284 P.3d 99
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Luis Alvarado and co-actors robbed a pawn shop; some robbers shattered display cases and stole merchandise; two robbers pointed guns at the managers to obtain keys to jewelry safes; Alvarado and another co-conspirator directed the managers to a back room and restrained them while others looted the safes; stolen items valued over $170,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the supplemental complicity instruction was proper | Alvarado contends the supplemental instruction was improper | Alvarado argues the court should have referred back to original instructions and notes error | Court held no reversible error; supplemental instruction proper |
| Whether the jury’s question on complicity required different guidance | Alvarado asserts the court’s response broadened knowledge requirements | Court did not misuse discretion in clarifying complicity law | No abuse of discretion; clarifying instruction was appropriate |
| Whether sentencing enhancements under Blakely/Apprendi were proper | Alvarado challenges enhanced ranges based on non-Blakely facts | Court properly applied Blakely-exempt prior conviction facts | Enhanced ranges upheld; no plain error requiring resentencing |
| Whether PSIR information or non-charged facts improperly influenced sentencing | Alvarado contends PSIR data affected sentencing | No improper reliance on non-charged facts; ranges within presumptive bounds | No plain error; ranges within presumptive max; no remand |
| Whether the appealable issues require remand for resentencing | Alvarado seeks remand due to misapprehended ranges | Remand not required given ranges and authorities | Remand not required; sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bogdanov v. People, 941 P.2d 247 (Colo.) (dual mental state for complicity)
- Grissom v. People, 115 P.3d 1280 (Colo.) (dual mens rea requirement for complicity)
- Wheeler v. People, 772 P.2d 101 (Colo.) (contemporaneous knowledge sufficient for complicity)
- Bass v. People, 155 P.3d 547 (Colo.App.2006) (courts may clarify law when jury requests clarification)
- Leonardo v. People, 728 P.2d 1252 (Colo.) (jurisdiction to provide clarification in response to jury questions)
- Willcoxon v. People, 80 P.3d 817 (Colo.App.2002) (remand considerations when sentencing ranges misapprehended)
- O’Connell v. People, 134 P.3d 460 (Colo.App.2005) (Blakely applicability to sentences within presumptive range)
- Aguilar-Ramos v. Medina, 224 P.3d 402 (Colo.App.2009) (Blakely applicability for sentences within presumptive range)