2019 UT App 139

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee,

v.

MARIO BRIAN QUINTANA,

Appellant.

Opinion

No. 20180107-CA

Filed August 15, 2019

Third District Court, West Jordan Department

The Honorable L. Douglas Hogan

No. 171400213

Teresa L. Welch and Owen N. Stewart, Attorneys

for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes and Jeffrey S. Gray, Attorneys

for Appellee

JUDGE DIANA HAGEN authored this Opinion, in which 

JUDGES DAVID N. MORTENSEN and RYAN M. HARRIS concurred.

HAGEN, Judge:

¶1 Mario Brian Quintana appeals his convictions for one 

count of aggravated robbery and one count of robbery.

Specifically, he argues that the State presented insufficient 

evidence to prove (1) his identity as the person who robbed a

hotel at gunpoint (aggravated robbery count), or (2) his use of 

force or fear to take a woman’s car keys to aid his escape 

(robbery count). Because a jury could reasonably find that the 

evidence supported his convictions for both aggravated robbery 

and robbery, we affirm.
State v. Quintana

20180107-CA 2 2019 UT App 139

BACKGROUND1

¶2 An individual brandishing a handgun-style BB gun

entered the lobby of a hotel in Taylorsville, Utah, pointed 

the gun at the front desk receptionist, and yelled at her,

“Give me your fucking money.” The robber was wearing a 

black mask up to his nose, black and white gloves, white and 

red shoes, and a zippered hoodie with a Batman costume design 

and fabric ears on the hood. The receptionist immediately ran 

out of the building through an employee lunchroom behind the 

lobby.

¶3 The robber jumped over the front desk, entered a back 

room, and took the receptionist’s handbag. Returning to the 

front desk with the handbag, the robber set the BB gun on the 

counter and emptied the contents of the cash register drawer

onto the floor and into the handbag. He then exited through the 

front door of the lobby, leaving the gun behind.

¶4 From the side of the building, the receptionist observed 

the robber run out of the hotel in the direction of a nearby coffee 

shop. Moments later, the receptionist returned to the front desk

called 911.

¶5 After receiving a dispatch call that someone in a black 

jacket and black pants had robbed the hotel, law enforcement

officers arrived on scene and began to search the area for the 

robber. As one officer searched the area surrounding the hotel,

he was directed to a blond woman walking nearby whom

bystanders had observed running across the street with the 

 

1. “On appeal, we review the record facts in a light most 

favorable to the jury’s verdict and recite the facts accordingly.

We present conflicting evidence only as necessary to understand 

issues raised on appeal.” State v. Prater, 2017 UT 13, ¶ 3 n.1, 392 

P.3d 398 (quotation simplified).
State v. Quintana

20180107-CA 3 2019 UT App 139

robber. When asked about the robber’s whereabouts, the woman 

directed law enforcement toward a nearby coffee shop.

¶6 When the uniformed officer arrived at the coffee shop, an 

employee directed him to an alleyway next to the coffee shop. 

According to the coffee shop employee, near the time of the 

robbery, customers in the drive-thru line were honking their 

horns and motioning toward someone running past them

toward the alleyway.

¶7 In the alleyway, the officer found a man—later identified 

as Quintana—lying on the ground behind a barricade near a 

dumpster. The man jumped up as the officer approached. The 

officer ordered him to stop and get back on the ground, but 

Quintana refused and ran. The officer pursued him over a 

retaining wall, past a bank, and into a grocery store parking lot.

¶8 In the grocery store parking lot, multiple law enforcement 

officers observed Quintana run toward two women and a child. 

As Quintana approached the women and child, multiple 

uniformed and plainclothes officers continued to pursue 

Quintana with weapons drawn, ordering him to stop. One of the 

officers then observed Quintana shouting at the women, 

grabbing at something in one woman’s hands or catching 

something the woman had tossed to him, and then apparently 

hiding behind the woman from whom he had taken the item. 

Concerned that the woman who tossed the item looked “very 

scared” and that Quintana was trying to take control of the 

woman’s vehicle and escape, the officer attempted to block 

Quintana with his patrol vehicle. Quintana then ran into the 

grocery store where he was apprehended with the assistance of a 

taser.

¶9 Quintana was placed under arrest and provided a name

to law enforcement that did not match his date of birth. At the 

time of his arrest, Quintana was wearing a dark hooded 

pullover, some jeans that “were kind of a little bit lighter in the 
State v. Quintana

20180107-CA 4 2019 UT App 139

front but dark in the back,” and shoes that were white and black 

with a distinct red tread. He was not wearing gloves.

¶10 After he was advised of his rights, Quintana admitted that 

he was a guest of the hotel before the robbery, that he went 

downstairs from his room and told the receptionist, “Give me 

your fucking money,” and that the blond woman with whom the 

police had spoken outside of the hotel after the robbery was 

supposed to be his getaway driver. Quintana also confessed that 

when he saw a patrol vehicle, he ran toward the grocery store 

and demanded that a woman in the parking lot give him her 

keys, which she threw to him, and that he wanted to use her 

vehicle to outrun the police.

