Court Opinion

ID: 9788876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:21:31.297174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:16.958734
License: Public Domain

Judge NIETO
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion in part III. In all other respects, I concur.
In part III, the majority concludes that the information charging two counts of aggravated robbery, both arising out of the incident *23on September 18, 1997, was unconstitutionally muitiplicitous, and thus violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. I disagree with this conclusion.
I.
Multiplicity is the charging of the same offense in multiple counts. Such a practice violates the prohibition against double jeopardy because it results in multiple punishments for the same act. However, several counts arising from a single transaction are not multiplicitous if each count is a distinct offense requiring proof of different elements. People v. Heller, 698 P.2d 1357 (Colo.App.1984), rev'd on other grounds, 712 P.2d 1023 (Colo.1986). If each count requires proof of a separate and distinct victim, then each count requires proof of a different element. People v. Wieckert, 191 Colo. 511, 554 P.2d 688 (1976), overruled on other grounds, Villafranca v. People, 194 Colo. 472, 573 P.2d 540 (1978). In Wieckert, the defendant fired several gun shots at a group of people, and he was convicted of four separate offenses arising from this single incident. The supreme court held:
A defendant who commits an act of violence with the intent to place more than one person in fear of serious bodily injury or who recklessly creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to more than one person may be found guilty of multiple offenses under the same criminal statute. Moreover, this court has adhered to the traditional test for defining whether the same act or transaction constitutes multiple distinct crimes: "[The test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."
People v. Wieckert, supra, 191 Colo. at 514, 554 P.2d at 690 (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed.306 (1932)).
Therefore, if the separate robbery counts arise from the same transaction, but each requires proof of a different element, ie, a separate victim, they are distinct offenses and are not multiplicitous. "[When multiple convictions arise from crimes committed upon different victims, the evidence is not identical." People v. Grant, 30 P.3d 667 (Colo.App.2000). Here, in the first robbery, money was taken from the presence of two victims. Therefore, each count was supported by proof of a different element, i.e., the identity of the victim. Therefore, the separate sentences on each count did not constitute multiple punishment for the same conduct. See People v. Montanez, 944 P.2d 529 (Colo.App.1996), rev'd on other grounds, 966 P.2d 1035 (Colo.1998); see also Annot., Single Act Affecting Multiple Victims as Constituting Multiple Assaults or Homicides, 8 AL.RAth 960 (1981l)(many courts have found a single gunshot to support separate crimes against each person affected).
IL
The crux of the majority's analysis is their conclusion that only one robbery can be committed if there is only one taking of property from a single entity. This analysis necessarily turns on the conclusion that robbery is a crime against property. The majority references three other factors in their analysis, but the analysis of the issue in the line of cases they rely on is nonetheless dependent on the view that robbery is an aggravated form of theft and thus, a crime against property. The other factors merely serve to explain the conclusion that the gravamen of robbery is the taking of property from another. When the robbery statutes are viewed from this perspective, the ownership of the property that was taken becomes the focus of the inquiry, and this leads to the conclusion that, if there was only one taking, there can be only one robbery.
The contrary line of authority cited by the majority concludes that robbery is a crime against a person. These cases consider robbery to be an assaultive crime and therefore focus the inquiry on the persons from whom the property was taken. This focus leads to a conclusion that multiple robberies are committed if the force used to effect the taking is directed toward multiple victims, each of whom has some control over the property.
Statutes are to be construed and applied to give effect to the intent of the General As*24sembly. State v. Nieto, 993 P.2d 493 (Colo.2000). One factor that indicates the intent of the General Assembly is the wrong the statute is intended to prohibit and punish. See Civil Service Commission v. Pinder, 812 P.2d 645, 648 (Colo.1991)(A "primary task in interpreting a statute is to give it a construction and interpretation that will render it effective in accomplishing the purpose for which it was enacted."); see also Hoffman v. Hoffman, 872 P.2d 1367, 1369 (Colo.App.1994)(Statutory interpretation requires the court to consider factors "such as the nature of the problem addressed by the legislation."). The distinction between a crime against persons and a crime against property is important because it determines which prohibited act is the evil the statute seeks to prohibit and punish, i.e., the gravamen of the statute.
