Opinion ID: 2788510
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application to Mr. Marquez’s Convictions

Text: In his § 2254 petition, Mr. Marquez argues the evidence adduced at his Colorado trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions for third-degree theft and possession with intent to distribute. We address each conviction in turn. -4-
Under Colorado law in effect at the time of Mr. Marquez’s conviction, “[a] person commits theft when he knowingly obtains or exercises control over anything of value of another without authorization, or by . . . deception, and . . . [i]ntends to deprive the other person permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-401(1)(a) (2007); see also People v. Marquez, No. 06CA1701, at 2-3 (Colo. App. Mar. 18, 2010) (unpublished) (quoting Colorado Revised Statutes § 18-4-401(1)(a)). The penalty provision in effect at the time classified the theft of property worth $15,000 or more as a class three felony. Thus, Colorado was required to demonstrate that Mr. Marquez knowingly obtained control of the victim’s property—valued at $15,000 or more—by deception and intended to permanently deprive the victim of that property. Mr. Marquez argues the evidence was insufficient to convict him because, on one occasion, Mr. Marquez returned to Mr. Collins money Mr. Marquez had briefly possessed. According to Mr. Marquez, his return of the money proves he did not intend to permanently deprive Mr. Collins of the property. We disagree. Mr. Marquez’s argument ignores the substantial evidence introduced at trial that demonstrated his intent to deprive Mr. Collins of substantial sums of money through deception. It is undisputed that Mr. Collins withdrew approximately $70,000 in cash from his bank account over a three-month period. He told bank employees and the police on several occasions that he was withdrawing the cash to give to a friend so the friend could pay his mother’s hospital bills. Mr. Collins identified Mr. Marquez as the friend to whom -5- he had given all of the money. Bank employees testified that Mr. Marquez accompanied Mr. Collins to the bank on one occasion, at which time Mr. Marquez claimed, falsely, that Mr. Collins was his father. And though Mr. Marquez did return Mr. Collins’s money on that occasion, he did so only after bank employees informed Mr. Marquez that they had called the police and ordered him to return the money. Finally, Mr. Marquez’s mother testified at trial that she had never been hospitalized and that Mr. Marquez had never given her any money for medical bills.3 Based on these facts, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined Mr. Marquez’s conviction for theft was supported by sufficient evidence. And we cannot say on this record that “no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 324. The jury could reasonably infer from the testimony adduced at trial that Mr. Marquez lied to Mr. Collins—who was a vulnerable adult—in order to induce him to withdraw over $70,000 and to give that money permanently to 3 Mr. Marquez also argues Mr. Collins’s testimony was unreliable because Mr. Collins was unable to identify Mr. Marquez in court and was confused as to why he had withdrawn such substantial amounts. But the jury was aware of Mr. Collins’s inability to identify Mr. Marquez and of his confusion on the stand. And Mr. Collins had previously identified Mr. Marquez as the friend to whom he had given the money. Moreover, bank employees identified Mr. Marquez as the man who had accompanied Mr. Collins to the bank on a previous occasion. The jury was entitled to rely on Mr. Collins’s earlier identification, as well as the identification made by the bank employees. Additionally, Mr. Collins’s confusion on the stand likely emphasized for the jury his vulnerable status. Rather than undermining the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict Mr. Marquez, Mr. Collins’s vulnerability merely highlighted Mr. Collins’s mental health issues, which caused Mr. Marquez’s scheme to be successful. -6- Mr. Marquez. Because Mr. Marquez has not met his burden of demonstrating the Colorado court’s holding was an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s precedent in Jackson, we deny Mr. Marquez’s request for a COA on this claim. 2. Mr. Marquez’s Possession with Intent to Distribute Conviction In Colorado, “it is unlawful for any person knowingly to . . . possess, or to possess with intent to . . . distribute a controlled substance.