v. McRae

Citations

• 2019 CO 91

Syllabus

In this case and two companion cases, the Supreme Court considered multiple issues that lie at the intersection of proportionality review and habitual criminal punishment. Consistent with Wells-Yates v. People, the lead case, the Court held that, in determining the gravity or seriousness of triggering and predicate offenses during an abbreviated proportionality review, the court should consider any relevant legislative amendments enacted after the dates of those offenses, even if the amendments do not apply retroactively. Although the Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion, it erred in failing to recognize that, rather than considering relevant prospective legislative amendments enacted after the dates of the triggering and predicate offenses, the trial court actually applied those amendments retroactively. Therefore, its judgment was reversed. And, because additional factual determinations are necessary to properly address defendant's proportionality challenge, the case was remanded with instructions to return it to the trial court for a new proportionality review.