People v. Oldright
2017 COA 91
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Scott Oldright was convicted by jury of first-degree assault after striking a victim with a metal rod, causing a fractured skull, concussion, and deep lacerations.
- At sentencing the trial court adjudicated Oldright a habitual criminal based on five prior convictions and imposed a 64-year prison sentence (statutorily quadruple the triggering felony range).
- The trial court performed an abbreviated proportionality review, treating first-degree assault as a per se grave and serious offense and concluding the prior felonies justified skipping a deeper review.
- Several of Oldright’s predicate convictions were later reclassified by the General Assembly: three reclassified to misdemeanors and one reduced from class 4 to class 5 felony.
- The Court of Appeals agreed first-degree assault is grave/serious but held the trial court erred by failing to consider the legislative reclassifications and other facts of the predicates, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing and an extended proportionality review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Oldright) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not conducting an extended proportionality review | Abbreviated review was sufficient because the triggering offense (first-degree assault) is per se grave/serious, so no deeper inquiry into predicates was required | Trial court should have considered the facts of the triggering offense and the current legislative reclassification of prior convictions; these changes create an inference of gross disproportionality requiring an extended review | Court: Triggering offense is grave/serious (rejecting defendant’s first contention), but because several predicates have been reclassified and predicates were not shown to be grave/serious, an extended proportionality review is required; sentence vacated and remanded |
| Whether the trial court properly treated all prior felonies as "serious" solely because they were felonies | Prior felonies justify the habitual enhancement and skipping deeper gravity analysis | The court must consider the legislature’s reclassification and the actual gravity/circumstances of predicate offenses; some predicates no longer qualify and are not per se grave/serious | Court: It was error to deem all predicates "serious" merely because they were felonies without considering legislative reclassification and predicate facts; this raised an inference of gross disproportionality and warranted extended review |
Key Cases Cited
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (Eighth Amendment gross disproportionality principle)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (framework for proportionality review and abbreviated review concept)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (focus on principal felony when assessing proportionality)
- People v. Deroulet, 48 P.3d 520 (Colo. 2002) (habitual criminal proportionality review; certain crimes designated per se grave/serious)
- Close v. People, 48 P.3d 528 (Colo. 2002) (discussion of proportionality and habitual sentencing)
- People v. Gaskins, 825 P.2d 30 (Colo. 1992) (grave/serious offense analysis)
- People v. Mershon, 874 P.2d 1025 (Colo. 1994) (when combined offenses may be grave/serious)
- People v. Patnode, 126 P.3d 249 (Colo. App. 2005) (consideration of legislative reclassification and whether administrative-type offenses are "serious")