CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS. (CAAP-13-0002894; CR. NO. 12-1-0690(3)).
Benjamin Lowenthal for petitioner.
Artemio C. Baxa for respondent.
RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, AND WILSON, JJ.
[136 Hawai'i 245] Sabrina S. McKenna,
The primary questions presented in this case are whether the State, in seeking to sentence a defendant to a mandatory minimum sentence as a repeat offender under Hawai'i Revised Statutes (" HRS" ) § 706-606.5 (2014) (1) must include the defendant's
[136 Hawai'i 247] predicate prior convictions in a charging instrument; and (2) must prove these prior convictions to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt. We answer both questions in the affirmative.
This appeal surfaces in the wake of the sea change in state sentencing procedure brought on by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). In that case, the Court held, " Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." 530 U.S. at 489. We adopted this holding in State v. Maugaotega, 115 Hawai'i 432, 447, 168 P.3d 562, 577 (2007), with respect to our state's extended sentencing procedures, which were subsequently codified at HRS § § 706-661, -662, and -664 (2014).
Recently, the United States Supreme Court extended the Apprendi rule to mandatory minimum sentencing. See Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). Alleyne held
Any fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime is an " element" that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.
See [Apprendi, 523 U.S. at 483, n.10, 490] Mandatory minimum sentences increase the penalty for a crime. It follows, then, that any fact that increases the mandatory ...