People v. Sandoval, 2018 CO 21

Alfred Sandoval pleaded guilty to felony menacing (class 5) under a plea agreement that barred DOC incarceration but did not stipulate to judicial fact‑finding at sentencing.
At sentencing the prosecutor sought community corrections; defense sought probation; court refused probation and elicited Sandoval’s account of the incident.
The trial judge made factual findings (disbelieving Sandoval, describing entry to collect a drug debt, gun produced, victim knee‑capped) and concluded aggravating circumstances warranted an aggravated community‑corrections term.
The court imposed a six‑year direct sentence to community corrections (double the presumptive maximum for the class 5 offense).
Sandoval did not object at sentencing; on appeal he argued the aggravated community‑corrections sentence violated Blakely/Apprendi because the aggravating facts were judge‑found and not admitted, tried to a jury, or Blakely‑exempt.
The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed and vacated the sentence; the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Blakely/Apprendi applies to a direct sentence to community corrections	People: community corrections is less onerous and should not trigger Blakely	Sandoval: direct community‑corrections terms use the same statutory "lengths" as DOC and thus are subject to Blakely	Blakely applies: community corrections shares the statutory maximum with DOC, so judicial factfinding that increases the term must be Blakely‑compliant or exempt
Whether the trial court plainly erred by imposing an aggravated community‑corrections term based on judge‑found facts without a stipulation or jury finding	People: no plain error; court could have relied on other bases (e.g., prior convictions)	Sandoval: court relied solely on judge‑found aggravating facts not admitted or jury‑found, so constitutional error	Plain error: yes. Statute, Supreme Court precedent, and Colorado case law made the rule clear; error was obvious and substantial, warranting resentencing

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (rule that facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be jury‑found or admitted)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
Lopez v. People, 113 P.3d 713 (Colo. 2005) (applies Apprendi/Blakely to Colorado sentencing; identifies Blakely‑compliant and Blakely‑exempt facts)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (reinforces jury role for facts increasing punishment)
Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (Apprendi progeny emphasizing rule applies across punishment types)