¶11 After the interview, a detective observed that Quintana 

left a glove behind in the interrogation room that appeared to 

match the gloves observed on the security footage of the 

robbery. An officer also discovered what was identified by the 

receptionist as her handbag hidden behind the dumpster in the 

alleyway where Quintana was hiding. The handbag contained a 

similar amount of cash as had been taken from the hotel.

¶12 The State charged Quintana with aggravated robbery, 

robbery, failure to stop at the command of a law enforcement 

officer, and providing false information to a peace officer. The 

case proceeded to trial at which the two women from the

grocery store parking lot testified. They both identified Quintana 

as the man they observed running “straight toward” them in the 

parking lot as the police followed and shouted at him to stop. 

One of the women testified that when they saw Quintana 

running toward them, they started to walk away from their 

vehicle because “he was coming toward [them] and [they] were 

getting really scared that he would come right to [them], so 

[they] needed to get to safety.” Quintana continued to run 

straight to them. He yelled at one of the women to give him her 

keys, which she then threw to him from five to ten feet away. 
State v. Quintana

20180107-CA 5 2019 UT App 139

She testified that she felt like she had to give him her keys 

because she was scared for her life.

¶13 The other woman similarly testified that Quintana ran up 

to them and shouted. He yelled at her first to give him her keys,

and when she told him she did not have any, he turned to her 

sister who tossed him the keys. She also testified that once he 

had the keys, Quintana stood right behind her sister. At that 

point, because she had seen Quintana running from the direction 

of a bank with police in pursuit with firearms drawn, she 

believed that Quintana had “a weapon on him” and was going 

to use her sister as a human shield or take her sister as a hostage.

¶14 None of the State’s witnesses, apart from the receptionist, 

testified at trial to observing Quintana wearing a black Batman 

hoodie with black fabric ears on the hood during the course of 

his pursuit by law enforcement. The BB gun recovered at the 

scene was admitted at trial, but was not tested for DNA or 

fingerprints because the robber had worn gloves.

¶15 After the State rested, Quintana moved for a directed 

verdict on the aggravated robbery and robbery charges. The 

district court denied Quintana’s motion, and he was convicted as 

charged. Quintana appeals his convictions for aggravated 

robbery and robbery.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶16 Quintana appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the 

evidence to support his convictions for aggravated robbery of 

the hotel and robbery of the woman in the parking lot. “When 

reviewing a jury verdict on an insufficiency of the evidence 

argument, we view the evidence and all inferences drawn 

therefrom in a light most favorable to the verdict.” State v. Heaps,

2000 UT 5, ¶ 19, 999 P.2d 565. And we will reverse the “verdict 

only when, after viewing the evidence and all inferences drawn 

therefrom in a light most favorable to the verdict, we find that 
State v. Quintana

20180107-CA 6 2019 UT App 139

the evidence to support the verdict was completely lacking or 

was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly 

unreasonable and unjust.” Id. (quotation simplified). “So long as 

some evidence and reasonable inferences support the jury’s 

findings, we will not disturb them.” Id.

ANALYSIS

¶17 Quintana argues that the district court erred in denying 

his motion for a directed verdict on both robbery charges. First, 

Quintana argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to 

prove that he was adequately identified as the individual who 

robbed the hotel to support his aggravated robbery conviction. 

Second, Quintana argues that the State presented insufficient 

evidence to prove that he took the keys from the woman in the 

grocery store parking lot by means of force or fear to support his 

robbery conviction. We address each conviction in turn.

I. Aggravated Robbery of the Hotel

¶18 In contesting his conviction for aggravated robbery,

Quintana challenges only whether there was sufficient evidence

of identity. Quintana argues that the State failed to prove that he 

was the individual who robbed the hotel because he was not 

identified by the receptionist after the robbery and he was not 

wearing the hoodie with ears at the time of his arrest and claims 

he did not have time to change his clothing. But the State 

presented other evidence identifying Quintana as the robber

sufficient to allow a jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable 

doubt.

¶19 Most significantly, the State presented direct evidence 

identifying Quintana as the robber when it played the recording 

of Quintana’s confession. In the recording, Quintana admits that 

he told the receptionist, “Give me your fucking money,” and 

that he robbed the hotel front desk.
State v. Quintana

20180107-CA 7 2019 UT App 139

¶20 The State also presented considerable circumstantial 

evidence identifying Quintana as the robber. See State v. 

Cowlishaw, 2017 UT App 181, ¶ 13, 405 P.3d 885 (stating that 

“identification can be inferred from circumstantial evidence” 

and “direct, in-court identification is not required” (quotation 

simplified)). For example, the State presented testimony that 

after fleeing the hotel lobby, the robber ran toward the nearby 

coffee shop and moments later a coffee shop employee observed 

a disturbance in the coffee shop’s drive-thru area, where people 

in their vehicles were honking their horns and motioning at

someone running toward the alleyway. A law enforcement 

officer then discovered Quintana in the coffee shop alleyway, 

and Quintana fled when the officer ordered him to the ground. 

