v. Rojas, 2020 COA 61

Brooke Rojas submitted a January 14, 2013 food‑stamp application reporting $0 work income despite starting a restaurant manager job on January 1 and later earning over $29,000 from February–July 2013; she received food‑stamp benefits monthly during that period.
The Larimer County DHS sent monthly notices that gross monthly income over $3,785 had to be reported; Rojas believed the threshold referred to net income and did not report her gross income.
On August 9, 2013 Rojas again submitted an application falsely reporting $0 earned income; this August misrepresentation was not itself charged.
Rojas was charged with two counts of theft under section 18‑4‑401 (one for acts before and one after the June 5, 2013 statutory amendment) and a lesser included violation under § 26‑2‑305(2); at trial the court admitted the August application as res gestae and the jury convicted.
On remand from the Colorado Supreme Court to address unresolved direct‑appeal issues, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, held the August application was admissible as res gestae to show intent/pattern, and ordered resentencing to reflect two class 6 felonies (applying the 2013 amendment benefit to pre‑amendment acts).

Issue	People’s Argument	Rojas’s Argument	Held
Admissibility of Aug 9, 2013 application as res gestae	Aug application shows Rojas’s intent and pattern of knowingly making false statements; it explains the context of the charged thefts	Aug application occurred after the charged period and is not contemporaneous or part of the transaction; it should be treated as other‑act evidence under CRE 404(b) with a limiting instruction	Majority: admissible as res gestae to show intent/pattern; evidence was part and parcel of the charged offenses. Dissent: would reverse as not res gestae and non‑harmless error.
Aggregation of thefts within six months into one count	Prosecution may charge multiple thefts as separate counts under § 18‑4‑401(4)(a)	Prosecution was required to aggregate thefts within six months into a single count, which would affect felony classification	Held: aggregation is permissive, not mandatory; separate counts were permissible.
Effect of June 5, 2013 amendments to theft statute	Apply current law at sentencing where it benefits defendant only as prescribed by precedent	Defendant argued amended classifications should reduce sentences (aggregate or individual)	Held: defendant is entitled to the benefit of the 2013 amendment at sentencing; pre‑amendment acts reduced to class 6 felony; remand for resentencing and mittimus correction.

People v. Rollins, 892 P.2d 866 (Colo. 1995) (defining res gestae as acts/words closely connected to and explanatory of the main fact)
People v. Quintana, 882 P.2d 1366 (Colo. 1994) (res gestae allows evidence linked in time/circumstances or necessary to complete the story)
People v. Davalos, 30 P.3d 841 (Colo. App. 2001) (admitting unrelated financial applications as res gestae to prove intent/absence of mistake)
Callis v. People, 692 P.2d 1045 (Colo. 1984) (res gestae as evidence that is "part and parcel" of the charged crime)
People v. Greenlee, 200 P.3d 363 (Colo. 2009) (evidence of a plan admissible under CRE 401/403 as circumstantial evidence of mental state)
Yusem v. People, 210 P.3d 458 (Colo. 2009) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and harmless‑error principles)