Long prison term rejected

The U.S. Supreme Court nixes the sentence of 11 life terms in a 2003 Punchbowl shooting case

The U.S. Supreme Court has set aside a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that upheld an extremely long prison sentence for a man convicted of shooting a Punchbowl homeowner during a botched burglary.

In a brief unsigned order issued Monday, the court instructed the Hawaii high court to consider the prison term given to Miti Maugaotega Jr. in light of a recent ruling that struck down California's sentencing law.

The decision was the latest in a string of decisions that made clear that juries, not judges, must determine facts that justify harsher prison sentences.

Maugaotega, 21, received a sentence of life in prison without parole after being convicted of the second-degree attempted murder of homeowner Eric Kawamoto in June 2003.

Kawamoto was critically wounded when he was shot in the chest but has since recovered.

Maugaotega was also sentenced to 10 consecutive life terms with the possibility of parole for three other violent burglaries, including one where he raped a 55-year-old woman.

Maugaotega appealed his sentence, saying the prosecution's recommendation that extended terms were necessary for the protection of the public was not submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Hawaii Supreme Court said his argument was meritless.

During his trial, Maugaotega said he possessed a handgun, crystal methamphetamine and a pipe when he broke into the Kawamoto home.

At the time, city Prosecutor Peter Carlisle said the crime was a sign of a drug-fueled property crime epidemic on Oahu. He was unavailable for comment on this decision.

Prosecutors said they believed Maugaotega's 11 life terms were the longest sentence handed down in Hawaii history. Altogether, he was convicted of 22 felonies, including two counts of first-degree sexual assault.

Maugaotega's legal team welcomed the decision.

"We're pleased with the outcome," said Karen Nakasone of the state public defenders' office.

Nakasone said the ruling reaffirmed the legal team's position that under the Sixth Amendment, a jury -- not a judge -- must decide whether the facts demand that a defendant's sentence should be extended beyond the statutory maximum term and the scope of the jury's verdict.

She said Maugaotega's life sentence would still stand after the Supreme Court's decision this week. But she said his sentence of life without parole -- an extended punishment handed down by a judge -- would not.

Maugaotega was also sentenced to some 20-year terms that were extended to life. Nakasone said the 20-year terms would still stand after the decision, but the extended terms would be invalid.

Because Maugaotega is already serving a life term, Nakasone said the opinion would not be that personally significant for her client. But she said it was significant for others sentenced to shorter terms.