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. Porter

Court of Appeals of Colorado, Fifth Division

May 16, 2019

The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Reginald Marcus Porter, Defendant-Appellant.

          Gilpin County District Court No. 02CR42 Honorable Dennis Hall, Judge

          Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Brenna A. Brackett, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

          Robert P. Borquez, Alternate Defense Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant

          OPINION

          J. JONES JUDGE

          ¶ 1 Defendant, Reginald Marcus Porter, appeals both his adjudication as a habitual offender and the district court's denial of his request for an extended proportionality review of his sentence. (The court instead conducted an abbreviated review and concluded that the sentence doesn't violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.) Specifically, he contends that (1) because the prosecution failed to prove that his prior felony convictions didn't arise from the same criminal episode, the district court erred by adjudicating him a habitual offender; and (2) because his prior convictions occurred when he was a juvenile, the court should have conducted an extended proportionality review. We reject both contentions and affirm the sentence.

         I. Background

         ¶ 2 Defendant has been incarcerated for most of his life. While he was still a juvenile, the People charged him in three Denver cases for two armed robberies (one with a knife and one with a lug wrench) and a sexual assault he committed in August 1988. He agreed to have the cases transferred from juvenile court to Denver District Court, after which he took a global plea deal in which he pleaded guilty to one charge in each case and received concurrent sentences (the longest being sixteen years) to Department of Corrections (DOC) custody.[1]

         ¶ 3 In 2002, just months after being released from DOC custody, defendant robbed and attempted to sexually assault a casino worker. He then fled from the police. A jury found him guilty of first degree burglary, aggravated robbery, attempted sexual assault, theft, and vehicular eluding. The district court adjudicated him a habitual offender.

         ¶ 4 Years later, after a couple of appeals, a new trial, convictions on the same charges as before, and dismissal of the habitual counts, the Colorado Supreme Court remanded this case to the district court for reinstatement of defendant's habitual counts.[2] The district court held a habitual offender hearing at which the prosecution presented evidence that defendant had three prior felony convictions - the three charges he had pleaded guilty to as a juvenile - and argued that the convictions were based on separate, unconnected conduct that occurred on different days. The court agreed with the prosecution that defendant's three prior felony convictions weren't part of the same criminal episode, adjudicated defendant a habitual offender, and sentenced him to a total of 112 years to life.[3]

         ¶ 5 Noting the length of his sentence and the fact that his prior felony convictions were from when he was a juvenile, defendant asked for an extended proportionality review. The court conducted an abbreviated review, ruled that an extended review wasn't necessary, and determined that defendant's sentences are constitutional under the Eighth Amendment.

         II. Discussion

         A. Habitual Criminal Status

         ¶ 6 First, defendant contends that the district court erred by adjudicating him a habitual offender because the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his three juvenile felony convictions arose out of separate and distinct criminal episodes. We aren't persuaded.

         ¶ 7 Because defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the record to determine "whether the evidence, viewed as a whole, and in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is sufficient to support a conclusion by a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt." People ...


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.