State v. Auld.
136 Haw. 244
Haw.2015Background
- Jayson Auld was convicted of second-degree robbery; the indictment did not allege prior convictions. After conviction, the State moved to impose a repeat-offender mandatory minimum under HRS § 706-606.5 based on two prior convictions. The trial court accepted certified records and imposed the mandatory minimum; Auld appealed.
- Auld argued on appeal (and certiorari) that Alleyne and Apprendi require that any fact increasing a mandatory minimum (including predicate prior-conviction details) be alleged in the charging instrument and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The ICA affirmed, relying on the federal “prior-conviction” exception to Apprendi as preserving use of judge-found prior-conviction facts and Freitas-era notice holdings that pretrial notice of predicate convictions is not required.
- The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court examined whether Alleyne’s extension of Apprendi to mandatory minimums alters prior Hawaiʻi precedent (Gonsalves, Loher) and whether the Apprendi prior-conviction exception applies to HRS § 706-606.5 repeat-offender sentencing.
- The court held that repeat-offender sentencing under HRS § 706-606.5 requires proof of multiple, specific facts (identity of prior convictions, enumerated offense, timing within statutory windows, counsel representation or waiver at prior plea), so the federal prior-conviction exception does not apply under state law.
- Because Alleyne means mandatory minimums enhance the penalty, the court held the State must allege predicate prior convictions in the charging instrument and a jury must find the necessary prior-conviction facts beyond a reasonable doubt. The new rules are applied prospectively only; Auld’s conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Auld) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Apprendi/Alleyne require jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt for facts that trigger a mandatory minimum under HRS § 706-606.5 | Alleyne differs factually; prior-conviction exception lets courts rely on certified records and ordinary sentencing procedures | Alleyne/Apprendi require jury findings and indictment allegations for facts that increase mandatory minimums; prior-conviction exception is eroding | Held: Alleyne extends Apprendi to mandatory minimums; for § 706-606.5 the jury must find the prior-conviction facts beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether the Apprendi “fact of prior conviction” exception applies to repeat-offender mandatory minimums under § 706-606.5 | Prior-conviction exception preserves judge consideration of certified prior-conviction records | Prior-conviction exception shouldn't apply because § 706-606.5 requires multiple predicate facts beyond mere existence of a prior conviction | Held: Exception does not apply—repeat-offender sentencing requires proof of additional elements (identity, enumeration, timing, counsel) and thus jury finding is required |
| Whether the State must allege predicate prior convictions in the charging instrument | Not required pretrial; due process satisfied by notice before sentencing and opportunity to be heard | Charging instrument must allege predicate convictions under Hawaiʻi Constitution and Jess; Alleyne confirms mandatory minimums are penalty enhancements | Held: Charging instrument must allege predicate prior convictions; Jess and Alleyne require pretrial allegation; prior cases (Freitas, Loher, Gonsalves) overruled insofar as they conflicted; new rules prospective only |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts that increase penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (U.S. 2013) (Apprendi extended to mandatory minimums; any fact increasing mandatory minimum is an element)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (U.S. 1998) (prior-conviction exception permitting judicial reliance on prior convictions)
- Maugaotega v. State, [citation="115 Hawai'i 432, 168 P.3d 562"] (Haw. 2007) (Hawaiʻi adoption of Apprendi principles in extended-term sentencing)
- Jess v. State, [citation="117 Hawai'i 381, 184 P.3d 133"] (Haw. 2008) (charging instrument must allege allegations that, if proved, would invoke penalty enhancements)
- State v. Gonsalves, [citation="108 Hawai'i 289, 119 P.3d 597"] (Haw. 2005) (held Apprendi did not apply to mandatory minimums — overruled to extent inconsistent)
- State v. Loher, [citation="118 Hawai'i 522, 193 P.3d 438"] (Haw. App. 2008) (footnote endorsing prior-conviction exception for § 706-606.5 — overruled to extent inconsistent)