Thomas v. People

• Decision Date: 20 December 2021
• Docket Number: Supreme Court Case No. 20SC236
• Parties: Weston Jefferson THOMAS, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

500 P.3d 1095

Weston Jefferson THOMAS, Petitioner,

v.The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.

Supreme Court Case No. 20SC236

Supreme Court of Colorado.

December 20, 2021

Attorneys for Petitioner: Megan A. Ring, Public Defender, Jacob B. McMahon, Deputy Public Defender, Denver, Colorado

Attorneys for Respondent: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Carmen Moraleda, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado

En Banc

JUSTICE SAMOUR delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 This appeal presents a potpourri of issues: (1) At what point was the defendant, Weston Jefferson Thomas, under arrest for purposes of the crime of resisting arrest?; (2) Is bodily injury to an at-risk person (a class 6 felony) a lesser included offense of third degree assault (a class 1 misdemeanor)?;¹ and (3) Was it error for the trial court to adjudicate Thomas a habitual criminal and sentence him accordingly when two of his three prior felony convictions had been reclassified from class 4 and 6 felonies to level 4 drug felonies? Because we disagree with the court of appeals' analysis of each question, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶2 First, we hold that, under the circumstances of this case, when deputies placed Thomas in handcuffs, they applied a level of physical control over him so as to reasonably ensure that he would not leave. Consequently, that's when his arrest was effected for purposes of the crime of resisting arrest. Inasmuch as a person can resist arrest only until the arrest is effected, it was error for the court of appeals to resolve Thomas's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the resisting arrest conviction by relying in part on conduct that followed his handcuffing. On remand, the court of appeals should reconsider Thomas's sufficiency challenge in accordance with this opinion.

¶3 Second, relying on People v. Lowe , 660 P.2d 1261 (Colo. 1983), overruled in part on other grounds by Callis v. People , 692 P.2d 1045 (Colo. 1984), and its progeny, we conclude that Thomas's felony convictions for bodily injury to an at-risk person (hereinafter "bodily injury-AR") and third degree assault of an at-risk person (hereinafter "third degree assault-AR") cannot both stand and must merge. Because both of these convictions are generally grounded in the same statute, and because there was only one victim and only one criminal act, Lowe and its offspring instruct that, absent clear legislative intent, only one of the two felony convictions may remain.² Given our resolution of the issue on this narrow basis, we need not decide whether bodily injury-AR is a lesser included offense of third degree assault or otherwise reach the merits of Thomas's double jeopardy claim under section 18-1-408(5)(a), C.R.S. (2021), and Reyna-Abarca v. People , 2017 CO 15, 390 P.3d 816. Consistent with our merger jurisprudence requiring us to maximize the effect of the jury's verdicts, we remand with instructions to return the case to the trial court at the appropriate time so that it may merge the convictions for bodily injury-AR and third degree assault-AR into a single conviction for bodily injury-AR.

¶4 Finally, expanding on our recent decision in Wells-Yates v. People , 2019 CO 90M, 454 P.3d 191, we clarify that Thomas's past drug possession convictions could not serve as either triggering offenses or predicate offenses for habitual criminal purposes once they were reclassified as level 4 drug felonies.³ Because two of Thomas's three predicate offenses had been so reclassified when he committed the triggering offense, he should not have been adjudicated a habitual criminal or sentenced as such. It follows that the trial court must resentence Thomas on his bodily injury-AR conviction.

I. Facts and Procedural History

¶5 A not-so-neighborly dispute landed Thomas in hot water. It all started when his seventy-eight-year-old landlady visited his trailer and told him that other tenants were complaining about him being loud and disruptive. Thomas didn't take kindly to the visit. He grabbed the landlady by the neck with both hands, slammed her against a parked car, and yelled that she "didn't belong in this world." A good Samaritan came out of his nearby trailer when he heard the ruckus. He saw Thomas's hands around the landlady's neck as he was pinning her against the car and yelling at her. The good Samaritan separated Thomas from the landlady and restrained him until the police arrived.

¶6 As Deputy Montover attempted to handcuff Thomas, Thomas pulled his hands away and started flailing his arms. Deputy Montover enlisted the help of another deputy, and together, they grabbed Thomas's arms and managed to handcuff him. After he was handcuffed, Thomas went limp and refused to walk. As a result, the deputies were forced to carry him approximately twenty feet to their patrol car while navigating the debris littering the surrounding area—broken glass, TVs, microwaves, and other items. Thomas continued to frustrate the deputies' actions as they transported him to their car.

