People v. Mountjoy, 2016 COA 86

Background

Defendant Christopher Mountjoy, Jr. convicted by jury of manslaughter, illegal discharge of a firearm (reckless), and tampering with physical evidence; acquitted of more serious charges. Sentenced in the aggravated range on each count and ordered to serve sentences consecutively.
Trial court found specific extraordinary aggravating circumstances under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-401(6): use of a weapon, tampering with evidence, firing eight times, firing into an occupied car (two people), and that someone died.
Court doubled presumptive maximums and imposed 12 years (manslaughter), 6 years (illegal discharge), and 3 years (tampering), consecutive.
Defendant appealed, principally arguing Apprendi/Blakely error (that aggravating facts increasing sentence beyond statutory maximum were not found by jury).
The court assumed arguendo there was Blakely error but applied harmless-error analysis; it concluded the record shows beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found the aggravating facts if asked.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether aggravated-range sentences based on judge-found facts violate Apprendi/Blakely	Aggravating facts were either found by jury, admitted, or otherwise Blakely-compliant; or, if error, it is harmless because evidence is overwhelming	Blakely error: judge found aggravating facts (or relied on findings across counts) increasing sentences beyond statutory maximum without jury finding; thus violation of Sixth Amendment	Assuming error, any Apprendi/Blakely error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the record would have supported jury findings of the aggravating facts (death, weapon use, tampering)
Whether the jury must also determine that found facts are "extraordinary aggravating circumstances"	Court (Plaintiff) contends legal conclusion whether facts are "extraordinary" remains a judicial determination if based on Blakely-compliant or exempt facts	Defendant contends jury must not only find facts but also declare they are "extraordinary" to permit aggravation	Rejected: Supreme Court precedent (Lopez) treats the "extraordinary" determination as a legal/sentencing judgment for the court, not a jury fact-finding requirement
Whether § 18-1.3-401(6) is void for vagueness (facial and as-applied)	Plaintiff (state) argues challenge unpreserved; even if considered, prior precedent forecloses vagueness finding	Defendant argues statute gives no clear limit on what may be considered extraordinary aggravation; demands review	Court declined to reach unpreserved challenges (both facial and as-applied) for lack of preservation and because judicial-economy factors did not justify addressing them on appeal
Whether consecutive sentences were an abuse of discretion	Plaintiff argues record supports distinct acts/victims and distinct evidence supporting each conviction	Defendant argues sentences should run concurrently if supported by identical evidence	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; separate bullets and victims supported consecutive sentences; tampering involved distinct acts

Key Cases Cited

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (defines "statutory maximum" for Apprendi purposes; judge-found facts that increase sentence violate Sixth Amendment unless exception applies)
Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (U.S. 2006) (Applies harmless-error doctrine to Blakely-type sentencing errors)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (harmless-error framework for omitted elements/instructional errors)
Lopez v. People, 113 P.3d 713 (Colo. 2005) (identifies Blakely-compliant categories and holds determination of "extraordinary aggravating circumstances" is for the judge when based on compliant/exempt facts)
People v. Phillips, 652 P.2d 575 (Colo. 1982) (Colorado Supreme Court rejected vagueness challenge to predecessor sentencing statute)