[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
County District Court No. 13CR1336, Honorable Richard T.
H. Coffman, Attorney General, Megan C. Rasband, Assistant
Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Sean J. Lacefield,
Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for
1] Defendant, Christopher Allen Jompp, appeals the
judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him
guilty of third degree assault, robbery, and escape. He also
appeals his sentence. We affirm the judgment, but we vacate
his sentence on the escape conviction and remand the case for
resentencing on that conviction. We affirm the remainder of
Factual Background and Procedural History
2] Jompp, the victim, and an acquaintance, B.B.,
were driving around one evening in a stolen car while high on
methamphetamine. During the night they stopped at two
apartments to use more methamphetamine. Another acquaintance,
C.P., who was also high, left with the group from the second
apartment. The four continued to drive around town, with the
victim driving, Jompp in the passenger seat, and B.B. and
C.P. sitting in the back. Tension arose between the victim
and Jompp. The victim had propositioned B.B. and C.P.
numerous times for sex in return for money and drugs, and
Jompp asked him to stop.
3] Eventually the victim parked the car near one of
the apartments they had visited earlier. What happened next
isnt clear, but by all accounts a fight broke out between
Jompp and the victim. When the fight ended, the victim fell
out of the drivers side door unconscious.
4] C.P. recalled that B.B. then got out of the car
and hit and kicked the victim while he was on the ground.
B.B. said, however, that she remained in the car and saw C.P.
go over to the victim. C.P. admitted that at some point after
the victim was unconscious on the ground, at Jompps
direction, she went through the victims pockets, took money
from him, and gave it to Jompp. B.B. also took the victims
cell phone from the backseat.
5] Jompp, B.B., and C.P. left the victim on the
ground and dropped the car off in an
alley. Around four oclock that morning a security guard
noticed the victim still on the ground and called the police.
An ambulance took him to the emergency room where he was
diagnosed with multiple serious head injuries.
6] The police traced the victims cell phone to
B.B., who identified Jompp as the victims assailant. Days
after the victim was injured, the police found Jompp and C.P.
The police ordered Jompp to the ground, handcuffed him, and
searched him. One officer led Jompp to a police car to take
him to jail. As the officer was about to place Jompp in the
police cars back seat, Jompp took off running. After a short
chase, the police caught Jompp and he was taken to jail.
7] The victim died approximately one month later
from the injuries he sustained in the fight.
8] The People charged Jompp with second degree
murder, second degree assault, robbery, escape, and several
habitual criminal counts. At trial, Jompps defense theories
were that B.B. killed the victim and that the prosecution
otherwise failed to prove the charges. The jury convicted
Jompp of third degree assault, robbery, and escape. The trial
court adjudicated Jompp an habitual criminal and sentenced
him to forty-eight years in prison.
II. Speedy Trial
9] Jompp contends the court violated his speedy
trial rights by continuing his jury trial, over his
objection, beyond six months after he pleaded not guilty and
thirteen months after he was arrested. We disagree.
10] The People agree that Jompp preserved his
statutory speedy trial claim, but argue that he didnt
preserve his constitutional speedy trial claim.
11] At the hearing to continue the trial, defense
counsel objected "to the continuance of Mr. Jompps
speedy trial rights under the Federal and State
Constitutions, as well as, his statutory right." But for
the rest of the hearing, the parties and the court only
discussed and considered the statutory speedy trial elements
required to continue the trial.
12] On the morning of trial, defense counsel again
Judge, at this time, I wanted to reiterate a previous
objection we made for the record. It is the Defenses
position that [the] Prosecutions previous request to
continue the trial that was in the context of their
unavailability of some witnesses. It is the Defenses
position that there was not good cause for that at that time.
And as such, it is our position that this trial is outside of
speedy trial. So we are objecting to being outside of speedy
trial. Wed ask the Court to note that objection.
13] So at both the hearing and trial, defense
counsel "provided no analysis of the constitutional
issues and never sought a ruling from the trial court."
People v. Roberts, 2013 COA 50, ¶ 48, 321 P.3d 581.
Nor did he "ask the court to determine whether, under
the applicable four-part balancing test of Barker v.
Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101
(1972), and People v. Small, 631 P.2d 148 (Colo.
1981), the delay in this case violated the state and federal
constitutions." People v. Scialabba, 55 P.3d
207, 209-10 (Colo.App. 2002); see People v.
McMurtry, 122 P.3d 237, 243 (Colo. 2005) ("[H]e did
not argue any of the elements of this constitutional right in
either his motion or at the hearing on the motion."). So
Jompp didnt preserve his constitutional speedy trial claims.
14] But, unpreserved constitutional errors may be
reviewed for the first time on appeal. Reyna-Abarca v.
People, 2017 CO 15, ¶ 37, 390 P.3d 816. And we "do
not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental
constitutional rights, and therefore indulge every reasonable
presumption against waiver." People v. Rediger,
2018 CO 32, ¶ 39, 416 P.3d 893 (quoting People v.
Curtis, 681 P.2d 504, 514 (Colo. 1984) ). So we review
constitutional speedy trial claims for plain error. See
id. at ¶ 47.
Standard of Review
15] We review a trial courts decision to apply the
statutory speedy trial exclusion in section
18-1-405(6)(g)(I), C.R.S. 2017, for an abuse of discretion.
Scialabba, 55 P.3d at 209. "We will not disturb
the trial courts findings granting a continuance if the
record supports these findings." People v.
Trujillo, 2014 COA 72, ¶ 18, 338 P.3d 1039. An error is
plain if it is obvious and substantial and so undermines the
trials fundamental fairness as to cast serious doubt on the
judgment of convictions reliability. Rediger, ¶ 48.
16] Jompp was arrested on October 31, 2013. On March
14, 2014, he entered a not guilty plea and jury ...