2018 COA 128
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Christopher Jompp and others, while high on methamphetamine, assaulted a victim who was later robbed and left unconscious; the victim died weeks later from his injuries.
- Police later found Jompp, handcuffed him, and while being led to a patrol car he fled briefly and was recaptured; he was then tried and convicted of third-degree assault, robbery, and escape.
- At trial the jury convicted Jompp of escape (noncustodial), robbery, and third-degree assault; the court adjudicated him an habitual criminal and imposed lengthy enhanced sentences (including on the escape conviction).
- On appeal Jompp challenged (inter alia) the statutory and constitutional speedy-trial rulings, sufficiency of robbery evidence, failure to give a resisting-arrest instruction, and the legality of using his noncustodial escape conviction in habitual criminal sentencing.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed convictions, rejected most challenges, but held § 18-1.3-801(5) barred using a noncustodial escape conviction as the qualifying ‘‘current’’ offense for habitual-criminal adjudication; it vacated the habitual enhancement for the escape conviction and remanded for resentencing on that count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory speedy trial continuance under § 18-1-405(6)(g)(I) | Prosecution showed due diligence and reasonable grounds to secure an out-of-state witness; continuance proper | Continuance improper because leads were only "promising" contacts, not proof witness would be available | Court: Continuance supported by record; denial of dismissal not an abuse of discretion |
| Constitutional speedy trial (Barker factors) | Delay justified by missing material witness; minimal prejudice shown | 13-month delay and pretrial incarceration violated constitutional speedy trial rights | Court: No plain error; Barker factors favored People overall |
| Sufficiency of robbery evidence | Evidence showed force during course of transaction and accomplice took money at defendant's direction | Assault was unrelated to theft; prosecution speculated theft occurred later | Court: Evidence sufficient under Bartowsheski "course of transaction" doctrine to support robbery conviction |
| Refusal to give resisting-arrest lesser-included instruction | Not directly argued by People | Jompp argued factual dispute whether he was in custody when he fled | Court: Officers had effectuated arrest (handcuffed, searched, led to car); no rational basis for resisting-arrest instruction; refusal not an abuse of discretion |
| Habitual-sentencing enhancement based on prior convictions (Almendarez-Torres issue) | Finding priors at sentencing permissible; prior-conviction exception survives Alleyne | Jompp argued Sixth Amendment requires jury find prior convictions post-Alleyne | Court: Almendarez-Torres exception remains binding; no Sixth Amendment violation |
| Use of noncustodial escape as the current offense for habitual adjudication under § 18-1.3-801(5) | People: Subsection (5) only precludes using escape as a prior conviction, not as the current qualifying offense | Jompp: Subsection (5) bars using any noncustodial escape conviction for habitual adjudication | Court: Subsection (5) unambiguously bars noncustodial escape from being used for the purpose of adjudicating a person an habitual criminal, including as the current offense; vacated escape enhancement and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (Barker four-factor speedy-trial test)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (prior-conviction sentencing exception)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- Bartowsheski v. People, 661 P.2d 235 (Colo. 1983) ("course of the transaction" rule for robbery)
- Thornton v. People, 929 P.2d 729 (Colo. 1996) (arrest requires physical control for escape statute)