Next Level Sentencing Arguments - Colorado
Having hard data for sentencing provides an objective perspective on where the sentencing discussion should start. Unfortunately, compiling and analyzing that data can be cumbersome and take a lot of time. 2nd-Chair has supported attorneys in the following three circumstances. We can help you too.
Example 1: Charged with Attempted First-Degree Murder, the prosecutor offered the defendant the chance to plead guilty to First-Degree Assault with a stipulated sentence of 22 years. The District Attorney argued it was a “good deal” based on the injuries caused and sentences imposed in similar cases. 2nd-Chair dug in and did the research on sentences imposed in similar situations in that judicial district. As a result, we learned that the average sentence was 19 years. Moreover, we ascertained that the defendant’s case was more akin to case 16CRXXXX, in which the defendant received 10 years imprisonment in exchange for a plea to the same offense. We drafted a memo that helped defense argue for a more favorable plea.
Example 2: The defendant was convicted at trial and the matter was set for sentencing. The prosecutor intended to ask for a prison sentence at the top of the guideline range. Defense counsel retained 2nd-Chair to analyze the sentencing data ahead of sentencing and included it in what became a robust mitigation package. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel was able to tell the judge what sentence she personally had imposed upon conviction for the same charges. Defense counsel was also able to tell the Court how her colleagues in the same county had sentenced on this type of conviction. Defense counsel recited the mean, mode, and range of sentences imposed. Defense counsel compared and contrasted specific cases to his client’s case, detailing the different sentences imposed. With 2nd-Chair’s help, defense counsel was able to make these compelling arguments before even getting into his client’s more personal mitigation.
Example 3: A defendant was set to be sentenced as a habitual offender. 2nd-Chair compiled sentencing data to aid defense counsel in challenging the proportionality of the sentence. In Colorado, step one in challenging the proportionality of a habitual criminal sentence is to look at the gravity or seriousness of all the offenses in question AND the harshness of the sentence imposed on the triggering offense(s). Wells-Yates v. People, 454 P.3d 191 (Colo. 2019). “If there are multiple triggering offenses, the reviewing court must look at the sentence imposed for each such offense and engage in a proportionality review of that sentence because each sentence represents a separate punishment for a distinct and separate crime.” Id. If an inference of gross disproportionality exists then counsel must conduct and extended proportionality review which involves a comparison to sentences for other crimes in the same jurisdiction and a comparison for the same criminal in other jurisdictions. Id. This review simply cannot be done without review and summary of sentencing data from the Court Administration Office. 2nd-Chair can handle this important piece of work.