¶7 The People charged Thomas with multiple crimes and sought to have him adjudicated a habitual criminal. A jury found Thomas guilty of: bodily injury-AR (victim seventy years old or older and thus an at-risk person), a class 6 felony; third degree assault, a class 1 misdemeanor; and resisting arrest, a class 2 misdemeanor. Additionally, the jury found that the People proved the sentence-enhancing allegation accompanying the third degree assault charge: that the victim was seventy years old or older and was thus an at-risk person. That finding elevated the underlying conviction from a class 1 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony.

¶8 At a subsequent bench trial, the People established that Thomas had three prior felony convictions. Although two of those convictions had been reclassified by the legislature from class 4 and 6 felonies to level 4 drug felonies, the court nevertheless adjudicated Thomas a habitual criminal. On each felony conviction (for bodily injury-AR and third degree assault-AR), the court imposed a term of six years imprisonment—four times the maximum sentence in the presumptive range. Then, on the misdemeanor conviction (resisting arrest), the court imposed a term of one year in jail. The court ordered Thomas to serve all the sentences concurrently.

¶9 Thomas appealed, and a division of the court of appeals unanimously affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence in a published opinion. People v. Thomas , 2020 COA 19M, ¶ 1, 490 P.3d 569, 572. In the petition for certiorari he subsequently filed in our court, Thomas argued that, contrary to the division's conclusions: (1) he should not have been found guilty of resisting arrest based in part on his conduct after he was handcuffed; (2) bodily injury-AR is a lesser included offense of third degree assault and thus his conviction for bodily injury-AR must merge into his conviction for third degree assault-AR; and (3) his drug possession convictions should not have served as predicate offenses for habitual criminal purposes because they had been reclassified as level 4 drug felonies.⁴ We granted Thomas's petition and now address each of his contentions in turn.

II. Analysis

A. Thomas's Conduct After He Was Handcuffed Cannot Support His Conviction for Resisting Arrest

1. Standard of Review

¶10 A cornerstone of our criminal justice system is "the requirement that the prosecution ... must establish the guilt of the accused by proof beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Kilgore , 2020 CO 6, ¶ 28, 455 P.3d 746, 751 (quoting People v. Hill , 182 Colo. 253, 512 P.2d 257, 258 (1973) ). More specifically, "the prosecution must prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Vidauri , 2021 CO 25, ¶ 10, 486 P.3d 239, 241. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, an appellate court reviews the record de novo to determine whether the evidence presented is sufficient both in quantity and quality to satisfy this burden. People v. Harrison , 2020 CO 57, ¶ 31, 465 P.3d 16, 23. In doing so, however, we "may not serve as a thirteenth juror" by considering whether we "might have reached a different conclusion than the jury." Id. at ¶ 33, 465 P.3d at 23. Nor may we invade the jury's province by second-guessing any findings that are supported by the evidence. Id. Instead, we must "inquire whether the evidence, ‘viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is substantial and sufficient to support a conclusion by a reasonable mind that the defendant is guilty of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " Id. at ¶ 32, 465 P.3d at 23 (quoting People v. Bennett , 183 Colo. 125, 515 P.2d 466, 469 (1973) ). Thus, we are required to "give the prosecution the benefit of every reasonable inference which might be fairly drawn from the evidence." Id. (quoting People v. Perez , 2016 CO 12, ¶ 25, 367 P.3d 695, 701 ).

2. Discussion

¶11 The People charged Thomas with resisting arrest pursuant to section 18-8-103(1)(b), C.R.S. (2021). As such, they had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly prevented or attempted to prevent "a peace officer ... from effecting an arrest" by using any means, other than physical force or violence (or threats to use physical force or violence), "which create[d] a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the peace officer or another." § 18-8-103(1)(b).

¶12 The division concluded that by going limp while being moved to the patrol car, Thomas resisted the deputies’ efforts to put him in the patrol car. Thomas , ¶¶ 19–21, 490 P.3d at 574–75. Hence, determined the division, "it was proper for the jury to consider the evidence of Thomas's conduct after he was handcuffed with regard to the charge of resisting arrest." Id. at ¶ 21, 490 P.3d at 575. Such evidence, in the division's view, included the physical condition of the area, which arguably "created a substantial risk of...