The court may sentence a person who has been convicted of a felony to an extended term of imprisonment if it finds one or more of the grounds specified in this Section. The finding of the court shall be incorporated in the record:
COL 2024-12-05
(a) The offender is a persistent offender whose commitment for an extended term is necessary for protection of the public. The court shall not make such a finding unless the offender is over twenty- one (21) years of age and has previously been convicted as an adult of two (2) felonies or of one (1) felony and two (2) misdemeanors. (b) The offender is a multiple offender whose criminality was so extensive that a sentence of imprisonment for an extended term is warranted. The court shall not make such a finding unless: (1) the offender is being sentenced for two (2) or more felonies, or is already under sentence of imprisonment for felony, or admits in open court the commission of one or more other felonies and asks that they be taken into account when he is sentenced; and (2) the longest sentences of imprisonment authorized for each of the offender’s crimes, including admitted crimes taken into account, if made to run consecutively, would exceed in length the maximum of the extended term imposed. (c) The offender is a dangerous, mentally abnormal person whose commitment for an extended term is necessary for protection of the public. (1) The court shall not make such a finding unless the offender has been subjected to a psychiatric examination resulting in the conclusions that his mental condition is gravely abnormal; (2) that his criminal conduct has been characterized by a pattern of repetitive or compulsive behavior or by persistent aggressive behavior with heedless indifference to consequences; and (3) that such condition makes him a serious danger to others. SOURCE: G.P.C. §§ 648, 666, 667a, 668; *M.P.C. § 7.03; Cal. § 207 (T.D.2 1968); N.J. § 2C:44-3. 2018 NOTE: Subitem designations added in subsection (c) pursuant to 1 GCA § 1606. 2017 NOTE: In People v. Muritok, 2003 Guam 21, the Supreme Court struck down this provision as unconstitutional, concluding that it impermissibly authorizes the court to sentence a defendant to an extended term of imprisonment, in violation of the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Past publications of the GCA included the Compiler’s Comment below, which was from the Law Revision Commission. See 2014 NOTE preceding Chapter 1, Title 9 GCA. COMMENT: § 80.38 states the circumstances and criteria under which felony offenders may be sentenced to the extended terms provided by § 80.32. The present sentencing structure provides simply for an outer limit on the length of sentences which may be imposed for each offense. These limits control, no matter how aggravated the particular offense, nor how depraved the individual offender. As a natural result, the authorized sentences are fixed with the worst cases in mind, and hence tend to be considerably higher than necessary for the average case. As the result, the gravity of the offenses tend to be distorted. As a practical consequence, the sentence imposed in the average case tends to be increased. The Commission believes that a far better approach is to provide the basic limits geared to the typical case and authorize increases based upon the existence of factors which seem to call for a more severe disposition. The Model Code, the Model Sentencing Act and the ABA, Standards for Criminal Justice, Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures § 2.5 have all taken this approach. The Model Penal Code stands alone in recommending extended terms for misdemeanors. The Commission believes that such terms can be justified, indeed it may be necessary, if the “ordinary” term has been significantly reduced by this Code and if the classification of offenses tends to downgrade crimes from what formerly may have been felonies. There is, of course, “an intimate relationship between the classification of crimes, the ordinary term and the extended term. The Commission has “attempted to strike a balance between each of these different areas. In doing so, the Commission has followed most closely the Model Penal Code. However, § 80.42 is based upon a California proposal and other modifications were suggested by other proposals. In short, we have presented a composite which we feel most suited to the needs of Guam.
COL 2024-12-05
Subsections (d) of both §§ 80.38 and 80.40 as contained in the Model Penal Code have been deleted here. These Sections deal with a “professional criminal,” but have received only a limited endorsement from the ABA and the New Jersey Commission. Further, such Subsections would require full hearings which, being lengthy and expensive would tend to outweigh their effectiveness.