The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the three-strikes life sentence of a Utah man, convicted of carjacking a woman at knife-point.

In a decision published Wednesday evening, the appellate court upheld the constitutionality of the three-strikes rule in the case of Thomas Ray Gurule. Gurule had argued that the federal three-strikes rule violates the U.S. Constitution by shifting the burden of proof to the defendant to show why a prior strike should not be counted.

Gurule had a long history of criminal activity, and according to prosecutors, spent more time in prison than out. By the time of the carjacking incident on Aug. 9, 2003, Gurule had already been convicted of two armed robberies, among other offenses.

According to the court's ruling, Gurule and a friend drove away without paying for gas and were pursued by the station attendant. During a high-speed chase, Gurule lost control of his car and crashed into a parked vehicle.

Gurule bailed out of the vehicle, while his friend fled in the damaged car. During the chase, the attendant crashed into a mailbox belonging to the Gussendorf family. At the time, 18-year-old Erin Gussendorf was at home and spoke with the attendant.

Meanwhile, Gurule was hiding in the area, and after the attendant left, entered the Gussendorf home, where he threatened the victim with a knife and stole family jewelry. Forcing Erin Gussendorf into the family car, Gurule held the knife to her abdomen and told her to drive.

When the two drove past police looking for him, he told her not to do anything "stupid." After a tense drive where Gurule threatened several times to kill her, Gussendorf was dropped off unharmed.

Gurule was later captured and eventually was indicted by a federal grand jury for carjacking. Because of his past two violent felonies, Gurule was sentenced to life in prison. He objected to the sentence, but the court found that his history of drugs and violent crime satisfied the three-strikes rule.

The 10th Circuit found that there is no violation of due process by placing the burden on the defendant to argue that a prior violent conviction should not qualify during sentencing. The court also noted that there have been other appellate cases that have upheld the three-strikes law by defendants who have also claimed a violation of due process.

---

E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com