2012 COA 68
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Jeffrey Green was convicted by jury of first degree criminal trespass and adjudicated as a habitual criminal.
- Victim, who testified about an intimate relationship with Green, had D.H. staying at her house for three nights.
- Green confronted the victim at her workplace and later appeared at her home around 3:45 a.m., after which a window screen was found broken.
- Charges included second degree burglary, trespass, assault, unlawful sexual contact, criminal mischief, harassment, and three habitual criminal counts; he pled guilty to criminal impersonation.
- A jury found Green guilty only of first degree trespass; habitual criminal adjudication and sentencing followed, with a twelve-year trespass sentence and additional concurrent term for impersonation.
- On appeal, Green challenges the possessory rights instruction, speedy-trial issues, denial of a jury trial on habitual charges, and the lack of an extended proportionality review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Possessory rights instruction | Defense sought a possessory rights instruction; victim/aide testified to D.H. letting in Green. | Instruction was legally correct and necessary to cover D.H.'s authority to permit entry. | Court refused instruction; no error because defense theory and instructions adequately explained invited entry. |
| Statutory speedy trial for habitual charges | Habitual charges appear within six-month speedy-trial window and should have been dismissed if outside that period. | Habitual charges are sentence enhancers, not substantive offenses; not subject to §18-1-405(1). | Habitual charges are not subject to §18-1-405(1); district court did not err in not dismissing them. |
| Constitutional speedy trial right during sentencing | Delay between conviction and sentencing violated speedy trial rights. | Delay was prejudicial and unconstitutional. | Delay constitutional analysis found no violation; delay not presumptively prejudicial given timing and lack of prejudice. |
| Extended proportionality review | Request for extended review given prior grave/serious predicates could show disproportionality. | Abbreviated review sufficient; combination of offenses does not show disproportionality. | No extended review required; predicate and triggering offenses deemed grave/serious, not grossly disproportionate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. People, 266 P.3d 1089 (Colo.2011) (duty to instruct on applicable law; defense must show marginal evidence)
- Saavedra-Rodriguez v. People, 971 P.2d 223 (Colo.1998) (evidentiary support required for defense instructions)
- Platt v. People, 170 P.3d 802 (Colo.App.2007) (evidence standard for defense instructions)
- Dash v. People, 104 P.3d 293 (Colo.App.2004) (sex offenses as grave/serious for proportionality)
- Strock, 252 P.3d 1148 (Colo.App.2010) (abbreviated proportionality review framework for habitual sentences)
- Cooper, 205 P.3d 475 (Colo.App.2008) (aggregate gravity of offenses can support proportionality finding)