Another law enforcement officer later found the receptionist’s 

handbag containing the stolen hotel cash hidden in the same 

alleyway. In addition, although the State did not present 

evidence that Quintana was wearing a hoodie with ears when he 

exited the hotel lobby, Quintana was wearing white sneakers 

with red markings at the time of his arrest. The receptionist 

described the robber as wearing shoes similar to those worn by 

Quintana, and the security footage from the hotel confirmed this 

description.

¶21 In light of this evidence, along with Quintana’s own 

admission that he robbed the hotel front desk, we cannot say 

that “reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable 

doubt” that Quintana was the individual who robbed the hotel 

front desk. See State v. Shumway, 2002 UT 124, ¶ 15, 63 P.3d 94. 

Therefore, the evidence supporting Quintana’s aggravated 

robbery conviction was sufficient.

II. Robbery in the Parking Lot 

¶22 Quintana also argues that there was insufficient evidence 

to support his robbery conviction because the State’s evidence 

did not prove that he used force or fear to obtain the keys from 

the woman in the grocery store parking lot. Specifically, 
State v. Quintana

20180107-CA 8 2019 UT App 139

Quintana contends that the State failed to present evidence that 

Quintana’s actions—running up to the woman as she and her 

sister and the child were walking to their car and demanding her

car keys—would have caused an objectively reasonable person 

to hand over the keys out of fear that he would use immediate 

force against her. In making this argument, Quintana conflates 

two separate subsections of the robbery statute.

¶23 Under Utah law, a person commits the crime of robbery if 

he either

(a) unlawfully and intentionally takes or attempts 

to take personal property in the possession of 

another from his person, or immediate presence, 

against his will, by means of force or fear, and with 

a purpose or intent to deprive the person 

permanently or temporarily of the personal 

property; or

(b) the person intentionally or knowingly uses 

force or fear of immediate force against another in 

the course of committing a theft or wrongful 

appropriation.

Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-301(1)(a)–(b) (LexisNexis 2018). With the 

acknowledgement that he may have been convicted under either 

subsection (1)(a) or (1)(b), Quintana asks this court to read 

subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) together and interpret “fear” as it is 

used in (1)(a) to mean “fear of immediate force” as set forth in 

(1)(b). In other words, he contends that the State was required to 

prove that he took the keys by use of “fear of immediate force.”

¶24 Absent an ambiguity in the statute, which Quintana has 

not argued, “we presume that the legislature used each word 

advisedly, . . . thereby presuming all omissions to be 

purposeful.” See Bagley v. Bagley, 2016 UT 48, ¶ 10, 387 P.3d 1000 

(quotation simplified). We therefore decline to read the 
State v. Quintana

20180107-CA 9 2019 UT App 139

requirement “of immediate force” into the “fear” element of 

subsection (1)(a). Instead, under subsection (1)(a), the jury need 

find beyond a reasonable doubt only that Quintana

accomplished the intentional taking by causing the victim to act 

out of fear, regardless of whether the victim’s fear was the fear of 

immediate force.

¶25 The State presented substantial evidence that Quintana’s 

actions intentionally and unlawfully caused the woman in the 

parking lot to surrender her car keys out of fear. At trial, the 

woman who tossed her keys to Quintana testified that she did so 

because she feared for her life. And the woman’s subjective fear 

was objectively reasonable based on the surrounding 

circumstances, which Quintana used to his advantage to 

accomplish the robbery. See People v. Morehead, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 

680, 689 (Ct. App. 2011) (assessing whether a victim’s subjective 

fear was “objectively reasonable” in applying California’s 

similarly worded robbery statute); see also State v. Ireland, 2005 

UT App 209, ¶ 12, 113 P.3d 1028 (considering whether objective 

evidence supported the victim’s reasonable belief that a robber 

threatened the use of a dangerous weapon in applying Utah’s 

aggravated robbery statute). At the time he demanded her keys, 

Quintana was running from the direction of a local bank while 

pursued by multiple uniformed law enforcement officers with 

weapons drawn ordering him to stop. Quintana admitted that he 

knew the police were in pursuit and that he intended to take the 

woman’s car to aid his escape. Quintana appeared to target the 

women and child by running straight toward them, even after

they tried to avoid his path and get to safety. He shouted at the 

women, demanding their keys. It also appeared to the women 

and to the officers that Quintana was either attempting to hide 

behind one of the women or take her hostage. The objective 

circumstances would lead a reasonable person to conclude that 

Quintana was likely armed and dangerous and desperate to 

escape. In light of this evidence, a reasonable jury could find that 

Quintana accomplished the taking by means of fear.
State v. Quintana

20180107-CA 10 2019 UT App 139

CONCLUSION

¶26 The State presented sufficient evidence to prove that 

Quintana was the individual who robbed the hotel and that he 

intentionally and unlawfully took the woman’s car keys against 

her will by means of fear. Accordingly, we affirm his convictions 

for aggravated robbery and robbery.