People v. Brooks
2017 COA 80
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Kyle Brooks assaulted his girlfriend after discovering her pregnancy by another man; he fled and was later arrested following a courthouse confrontation.
- While jailed, Brooks made recorded telephone calls trying to induce the victim not to testify; he was convicted on one tampering count based on calls (not appealed).
- After phone privileges were revoked, Brooks wrote letters asking a cellmate to deliver them to the victim; the cellmate gave the letters to jail staff and the victim never received them.
- A jury convicted Brooks of multiple misdemeanors and two counts of tampering with a witness or victim (the second based on the intercepted letters).
- The district court adjudicated Brooks a habitual criminal (three prior felonies shown by court records) and imposed the statutorily mandated 24-year sentence; Brooks sought but was denied extended proportionality review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Brooks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for tampering based on letters | Statute criminalizes intentionally attempting to induce a witness/victim to testify falsely or abstain; attempts need not succeed or reach the victim | Because the letters never reached the victim, there was insufficient evidence of the substantive tampering offense (only an inchoate attempt) | Affirmed — the tampering statute criminalizes an intentional attempt; no requirement that the communication actually reach the victim |
| Judicial notice of prior court files in habitual criminal adjudication | Court may take judicial notice of court records to establish prior convictions and related facts | Judicial notice included documents not proper for notice; without them prosecution lacked proof that prior felonies were separate episodes | Affirmed — registers of actions sufficed to make a prima facie showing the prior felonies arose from distinct incidents; defendant failed to rebut |
| Validity of prior guilty plea (predicate felony for habitual status) | The plea was voluntary and knowing under the totality of the record; underlying facts showed intent to permanently deprive | Plea was constitutionally invalid because the plea colloquy/charging documents failed to state specific intent element of theft | Affirmed — plea valid based on nature of underlying conduct (distracting victim so another stole her purse) and total record showing understanding of elements |
| Proportionality of 24-year habitual criminal sentence | Given the grave nature of the tampering (extensive, violent and repeated scheme) and related violent convictions, the sentence is not grossly disproportionate | Sentence is grossly disproportionate given predicate offenses and overall culpability; requested extended proportionality review | Affirmed — abbreviated proportionality review found no inference of gross disproportionality; extended review unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Yascavage, 101 P.3d 1090 (Colo. 2004) (explaining tampering statute aims to punish attempts to subvert testimony)
- People v. Scialabba, 55 P.3d 207 (Colo. App. 2002) (treatment of completion of tampering and abandonment defense)
- People v. Sa’ra, 117 P.3d 51 (Colo. App. 2004) (courts may judicially notice contents of court records in related proceedings)
- People v. Jones, 967 P.2d 166 (Colo. App. 1997) (analysis whether convictions arise from separate and distinct criminal episodes)
- People v. Copeland, 976 P.2d 334 (Colo. App. 1998) (use of crime dates and types to show separate criminal episodes)
- Gimmy v. People, 645 P.2d 262 (Colo. 1982) (convictions in separate informations/docket numbers can be separate episodes)
- Watkins v. People, 655 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1982) (burden and standard for prima facie showing that prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained)
- Lacy v. People, 775 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1989) (guilty plea invalid if record does not show defendant understood critical elements)
- People v. Deroulet, 48 P.3d 520 (Colo. 2002) (Eighth Amendment gross-disproportionality framework for habitual sentences)
- People v. Gaskins, 825 P.2d 30 (Colo. 1992) (certain crimes are per se grave or serious for proportionality analysis)
- Close v. People, 48 P.3d 528 (Colo. 2002) (when abbreviated review suggests gross disproportionality, extended comparison review is required)