VISTA -- A recent Superior Court ruling in the case of a man charged with a fatal hit-and-run collision in Vista may lead prosecutors to ask a higher court to decide an issue that could affect whether they can obtain longer prison sentences for defendants charged with certain crimes.

Deputy District Attorney David Greenberg, who supervises the district attorney's North County office, said prosecutors are reviewing the case and have not decided yet whether to appeal a decision Superior Court Judge Joan Weber made last week in the case of Marty Lewis Rubics, 42.

A legal dispute arose when prosecutors sought to ask a jury to decide factors that a judge could later use to impose a longer sentence if Rubics, 42, was convicted of charges related to a July 30 crash. The collision at the intersection of Thibodo Road and Hilo Way claimed the life of Shane Robert Casey, 27, of Vista.

California law specifies a lower-, middle- and upper-term sentence for many crimes, including voluntary manslaughter, gross vehicular manslaughter, rape, and assault with a deadly weapon.

A judge is required to impose the middle-term sentence unless he or she finds that circumstances against the defendant -- known as aggravating factors -- justify the upper term, or circumstances in favor of the defendant -- known as mitigating factors -- warrant a lower term.

In the past, judges have made those decisions based on arguments presented at sentencing hearings after a defendant has been convicted. A U.S. Supreme Court decision in June in a case from Washington state raised questions about whether that process is valid.

In Blakely v. Washington,the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that any fact except a prior conviction used to increase the penalty for a crime must be one that a defendant admits in a guilty plea or a jury decides in its verdict. The "maximum" sentence allowed under the law could not be given based on other arguments made to a judge at a sentencing hearing.

Questions about how the June decision applies to California and federal law may be resolved in other cases still pending before the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, respectively. Meanwhile, local judges and attorneys have sought to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's June decision.

Deputy District Attorney Frank Jackson, the prosecutor in the Rubics case, said he included aggravating factors on the document that specified the charges against Rubics.

Rubics' attorney, Deputy Public Defender Karsten Boone, objected to having those factors presented to jurors for them to decide. Prosecutors and Boone said they believe Boone's challenge was the first of its kind raised in San Diego County.

At a hearing Nov. 15, Weber, the supervising judge in Vista for the last three years, ruled that prosecutors could not present the aggravating circumstances to a jury.

"Judge Weber decided there is no authorized procedure to present an alleged aggravating factor to a jury for them to make that determination," Boone said.

Although the Blakely decision calls for juries to decide the factors used to impose a longer sentence, Weber ruled that California state law specifies that juries render verdicts and judges decide sentencing factors, Jackson said.

Weber said that making changes to those procedures is up to state lawmakers, Jackson said,

Officials with the state Senate and Assembly public safety committees said they were unaware of any legislation being introduced to change state law in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's Blakely decision.

Weber's ruling is not binding on any other judge. However, her ruling holds that except for those with prior convictions, a defendant who goes to trial must be sentenced to the middle-term punishment or less, Boone said.

However, Jackson said he still plans to try to get the upper-term sentence in the Rubics case in a different way.

Rubics pleaded guilty to a felony charge of hit-and-run causing death shortly after Weber made her ruling and is scheduled to be sentenced Dec. 15. The middle-term sentence for Rubics' crime is three years in prison, and the upper term is four years, Jackson said.

Greenberg, the supervisor of the district attorney's North County office in Vista, said prosecutors have not decided yet whether to appeal Weber's decision, but may ask Weber to reconsider her ruling at Rubics' sentencing hearing.

Although it is not binding on other judges, Weber's ruling could influence them, Greenberg and Boone said.

"Because of who she is, I think it will have an impact," Boone said.

Greenberg said Weber's decision may be persuasive, but other judges also may disagree with her interpretation of the law. Attorneys and the courts need a California Supreme Court decision or a published appeals court opinion to decide the issue.

Meanwhile, prosecutors will continue to try to present aggravating factors to juries, Greenberg said.

"We're going to continue to do it because we've been doing it in other places in the county without objection," Greenberg said.

Greenberg also said he did not expect Weber's decision to affect plea negotiations in other cases. Prosecutors continue to require defendants who plead guilty to sign a "Blakely waiver," giving up their rights under the terms of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision.

Greenberg also said he did not think defendants would be less inclined to plead guilty if they think they can receive only a middle-term sentence or less by going to trial. Defendants usually receive a less severe sentence for pleading guilty early, Greenberg said.

Whether a ruling similar to Weber's could occur in federal courts, where aggravating factors also have been included in documents specifying the charges against defendants, was unclear.

The indictment that charges Sergio Martinez of West Covina with starting the Cedar fire last year also includes 16 special allegations that the fire created a "substantial risk of death or bodily injury" to others, that the Cedar fire resulted in 14 deaths, and that the blaze caused more than $400 million in damage. Those are factors that, if proved to a jury, can be considered by a judge in deciding what sentence to impose, a federal prosecutor said in October.

Wayne Phillip Higgins, Martinez's attorney, said he may look into issues involving the aggravating factors later in the case, but that he is going through the evidence now and is focused on a request to move the case out of San Diego's federal court.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Mulcahy, a prosecutor in Martinez's case, could not be reached for comment.

Contact staff writer Scott Marshall at (760) 631-6623 or smarshall@nctimes.com.