The Lingle administration is considering whether to call a special session of the Legislature to respond to a Hawai'i Supreme Court ruling that the state's extended sentencing law is unconstitutional.

The court ruled on Monday that the sentencing law violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because judges, rather than juries, determine the facts that trigger longer prison sentences. The court also found that while the judiciary has the inherent power to impanel juries for extended sentencing, the task to remedy the law rests with the Legislature.

The ruling means judges cannot apply the extended sentencing law and that felons already sentenced under the law, but who are appealing, could have their sentences reduced.

State Attorney General Mark Bennett said he has spoken to Gov. Linda Lingle about either calling a special session to address the situation or waiting until the Legislature meets again for its regular session in January. Bennett said he is also gathering information from county prosecutors about the potential impact of the court's ruling.

Bennett said a threat to public safety is not immediate, since felons will still be sentenced to prison, "but they'll be getting out before they otherwise would have and so there will be a danger to the community down the road and a danger that can never be remedied if they end up not getting extended terms."

State lawmakers, who already are discussing a potential special session to help Hawaii Superferry, are also analyzing the court's ruling and whether an immediate fix is necessary. The state Senate is also likely to return for a special session to review a Lingle nominee to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.

"If it's something that can't wait for regular session, then we'll have to take a look at it," state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, D-21st (Nanakuli, Makaha), said of the court's ruling on the sentencing law.

Some observers at the state Capitol asked privately whether the court's ruling gives Lingle some political cover to call lawmakers into special session where they can deal with both the extended sentencing law and the Superferry. Such a move may help deflect criticism that Lingle and lawmakers are taking an extraordinary step to help Superferry.

State Rep. Tommy Waters, D-51st (Lanikai, Waimanalo), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he believes the court went too far in declaring the extended sentencing law unconstitutional. He noted two dissenting justices found that the court could have ruled that juries be impaneled to hear facts in extended sentencing while preserving the law.

"We'll have to fix it, but the question is whether we come back in special session or do it in the beginning of next session," Waters said.

Jack Tonaki, the state's public defender, said the issues raised by the court's ruling will likely require extensive debate by lawmakers that may not be suited to a special session.

Tonaki, whose office had appealed the case that led to the ruling, said he was surprised the court declared the law unconstitutional. "Now it necessitates a legislative fix," he said.

The court's ruling was based on a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions on extended sentencing since 2000. The Supreme Court held in Apprendi vs. New Jersey that any fact, other than prior convictions, that increases sentences beyond statutory maximums should go before juries and proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected California's three-tiered sentencing law because it gave judges, not juries, the power to decide which facts elevate sentences beyond a standard middle sentence.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Hawai'i Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling upholding the extended sentence of a man convicted of a string of violent felonies in 2003 that included the shooting of a Punchbowl homeowner during a burglary.

Miti Maugaotega Jr., was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the shooting, and 10 consecutive life terms with the chance of parole for the other crimes, which included sexual assault.

The court on Monday vacated Maugaotega's extended sentence and sent his case back to O'ahu Circuit Court for resentencing.

In his majority opinion, Associate Justice Steven Levinson wrote that given the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the California case the court "would no doubt similarly find the Hawai'i extended term sentencing scheme constitutionally wanting."

State lawmakers could change the law to give juries the responsibility of fact-finding in extended sentences, or, as some states have done, give judges genuinely broader discretion in sentencing within statutory ranges. Last session, a House bill that would have given the responsibility for extended sentencing to juries died in conference committee.

Reach Derrick DePledge at ddepledge@honoluluadvertiser.com.