v. Tee
2018 COA 84
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Mike Tee was convicted after a jury trial of multiple offenses including two counts of attempt to influence a public servant, identity theft, and insurance fraud; one count (Count 5) had been dismissed at trial.
- The indictment originated from the Colorado Statewide Grand Jury; the certified copy filed in the Arapahoe County venue court initially lacked the grand jury foreperson’s signature for confidentiality reasons.
- During trial a victim advocate reported overhearing two jurors discuss the case at lunch; the court questioned the advocate and the two jurors and read the burden-of-proof instruction to the whole jury; defense counsel declined to move for a mistrial.
- The attempt-to-influence convictions arose from (1) Tee orally reporting a hit-and-run to an officer who then prepared and filed a police report, and (2) Tee entering information on an accident-report kiosk terminal at the police department.
- At sentencing the court orally announced a total term (twelve years) but the mittimus reflected a longer aggregate sentence (eighteen years) and wrongly listed a conviction on a count previously dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a venue court lacks jurisdiction because the copy of the statewide grand jury indictment filed there omitted the foreperson’s signature | The People: the statewide grand jury returned the indictment to the supervising chief judge as required; venue designation procedures satisfied jurisdictional requirements | Tee: the unsigned copy filed in Arapahoe County failed to meet §16‑5‑201 and Crim. P. 7(a)(1), so the court lacked jurisdiction | The court held the venue court had jurisdiction; the Crim. P. 7(a)(1) presentation requirement applied to the returning (Denver) court, not the later-designated venue court, and §13‑73‑107 procedures govern statewide grand jury indictments. |
| Whether juror predeliberation required a new trial | The People: defense counsel actively participated in the court’s handling and declined mistrial, so any objection was waived | Tee: predeliberation is structural or constitutional error and not waivable; court’s inquiry was inadequate | The court held defense counsel knowingly and intentionally waived the claim by expressly declining to move for mistrial and by affirmatively participating in the court’s inquiry and remedial instruction, so appellate review was barred. |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support two convictions for attempt to influence a public servant | The People: false information submitted by Tee to police (both orally and via kiosk) was intended to alter official action and was sufficient for conviction | Tee: kiosk submission lacked proof he knew a public servant would review/act; thus no specific intent to influence a public servant as required by §18‑8‑306 | The court held the evidence was sufficient as to the officer who prepared and filed a police report (oral report), but insufficient as to the kiosk submission because prosecution failed to prove Tee knew a human reviewer/technician would review and act on the kiosk entry. Count 24 was vacated. |
| Whether mittimus must be corrected to reflect the orally pronounced sentence and dismissals | The People conceded error on the mittimus | Tee: mittimus conflicts with oral sentence and includes dismissed conviction | The court ordered correction of the mittimus to reflect the announced sentence, remove the dismissed conviction, and vacate the sentence on the vacated count. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Thompson, 181 P.3d 1143 (Colo. App.) (definition and effect of indictment)
- People v. Beck, 187 P.3d 1125 (Colo. App.) (§18‑8‑306 targets deceit to affect official acts)
- People v. Janousek, 871 P.2d 1189 (Colo. 1994) (attempt‑to‑influence requires specific intent to affect public servant’s action)
- People v. Blue, 253 P.3d 1273 (Colo. App.) (distinguishing false reporting from attempt to influence)
- People v. Sandoval, 974 P.2d 1012 (Colo. App.) (court may not increase a lawful sentence after it has begun to be served; mittimus must reflect oral sentence)