People v. Allman
2012 WL 6055566
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- defendant Allen Paul Allman was convicted by jury of failing to register as a sex offender under Colorado's Registration Act.
- He had lived in Garfield County for about two and a half months, sleeping in his car at various locations and never establishing a fixed residential or mailing address there.
- He worked, exercised, and frequented the Battlement Mesa ree center in Garfield County during that period.
- The prosecution asserted he established an additional residence in Garfield County and knowingly failed to register; defense argued he did not have an address and thus no residence.
- The trial court denied a motion for acquittal; the jury returned a guilty verdict.
- The court rejected his challenges to overbreadth, vagueness as applied, need for a special unanimity instruction, and pre-arrest statements under Miranda.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Registration Act is overbroad as applied | Allman argued act infringes travel rights. | Allman contends overbroad as applied to his conduct. | Act not overbroad as applied. |
| Whether 'residence' requires an address | People contend residence includes any place used for habitation. | Allman argued residence requires address or fixed dwelling. | Residence can be any place used for habitation; car can be a residence. |
| Whether sufficient evidence supports residence and knowing failure to register | Evidence showed Garfield County residency and failure to register. | Insufficient evidence of additional residence or knowing failure. | Sufficient evidence for both residence and knowing failure. |
| Whether a special unanimity instruction was required | Prosecution may rely on multiple acts; need special unanimity. | Unanimity instruction necessary to prevent juror disagreement on acts. | No special unanimity instruction required. |
| Whether statements were obtained in custody requiring Miranda warnings | Statements should be suppressed if custody occurred. | Interrogation occurred during a custodial setting. | No custody for Miranda purposes; no suppression required. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) (right to travel discussed; travel-related challenges)
- People v. Cagle, 751 P.2d 614 (Colo.1988) (unpreserved constitutional challenges and review doctrine)
- Hinojos-Mendoza v. People, 169 P.3d 662 (Colo.2007) (discretion to review unpreserved vagueness challenges)
- Devorss v. People, 277 P.3d 829 (Colo.App.2011) (plain error review and consideration of unpreserved claims)
- Greer v. People, 262 P.3d 920 (Colo.App.2011) (plain error review and statutory challenges)
- People v. Lopez, 140 P.3d 106 (Colo.App.2005) (whether mens rea is required for failure to register)
- State v. Jenkins, 100 Wash. App. 85, 995 P.2d 1268 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (residence vs. address interpretation in other jurisdictions)
- Commonwealth v. Wilgus, 40 A.3d 1201 (Pa.2012) (statutory definition of residence as location, not necessarily address)
- Twine v. State, 910 A.2d 1132 (Md.2006) (residence/interpreting 'residence' as location without fixed address)
- Iverson v. Minn., 664 N.W.2d 346 (Minn.2003) (interpretation of residence as location without requiring address)