As
Modified on Denial of Rehearing September 23, 2019
Page 311
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, Court
of Appeals Case No. 13CA1750
Attorneys for Petitioner: Megan A. Ring, Public Defender, Jud
Lohnes, Deputy Public Defender, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys
for Respondent: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Christine
Brady, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado
OPINION
BOATRIGHT,
JUSTICE
[¶1]
After a jury found Kyle Brooks guilty of two felonies, the
trial court adjudicated him to be a habitual criminal based
on his prior felony convictions, including his guilty plea to
theft from a person. As a result, the court sentenced him to
twenty-four years in prison. Brooks now claims that his prior
theft from a person conviction is constitutionally invalid.
Therefore, we must determine if the record establishes by a
preponderance of the evidence whether Brooks understood the
elements of theft from a person when he previously pleaded
guilty. We conclude that it does. Accordingly, we hold that
Brookss prior guilty plea to theft from a person was
constitutionally valid, and we affirm the judgment of the
court of appeals on different grounds.
I. Facts and Procedural History
[¶2]
Brooks was convicted of two class 4 felony counts for victim
tampering. The prosecution also sought to adjudicate Brooks a
habitual criminal under section 18-1.3-801, C.R.S. (2019),
based on Brookss three prior felony convictions. Brooks,
however, asserts that one of those convictions, a 2010 theft
conviction obtained through a guilty plea, is
constitutionally invalid. Therefore, we need to examine the
circumstances surrounding his guilty plea in that case.
[¶3]
In the 2010 case, the People charged Brooks with theft from a
person after he and an accomplice stole a purse; Brooks
distracted the victim while his accomplice grabbed the purse.
Brooks pleaded guilty and waived a factual basis for the
crime. But
Page 312
both the charging document and the Rule 11 Advisement form
failed to include the requisite mens rea for theft from a
person: the intent to permanently deprive the victim of
property. Additionally, the trial court did not mention the
specific intent element when accepting Brookss plea. The
Rule 11 form, however, did include defense counsels signed
certification to the court that she had "discussed the
facts and law applicable to this matter with [Brooks]
including the necessary culpable mental state,
possible defense(s), and potential penalties." (Emphasis
added.)
[¶4]
During the habitual criminal hearing in the present case,
Brooks argued that his 2010 theft conviction was
constitutionally invalid and it could not serve as a
predicate felony for his habitual criminal adjudication.
Specifically, he argued that at the time he entered his
guilty plea, he had not been informed that theft from a
person requires the specific intent to permanently deprive
the victim of property. The trial court here disagreed and
instead found that Brooks understood what he was pleading
guilty to in the 2010 case based on the following: (1) he was
represented by competent counsel; (2) he asserted that he
understood what he was pleading guilty to; (3) he had
previously pleaded guilty to misdemeanor theft; and (4) the
nature of the crime itself.
[¶5]
The court of appeals affirmed Brookss habitual criminal
sentence, concluding that the facts of the crime as alleged
would have informed Brooks that the particular theft in
question was one where he intended to permanently deprive the
victim of property. People v. Brooks,2017 COA 80, ¶
40, __ P.3d __. ...