The supreme court has twice stated the gravamen of Colorado's robbery statutes:
The kind and value of property taken in a robbery prosecution is immaterial. The gravamen of the offense is the manner of the taking.
People v. Marquez, 692 P.2d 1089, 1097 (Colo.1984) (citation omitted).
The gravamen of robbery is the application of physical force or intimidation against the victim at any time during the course of a transaction culminating in the taking of property from the victim's person or presence.
People v. Bartowsheski, 661 P.2d 235, 244 (Colo.1983).
Thus, the robbery statutes, §§ 18-4-301 and 18-4-302, C.R.9S.2000, seek to protect victims from the threats and violence associated with the manner of taking. In contrast, wrongs related to the value of the property taken are addressed in the theft statute, § 18-4401, C.R.S.2000. In my view, the supreme court's holdings in Bartowsheski and Marques lead to the conclusion that robbery and aggravated robbery are crimes against persons.
As the majority points out, the robbery statutes, §§ 18-4-301 and 18-4-802, are codified in an article entitled "Offenses Against Property," but that title is not conclusive. See Cooper v. First Interstate Bank, 756 P.2d 1017 (Colo.App.1988). The statutes enacted by the General Assembly are arranged into titles, articles, and sections by the revisor of statutes. Section 2-5-101, C.R.S.2000. The arrangement of titles and articles and the section headings are not part of the legislative text, and "no implication or presumption of a legislative construction is to be drawn therefrom." Section 2-5-118(4), C.R.8.2000; but see Cooper v. First Interstate Bank, su-pro (holding that the title of a statute may be used as an aid in construing the statute, but it is not dispositive).
Accordingly, since the purpose of the robbery statutes is to protect persons, multiple crimes are committed if multiple persons are victimized in a single transaction. This view of the robbery statutes does not make them so broad that a prosecutor has unfettered discretion to include as a victim everyone who happens to be in the vicinity when a robbery occurs. The statutes define and limit who can be considered the victim of a robbery.
One of the elements of aggravated robbery is that something of value must be taken from "the person or presence of another." Sections 18-4-801 and 184-802. The term "presence of another," as used in the robbery statutes, is defined as follows:
[Plroperty is taken from the "presence of another" when it is so within the victim's reach, inspection or observation that he or she would be able to retain control over the property but for the force, threats, or intimidation directed by the perpetrator against the victim.
People v. Bartowsheski, supra, 661 P.2d at 244. The term is further limited by the requirement that the person from whose presence the property is taken "must be exercising, or have the right to exercise, control over the article taken." People v. Benton, 829 P.2d 451, 453 (Colo.App.1991).
This construction of the statutes gives further assurance that separate evidence will be required to support each count because each victim's control or right to control the property taken will depend on evidence that relates to that victim.
*25TIL
The majority also concludes "that disproportionate sentencing is a distinct possibility" because consecutive sentences are mandatory in this case where defendant was convicted of two crimes of violence arising out of the same incident. See § 16-11-309(1)(a), C.R.9.2000; People v. Martinez, 1 P.3d 192 (Colo.App.1999). However, § 16-11-309(1)(a) also provides a means for the sentencing court to modify sentences for violent crimes in unusual and extenuating cireumstances. Although the modified sentences still must be served consecutively, the sentences may be modified below the statutory range and may even include a probationary sentence if the defendant is otherwise eligible. People v. Byrum, 784 P.2d 817 (Colo.App.1989). This provision allows the sentencing court great latitude to modify sentences if the circumstances justify it. Therefore, I conclude that the violent crime statute allows the sentencing court sufficient discretion to modify the mandatory sentencing so that disproportionate sentences may be avoided.
Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment and sentence on all the counts of aggravated robbery.