People v. Barnett
| Decision Date | 03 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals No. 19CA1056 |
| Citation | 490 P.3d 1000 |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Manuel BARNETT, Defendant-Appellant. |
Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Grant R. Fevurly, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Robert P. Borquez, Alternate Defense Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant
Opinion by JUDGE JOHNSON
¶ 1 This case presents an issue of first impression: Can a defendant who presents false documentation to an employee of a nonprofit organization that handles court-ordered pretrial supervision services be guilty of attempting to influence a public servant? We determine that, based on the language in section 18-8-306, C.R.S. 2020, an employee of ComCor, Inc. (ComCor), is in this situation a "public servant." We arrive at this conclusion because the ComCor employee is a person who performs a government function.
¶ 2 As a result, because defendant Matthew Manuel Barnett (Barnett) presented what purported to be an official court document to a ComCor employee to obtain removal of his GPS monitor, the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for attempt to influence a public servant. Thus, we affirm his conviction.
¶ 3 We also reject Barnett's contention that the district court erroneously denied his emergency motion for sentence reduction under Crim. P. 35(b).
¶ 4 Barnett was charged with attempt to influence a public servant under section 18-8-306 and forgery under section 18-5-102(1)(e), C.R.S. 2020. At trial, after the prosecution rested, Barnett moved for judgment of acquittal of both charges. With respect to the attempt to influence a public servant charge, Barnett argued that the prosecution had failed to introduce evidence that ComCor and its employees were public servants acting in a governmental capacity. The district court denied the motion, concluding that ComCor "does satisfy the definition of having their employees considered public servants for purposes of a matter such as this."
¶ 5 The jury convicted Barnett of attempt to influence a public servant but deadlocked on the forgery charge, which the prosecution dismissed at sentencing. The district court sentenced Barnett to eight years in the custody of the Department of Corrections.
¶ 6 During the pendency of this appeal, Barnett filed an emergency motion with the district court under Crim. P. 35(b) requesting a reduction of his sentence to probation due to risks associated with COVID-19. Upon issuance of a limited remand by this court, the district court substantively addressed and denied Barnett's motion.
¶ 7 Barnett contends that, because ComCor is not a governmental body and its employees are not public servants, and because section 18-8-306 does not apply to private institutions, his conviction should be reversed. We disagree.
¶ 8 We review the record de novo "to determine whether the evidence before the jury was sufficient both in quantity and quality to sustain the conviction[ ]." Montes-Rodriguez v. People , 241 P.3d 924, 927 (Colo. 2010) (quoting Dempsey v. People , 117 P.3d 800, 807 (Colo. 2005) ). Under the substantial evidence test, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether it is both "substantial and sufficient" to support a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Dempsey , 117 P.3d at 807.
¶ 9 Whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence that Barnett committed this offense poses a question that is more legal than factual: Do employees of organizations like ComCor constitute "public servants" under section 18-8-306 ? Because Barnett does not largely dispute the evidence, we do not need to weigh the evidence so much as interpret the statute and apply it to the facts established at trial.
¶ 10 We review the issues of statutory interpretation and a statute's application de novo. Montes-Rodriguez , 241 P.3d at 927 ; see also People v. Rowell , 2019 CO 104, ¶ 14, 453 P.3d 1156. We must first consider the plain language of the statute, giving words their usual and ordinary meanings. Roup v. Com. Rsch., LLC , 2015 CO 38, ¶ 8, 349 P.3d 273. Only if the statute is ambiguous do we invoke alternative canons of construction to resolve the uncertainty. People v. Daniels , 240 P.3d 409, 411 (Colo. App. 2009). We must read and consider the statute as a whole to give consistent, sensible, and harmonious effect to all parts. People v. Buerge , 240 P.3d 363, 367 (Colo. App. 2009). We avoid interpretations that would render words superfluous or lead to illogical or absurd results. People v. Null , 233 P.3d 670, 679 (Colo. 2010). Because it is the province of the General Assembly to define criminal conduct, we must determine the meaning of the statute by giving effect to the legislature's intent. People v. Wartena , 2012 COA 12, ¶ 14, 296 P.3d 136.
