Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Sena

Court of Appeals of Colorado, Sixth Division

November 3, 2016

The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Billy Jack Sena, Defendant-Appellant.

         Weld County District Court No. 13CR1668 Honorable Shannon D. Lyons, Judge

         JUDGMENT AFFIRMED

          Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Kevin E. McReynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

          Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, Katherine Brien, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant

          OPINION

          RICHMAN JUDGE

         ¶ 1 Defendant, Billy Jack Sena, appeals the judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of one count of attempt to influence a public servant. We affirm the conviction.

         I. Background

         ¶ 2 According to the prosecution's evidence, defendant was a passenger in his cousin's vehicle when Greeley Police Officer Bridge stopped the vehicle for a traffic infraction. When asked to identify himself by Officer Pfeiler, who had arrived to assist with the stop, defendant provided the name of a relative (Robert Velasquez) and a birth date that was not defendant's. Finding no outstanding warrants for the driver or for Robert Velasquez, the police allowed defendant and his cousin to proceed with a warning.

         ¶ 3 Officer Pfeiler decided to further investigate the passenger because dispatch had reported no record of a person with the given name and date of birth. As he investigated, Officer Pfeiler viewed an enlarged picture of defendant, who shares a last name with the driver. Not long after defendant departed in the vehicle, Officer Pfeiler showed defendant's picture to Officer Bridge, and the officers agreed with certainty that the passenger of the car had been defendant, not "Robert Velasquez." Officer Pfeiler then located an active arrest warrant for defendant issued from an adjacent county.

         ¶ 4 The People charged defendant with one count of attempt to influence a public servant, defined in section 18-8-306, C.R.S. 2016. Section 18-8-306 provides, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny 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 . . . commits a class 4 felony." (Emphasis added.) A jury found defendant guilty of the charge, and the district court sentenced him to 6 months of probation with 90 days in county jail and 100 hours of community service.

         II. Discussion

         ¶ 5 Defendant contends that (1) the prosecution's evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support his conviction for attempt to influence a public servant, and (2) the district court erred by taking judicial notice of his outstanding warrant at trial and improperly instructing the jury on judicial notice. We are not persuaded.

         A. Insufficient Evidence

         ¶ 6 Defendant asserts that there was insufficient evidence to show that (1) Officer Pfeiler is a "public servant, " as contemplated in section 18-8-306; and (2) he intended to alter Officer Pfeiler's actions, because there was no evidence that he knew there was a warrant for his arrest.

         1. Standard of Review

         ¶ 7 Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if the direct and circumstantial evidence, viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could support a rational trier of fact's conclusion that the defendant is guilty of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Clark v. People, 232 P.3d 1287, 1291-92 (Colo. 2010). We give the prosecution the benefit of every reasonable inference which may fairly be drawn from the evidence, and we do not consider vague, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.