework and objective criteria)
- Deroulet v. People, 48 P.3d 520 (Colo. App. 2002) (abbreviated vs. extended proportionality review; narcotics offenses classified grave/serious)
- Close v. People, 48 P.3d 528 (Colo. 2002) (application of Solem considerations in Colorado proportionality analysis)
- Anaya v. People, 894 P.2d 28 (Colo. App. 1994) (courts may consider subsequent legislative changes when evaluating proportionality)
- Gaskins v. People, 825 P.2d 30 (Colo. 1992) (sale of narcotics deemed grave; legislative reclassification may inform proportionality)
- Penrod v. People, 892 P.2d 383 (Colo. App. 1994) (substantial legislative changes in penalties are relevant to disproportionality analysis)