People v. Randell
2012 WL 2581025
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Randell and girlfriend diverted over $11 million in fraudulent CDOR refunds and credits to accounts and entities controlled by Randell.
- Girlfriend, a CDOR supervisor, exploited computer system to issue unauthorized deposits and warrants ranging from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
- Randell endorsed and deposited warrants or routed funds through multiple entities created with girlfriend’s help to mask the scheme.
- Indictment charged COCCA pattern of racketeering, multiple counts of forgery, theft by receiving, conspiracy, computer crime, and related offenses from 2005–2007; girlfriend testified after pleading guilty to COCCA.
- Jury convicted Randell of all charges except substantive computer crime counts; trial occurred July 2009.
- Court grants relief by merging 26 theft-by-receiving convictions into five, remanding for resentencing; affirming all other convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether theft by receiving counts must merge under six-month unit rule | Roberts mandates six-month units; multiple counts violate double jeopardy if not merged. | Aggregation amendments show legislature neither required nor mandated six-month unit; posture favors more convictions. | Twenty-six counts merge into five convictions; remand for resentencing. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for forgery, conspiracy to forge, computer crime, and COCCA | Evidence supports each charged offense. | Evidence is legally insufficient for some counts. | Evidence is sufficient for all challenged convictions. |
| Prosecutorial closings: golden-rule-like statements | Statements were inappropriate but do not undermine fairness. | Prosecutor's comments violated fairness and improperly influenced verdicts. | Comments were improper but not plain error; no reversal required. |
| COCCA predicate acts and enterprise relation | Enterprise included Randell and girlfriend’s entities; predicate acts relate to ongoing enterprise. | Limited enterprise scope and acts outside maintenance of the enterprise; overbroad. | Evidence sufficient; predicate acts related to the enterprise as defined in indictment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. People, 203 P.3d 513 (Colo.2009) (six-month unit of prosecution governs aggregation for theft; mandatory in pre-amendment era)
- People v. Vigil, 251 P.3d 442 (Colo.App.2010) (maximizes effect of jury verdict when grouping for aggregation is possible)
- Lucero v. People, 272 P.3d 1063 (Colo.2012) (Roberts analysis applied to pre-amendment theft provisions)
- People v. Crawford, 230 P.3d 1232 (Colo.App.2009) (interpretation of aggregation and related provisions in theft statutes)
- People v. Hood, 878 P.2d 89 (Colo.App.1994) (presumption in favor of verdicts; consistency in multiple convictions)
- Munsey v. People, 232 P.3d 113 (Colo.App.2009) (golden-rule arguments improper but not automatically reversible)
- Dunlap, 975 P.2d 723 (Colo.1999) (timeliness and specificity of objections to prosecutorial remarks)
- Scearce v. People, 87 P.3d 228 (Colo.App.2003) (inconsistent verdict rule; separate evidence permissible for conspiracy)
- Armijo v. People, 170 Colo. 411 (Colo.1969) (concept of separate and distinct evidence for conspiracy)
- Chaussee v. People, 880 P.2d 749 (Colo.1994) (enterprise predicate acts must relate to ongoing enterprise; discovery acts limited)
- People v. Blue, 253 P.3d 1273 (Colo.App.2011) (where one transaction could support multiple statutes, charging decisions allowed)