Juries in most cases will determine the facts that trigger longer prison sentences for dangerous felons, under a bill passed by the state House and Senate during the special session.

The bill, signed into law yesterday afternoon by Gov. Linda Lingle, is in response to a state Supreme Court ruling last month that found that the state's extended sentencing law was an unconstitutional violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The law had allowed judges, instead of juries, to decide which facts led to longer sentences.

The Supreme Court's ruling prevented the courts from using the extended sentencing law, so the Lingle administration asked lawmakers to amend the law in special session.

The court's ruling followed a string of federal court decisions that began with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2000 finding in Apprendi vs. New Jersey that any fact, other than prior convictions, that increases prison sentences beyond statutory maximums should go before juries and be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The House and Senate chose to make the bill retroactive to 2000 as guidance for the courts that the Legislature's intent is to cover all felons sentenced under the law since the Apprendi decision.

But the retroactivity provision will likely prompt legal challenges from defense attorneys. Jack Tonaki, the state's public defender, told lawmakers he believes the provision is unconstitutional because it would have the effect of imposing additional punishment on defendants who already have been sentenced. Tonaki argued that since the extended sentencing law was declared unconstitutional, there was no valid law in place when the defendants were sentenced.

The public defender's office, which had brought the legal challenge that overturned the state law, did not object to the provisions in the bill that bring the law into procedural line with federal court decisions on extended sentencing.

The extended sentencing law applies to criminals who have committed more than two felonies, are persistent or dangerous offenders, or who have committed hate crimes or attacks on the elderly, the disabled or children. Under the bill, juries will hear and decide the facts that lead to longer prison sentences unless the defendant waives the right to a jury, in which the courts would decide.

"Since the state Supreme Court's ruling, no one who has committed a felony who is eligible for an extended sentence can receive an extended sentence. So what we've done with this bill is for the protection of the public," said state Rep. Tommy Waters, D-51st (Lanikai, Waimanalo), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

State Attorney General Mark Bennett had said the danger to the public is that criminals could be released from prison sooner if the extended sentencing law was not restored. Bennett provided lawmakers with a list of examples where extended terms had been imposed but could be in jeopardy because of the court ruling or where prosecutors are seeking or would like to seek longer prison sentences but would not be able to unless the bill passed.

"Without this bill, there are a lot of people who either have received or would receive extended terms that would be out of jail before they should be," Bennett said.

Honolulu Prosecutor Peter Carlisle and other law enforcement officials also supported the bill. "There are people who are so bad — the worst of the worst people — who need to get this type of long period in jail," Carlisle said.

Reach Derrick DePledge at ddepledge@honoluluadvertiser.com.