State v. Peregrina
261 P.3d 815
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Peregrina was convicted at trial of two aggravated battery counts and two firearm enhancements, plus unlawful possession of a firearm.
- The State sought firearm enhancements; Peregrina did not request divisibility instructions.
- I.C. § 19-2520E limits multiple enhancements if crimes arise from the same indivisible course of conduct.
- The district court imposed multiple 15-year enhancements; sentencing proceeded with various terms.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; this Court granted review to address divisibility and Apprendi concerns.
- The Court remands for a district-court finding on divisibility/indivisibility under § 19-2520E and sentencing consistent with that finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is divisibility a factor that increases the statutory maximum under Apprendi? | State argues divisibility increases penalty, triggering Apprendi. | Peregrina argues divisibility is an element/defense that requires jury determination. | Remand for a jury-determined divisibility finding; Apprendi applies if divisibility increases the maximum. |
| Was the failure to submit divisibility to the jury reversible error? | State contends no Apprendi error since § 19-2520E only reduces, not increases, penalties. | Peregrina contends error was fundamental and reversible. | Not addressed on the merits due to remand on divisibility; the Court does not resolve the second issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johns, 112 Idaho 873 (1987) (divisibility is a factual question for sentencing under § 19-2520E)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be jury-found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (aggravating factors must be found by jury when increasing punishment)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (jury verdict must authorize enhanced sentence; some facts require jury finding)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (consecutive sentencing discretion rests with judge where not dependent on jury-findings about increased penalties)