¶ 11 The offense of attempt to influence a public servant is described in section 18-8-306, in pertinent part, as follows:
Any person who attempts to influence any public servant by means of deceit ... with the intent thereby to alter or affect the public servant's decision, vote, opinion, or action concerning any matter which is to be considered or performed by him or the agency or body of which he is a member, commits a class 4 felony.
(Emphases added.) Section 18-8-306 adopts the meaning of "public servant" as defined in section 18-1-901(3)(o), C.R.S. 2020. See § 18-8-301(4), C.R.S. 2020 ().
¶ 12 That definition states: " ‘Public servant’ means any officer or employee of government, whether elected or appointed, and any person participating as an advisor, consultant, process server, or otherwise in performing a governmental function ," but the term does not include witnesses. § 18-1-901(3)(o) (emphases added).
¶ 13 Barnett's argument that a ComCor employee falls outside the definition of "public servant" focuses on the term "government" in the definition of "public servant," which in turn is defined to include "the United States, any state, county, municipality, or other political unit, any branch, department, agency, or subdivision of any of the foregoing." § 18-1-901(3)(i). As ComCor employees are not employed by "the United States, any state, county, municipality, or other political unit," Barnett reasons, they cannot be considered an "officer or employee of government" under section 18-1-901(3)(o) and therefore do not qualify as "public servants" for the purposes of section 18-8-306.
¶ 14 What Barnett overlooks, however, is that the definition of government also includes "any corporation or other entity established by law to carry out any governmental function ." § 18-1-901(3)(i) (emphasis added). He also ignores the second part of the definition of "public servant," which includes "any person participating as an advisor, consultant, process server, or otherwise in performing a governmental function ." § 18-1-901(3)(o) (emphasis added). The Attorney General focuses on the latter wording of section 18-1-901(3)(o) to argue that the term "public servant" is "expansive" and goes beyond government employees.
¶ 15 The district court likewise relied on the latter portion of this definition in its reasoning to conclude that "public servant includes a person who's acting as an advisor, consultant, and so forth in a government — performing a governmental function." As a result, the district court determined that ComCor and its employees were public servants by virtue of performing governmental functions, such as "advis[ing] and consult[ing] with the court systems" and "doing various testing, monitoring, breath testing, alcohol testing, drug testing, and so forth at the direction of the Courts."
¶ 16 It is true, as Barnett suggests, that no Colorado cases deal with a situation in which a person working for a private entity like ComCor has been construed to be a "public servant" under section 18-8-306. The existing cases have, instead, primarily analyzed positions traditionally viewed as government posts. See, e.g. , People v. Knox , 2019 COA 152, ¶ 23, 467 P.3d 1218 (); People v. Sena , 2016 COA 161, ¶¶ 12-13, 395 P.3d 1148 (same); People v. Montante , 2015 COA 40 ¶¶ 5, 45, 351 P.3d 530 (); People v. Tucker , 232 P.3d 194, 201 (Colo. App. 2009) (); People v. Stanley , 170 P.3d 782, 791 (Colo. App. 2007) ().
¶ 17 But the lack of cases does not indicate a limitation on the statutory definition. Indeed, regardless of whether we focus on the positions of Barnett or the Attorney General, both turn on how a "government function" is defined in connection with who may qualify to be a public servant. The term "government function" is defined to include "any activity which a public servant is legally authorized to undertake on behalf of government ." § 18-1-901(3)(j) (emphasis added). Thus, the real question is whether an entity's employees engaged in the court-ordered supervision of individuals with GPS monitoring perform a "government function."
¶ 18 Courts are responsible for setting the conditions of a defendant's pretrial bond. § 16-4-103(1), C.R.S. 2020 (). Conditions may include, as relevant here, pretrial release services, with the potential for "[e]lectronic or...
To continue reading
Request your trial