People v. Simon, 266 P.3d 1099

Colorado statutes authorize enhanced penalties for sexual crimes against children when committed as part of a pattern of sexual abuse; pattern defined as two or more incidents involving the same victim.
Two cases: Simon (ten pattern counts against one victim) and Tillery (five pattern counts against one victim) arose on whether separate pattern-based class 3 felonies may be imposed for each incident.
Division of Colorado Court of Appeals split: Simon held double jeopardy barred multiple pattern convictions; Tillery upheld multiple pattern convictions.
Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether each discrete incident may be elevated to a class 3 felony and whether dual jeopardy concerns apply.
Court holds that each separately charged incident may be elevated to a class 3 felony when committed as part of a pattern of sexual abuse, and that this does not violate double jeopardy; Simon’s ten pattern convictions are reinstated and Tillery’s rule is affirmed for resentencing.
The holding focuses on the plain language and intended unit of prosecution, rejecting the notion of a distinct, overarching “pattern” offense distinct from individual acts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do the pattern provisions create a separate pattern offense or permit multiple pattern-based convictions?	Simon/Tillery argue a separate pattern offense; only one pattern conviction allowed.	State argues each act may be separately elevated when part of a pattern.	Each incident may be charged and sentenced as a class 3 felony when part of a pattern.
Do the pattern provisions violate double jeopardy by allowing multiple punishments for a single pattern?	Yes, as multiple pattern convictions punish a single pattern.	No, statutes authorize separate convictions and enhanced punishments for each act.	No double jeopardy violation; explicit legislative authorization for multiple enhanced punishments.

Woellhaf v. People, 105 P.3d 209 (Colo.2005) (defines unit of prosecution and related framework for pattern analysis)
Roberts v. People, 203 P.3d 513 (Colo.2009) (consolidation/aggregation of offenses as a choice, not mandatory like pattern counts)
Day v. People, 230 P.3d 1194 (Colo.2005) (pattern provisions construed as sentence enhancers in prior decisions)
Melillo v. People, 25 P.3d 769 (Colo.2001) (early precedent on pattern enhancements in Colorado)