State v. Sisneros
| Decision Date | 09 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 20181002-CA,20181002-CA |
| Citation | 464 P.3d 180 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Landon Cole SISNEROS, Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Emily Adams and Cherise M. Bacalski, Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Salt Lake City, and Lindsey L. Wheeler, Attorneys for Appellee
Opinion
¶1 Appellant Landon Cole Sisneros challenges his conviction for aggravated robbery, arguing that the district court should have dismissed the charge as part of a single criminal episode because a different district court had already convicted him for theft by receiving stolen property arising from the same incident. We agree and vacate Sisneros's conviction for aggravated robbery.
¶2 In August 2017, a seller (Son) advertised his car for sale in North Ogden, located in Weber County. After Son posted the advertisement, Sisneros began "blowing up [Son's] phone to come and test drive it right then," telling Son he "had the money and wanted to buy a car right then." Son explained that he was out of town and could not show him the car that day, but Sisneros persisted, so Son arranged for his father (Father) to show Sisneros the car and take him on a test drive.
¶3 At the conclusion of the test drive, both Sisneros and Father exited the car, but Sisneros left the car running with the driver's door open. Father and Sisneros walked around to the front of the car and Father heard Sisneros talking "on his phone saying how much he wanted the car." "[T]he next thing [Father knew, Sisneros] jumped back in the car and proceeded to leave." Father "ran out in the road," "got on the hood," and "yelled at him ‘don't do it.’ " Father then got off the hood and stood in front of the car and Sisneros "rev-ed it up and bumped [Father]," "leaving some bruising on [his] knee." At this point, Father got out of the way and let Sisneros leave because he decided it was not "worth it." Father subsequently called the North Ogden Police Department, which broadcast an alert that Son's car had been stolen "so that officers throughout any city or county [could] be on the lookout for the vehicle." As soon as Father told him what had happened, Son also posted notices on social media that his car had been stolen.
¶4 Sisneros drove the car over 70 miles, through Weber, Davis, and Salt Lake counties, to his home in Utah County, where he met up with friends "and told them to look at his new car." Fortuitously, one of these friends had seen Son's social media post and recognized Sisneros's "new car" as the one that had been stolen. This friend then called the local police. The following day, officers from the Orem Police Department in Utah County found Son's car abandoned in Orem, and they later located and arrested Sisneros.
¶5 In the probable cause statement justifying Sisneros's arrest in Utah County, the Orem police officer who arrested Sisneros stated that Sisneros confessed that he had stolen the car and that while "talking to [Father in front of the car] he noticed the door was open, jumped in and drove away ... [and Father] attempted to grab the door but was unable to because the door was locked." Sisneros also told the officer "that he had thrown the keys out the window on 800 North near the overpass." The police recovered the keys at that location.
¶6 On August 16, 2017, the Utah County Attorney's Office charged Sisneros in fourth district court with theft by receiving stolen property and obstruction of justice. The probable cause statement on the charging document detailed, among other things, that Sisneros "admitted that he had gone to North Ogden to test drive a car that was for sale, and that when the test drive was over, he jumped back in the car and drove away." Sisneros made his initial appearance the next day.
¶7 Five days later, on August 22, the Weber County Attorney's Office charged Sisneros in second district court with aggravated robbery for "intentionally tak[ing] or attempt[ing] to take personal property in the possession [of Father] from his ... person ... against his ... will, by means of force or fear, and with a purpose or intent to deprive [Father] permanently or temporarily of the personal property."
¶9 Following this ruling, Sisneros entered into a conditional plea agreement in which he pled guilty to the aggravated robbery charge but reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss. See generally Utah R. Crim. P. 11(j). Sisneros now exercises that right.
¶10 Sisneros raises one issue on appeal. He contends that the second district court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss the aggravated robbery charge under Utah Code section 76-1-403. "A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss presents a question of law, which we review for correctness." State v. Selzer , 2013 UT App 3, ¶ 14, 294 P.3d 617 (quotation simplified).
¶11 "The Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution insulates a defendant from multiple prosecutions or multiple sentences for the same offense." State v. Ririe , 2015 UT 37, ¶ 6, 345 P.3d 1261. Utah Code section 76-1-403, however, "takes the matter a step further" and "adopts a species of res judicata or claim preclusion for criminal cases—barring prosecutions for different offenses committed as part of a single criminal episode and otherwise meeting the terms of the statute." Id . (emphasis in original). Section 403(1) states, in relevant part, as follows:
Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-403(1) (LexisNexis 2017). Section 402(2), in turn, provides:
Id. § 76-1-402(2). Finally, a single criminal episode is defined as "all conduct which is closely related in time and is incident to an attempt or an accomplishment of a single criminal objective." Id. § 76-1-401.
¶12 Overall, this statutory scheme "impose[s] a one-bite-at-the-apple rule for multiple offenses arising out of a single criminal episode," Ririe , 2015 UT 37, ¶ 8, 345 P.3d 1261, the purpose of which is "(1) to protect a defendant from the governmental harassment of being subjected to successive trials for offenses stemming from the same criminal episode; and (2) to ensure finality without unduly burdening the judicial process by repetitious litigation," State v. Selzer , 2013 UT App 3, ¶ 22, 294 P.3d 617 (quotation simplified).
¶13 In summary, for Sisneros to prevail, he must prove that four conditions are satisfied: (1) the prior charge and the subsequent charge arose from "a single criminal episode," Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-401 ; (2) the prior charge and subsequent charge were "within the jurisdiction of a single court," id. § 76-1-402(2)(a); (3) at the time of his arraignment on the prior charge, the prosecuting attorney knew of the other potential charge, id. § 76-1-402(2)(b); and (4) under the facts of this case, the prior charge resulted in a conviction, id. § 76-1-403(1)(b)(ii).
¶14 In the present case, it is undisputed that Sisneros was convicted of the prior charge—theft by receiving—as a result of his plea in fourth district court, and thus the final condition has been met. We now consider the first three conditions.
¶15 For two or more offenses to be considered part of a single criminal episode, they must be (1) "closely related in time" and (2) "incident to an attempt or an accomplishment of a single criminal objective." Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-401 (LexisNexis 2017). In determining whether multiple offenses were part of a single criminal episode, courts undertake a "totality of the circumstances" analysis, viewing the "facts and circumstances ... objectively." State v. Strader , 902 P.2d 638, 642 (Utah Ct. App. 1995).
¶16 The State argues that the two offenses "were not close in time" because Sisneros "committed aggravated robbery in Weber County" and "then committed his theft by receiving stolen property in Utah County when he drove 74...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sisneros
...County charge of aggravated robbery was, in fact, barred by the Single Criminal Episode Statute. State v. Sisneros , 2020 UT App 60, ¶ 1, 464 P.3d 180. The State appealed, and we granted certiorari to consider the merits of the State's position.STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶10 On certiorari, "we revi......
-
State v. Sisneros
...County charge of aggravated robbery was, in fact, barred by the Single Criminal Episode Statute. State v. Sisneros, 2020 UT App 60, ¶ 1, 464 P.3d 180. State appealed, and we granted certiorari to consider the merits of the State's position. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶10 On certiorari, "we review t......