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-18-405(1)(a) (2007). Moreover, defendants are subject to mandatory minimum sentences for possession of cocaine weighing “[a]t least twenty-five grams . . . but less than four hundred fifty grams.” Id. § 18-18-405(2)(a)(I)(A), (3)(a)(I); id. § 18-18-204(2)(a)(IV) (defining cocaine as a schedule II controlled substance under Colorado law). After law enforcement officers obtained a warrant for Mr. Marquez’s arrest, they located him outside his girlfriend’s apartment. As officers approached the apartment, they spotted Mr. Marquez wearing distinctive black pants with red stripes. Upon seeing the officers, Mr. Marquez ran back inside the apartment, where he changed his pants. He then attempted to flee, but was quickly apprehended. An investigator searched the apartment and found the black and red pants on the floor of a bedroom. Upon searching the pockets of the pants, the investigator found more than 195 grams of crack cocaine and almost $9,000 in cash. Officers also discovered a digital scale and other drug paraphernalia in the apartment. Mr. Marquez argues this evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on the “possession” element and the “intent to distribute” element. Specifically, Mr. Marquez -7- argues the government cannot show he possessed the drugs found in the pants because he was not wearing the pants at the time the drugs were discovered and other adults in the apartment had access to the pants. Further, Mr. Marquez argues there was no evidence of an intent to distribute the cocaine. To prove the “possession” element of possession with intent to distribute in Colorado, the prosecution must demonstrate the defendant “had knowledge that he was in possession of a narcotic drug and that he knowingly intended to possess the drug.” People v. Baca, 109 P.3d 1005, 1007 (Colo. App. 2004). But the prosecution is allowed to prove these elements by circumstantial evidence. People v. Robinson, 226 P.3d 1145, 1154 (Colo. App. 2009). “The drug need not be found on the person of the defendant, as long as it is found in a place under his or her dominion and control.” Id. But when drugs are found in circumstances in which multiple people could be possible possessors, a jury may not infer the defendant possessed the drugs “unless there are statements or other circumstances tending to buttress the inference of possession.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, officers observed Mr. Marquez wearing distinctive black pants with red stripes. Mr. Marquez ran when he saw the officers approaching and changed into different pants. Officers discovered 195 grams of crack cocaine and nearly $9,000 in cash in the pocket of the pants Mr. Marquez was observed wearing only moments prior to the search. Officers also discovered a digital scale and drug paraphernalia in the apartment. From this evidence the jury could reasonably infer Mr. Marquez had knowledge of the -8- crack cocaine and cash in his pockets and intended to evade discovery of those items by changing his pants. These circumstances tend “to buttress the inference of possession” sufficiently to allow the jury to infer Mr. Marquez—and not one of the other adults in the apartment—possessed the 195 grams of cocaine. As to the “intent to distribute” element, Colorado courts have established a variety of factors—including the quantity of narcotics found, whether the defendant had substantial amounts of cash, and whether other drug paraphernalia were present—that indicate an intent to distribute. See People v. Atencio, 140 P.3d 73, 76 (Colo. App. 2005) (holding that 109 grams of packaged cocaine and methamphetamine sufficient to show intent to distribute); People v. Trusty, 53 P.3d 668, 672, 678 (Colo. App. 2001) (holding that presence of 50–100 rocks of crack cocaine, $600 in cash, and a pager were sufficient to demonstrate intent to distribute). In this case, officers found a substantial amount of drugs and cash in Mr. Marquez’s pants. Moreover, a digital scale and other drug paraphernalia were found in the apartment. On these facts and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we cannot say that no reasonable jury could conclude Mr. Marquez possessed the cocaine with intent to distribute. Accordingly, we deny Mr. Marquez’s request for a COA on this claim. To conclude, Mr. Marquez has not demonstrated the Colorado Court of Appeals unreasonably applied the Supreme Court’s precedent in Jackson. The Colorado court applied the proper legal standard and, based on its factual findings, concluded the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction. We presume these factual findings are -9- correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Mr. Marquez has not made such a showing. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, Mr. Marquez has failed to demonstrate his entitlement to habeas relief. We DENY Mr. Marquez’s request for COA and DISMISS this appeal. Finally, we GRANT Mr. Marquez’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Carolyn B. McHugh