Peo v. Leon-Caballero ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>23CA2045 Peo v Leon-Caballero 10-17-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 23CA2045 </div>
<div>Arapahoe County District Court No. 17CR3556 </div>
<div>Honorable <span>Eric B. White</span>, Judge </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The People of the State of Colorado, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Plaintiff-Appellee, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>v. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Miguel Angel Leon-Caballero, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Defendant-Appellant. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>ORDER AFFIRMED </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division VI </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE HAWTHORNE* </div>
<div>Welling<span> and Brown, JJ., concur </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced October 17, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Grant R. Fevurly, Senior Assistant Attorney </div>
<div>General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Robin M. Lerg, <span>Alternate Defense Counsel, Montrose, Colorado for Defendant-</span>
</div>
<div>Appellant </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. </div>
<div>VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf2" data-page-no="2">
<div><div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>Defendant, Miguel Angel Leon-Caballero, appeals the trial </span>
</div>
<div>court’s order denying his <span>Motion for Reconsideration of Sent<span></span>ence </span>
</div>
<div>Under Crim. P. 35(b).<span> </span>We affirm. </div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>A jury convicted Leon-Caballero of aggravated robbery, second </span>
</div>
<div>degree assault, second degree aggravated motor vehi<span></span>cle theft, and </div>
<div>criminal mischief.<span> </span>The trial court imposed prison sentences of </div>
<div>twenty years on the aggravated robbery count, a concurrent <span></span>sixteen </div>
<div>years on the assault count, a consecutive three years on the motor </div>
<div>vehicle theft count, and a consecutive three years on the <span></span>criminal </div>
<div>mischief count<span>. </span>A division of this court affirmed the judgment of<span></span> </div>
<div>conviction and remanded the case to the district court to correct the </div>
<div>mittimus. <span>See People v. Leon-Caballero</span>, (Colo. App. No. 19CA165<span></span>8, </div>
<div>Sept. 29, 2022) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35<span></span>(e)). </div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>Later, Leon-Caballero filed his Crim. P. 35(b) motion and a </span>
</div>
<div>supporting <span>“Social History Report.” </span>In it, he detailed his troubled </div>
<div>upbringing, his alcohol and drug use, his mental health issues </div>
<div>before the underlying incident, and his worsening mental health </div>
<div>condition after incarceration. While incarcerated, Leon-Caballero </div>
<div>has held jobs as a kitchen worker, a dishwasher, a porte<span></span>r, and a </div>
<div>floor shiner.<span> </span>He also represented that he has supportive family </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div><div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>members and that, upon his prison release, he would like to <span></span>open a </div>
<div>barber shop and start a family with his wife. </div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>In its order denying the motion without a hearing, the </span>
</div>
<div>postconviction court stated that it reviewed the court file,<span></span> the </div>
<div>motion, the details of the Social History Report, and the applicable </div>
<div>legal authority.<span> </span>The court noted that Leon-Caballero was serving an </div>
<div>aggregate twenty-six-year prison sentence but could have received a </div>
<div>prison sentence of up to thirty-two years on the robbery convicti<span></span>on </div>
<div>alone.<span> <span>The court also acknowledged that the information contain<span></span>ed </span></span>
</div>
<div>in<span> Leon-<span>Caballero’s</span> motion and Social History Report, on wh<span></span>ich </span>
</div>
<div>Leon-<span>Caballero “relie[d] almost entirely,”<span> was included in the Adult<span></span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>Presentence Report (PSR) that was available to the court at the <span></span>time </div>
<div>of sentencing.<span> </span>Finally, the court noted that the PSR reflected Leon-</div>
<div>Caballero<span>’s</span><span> <span>“belief that ‘</span>[p]rison makes [him] stronger, physically </span>
</div>
<div>and mentally<span>’” and that</span>, at the age of twenty-three, Leon-Caballero </div>
<div>“<span>had three prior adjudications as a juvenile delinquent f<span></span>or </span>
</div>
<div>[c]onspiracy to [p]ossess <span>a </span>[c]ontrolled [s]ubstance, [r]obbery, and </div>
<div>[a]ggravated [r]obbery<span>” and “</span>one prior felony conviction for [e]scape<span>.”</span> </div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>Th<span>e <span>postconviction court then determin<span>ed</span> that, based on the </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>following findings, the origina<span>l </span>sentences remained proper: </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div>3 </div>
<div>Having thus considered both the old and new </div>
<div>information available to it, the [c]ourt </div>
<div>concludes that there is little that [Leon-</div>
<div>Caballero<span>] <span>has presented that would change its </span></span>
</div>
<div>mind as to the propriety of the sentences </div>
<div>previously imposed. The [c]ourt was aware of </div>
<div>[Leon-Caballero<span>’s] <span>background, albeit in a </span></span>
</div>
<div>more abbreviated form, when it sentenced him </div>
<div>in 2019. Although it appears that the </div>
<div>intervening years have colored [Leon-</div>
<div>Caballero<span>’s] <span>perception of the value of </span></span>
</div>
<div>incarceration and that he has a hope for a life </div>
<div>once out of custody, his violent actions on the </div>
<div>night of the incident at issue and his </div>
<div>delinquent and criminal history justify the </div>
<div>[c]ourt<span>’</span><span>s original concerns about recidivism </span>
</div>
<div>and community safety. </div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>Crim. P. 35(b) authorizes a trial court to review a sentence to </span>
</div>
<div>ensure that it is proper before making it final. <span>People v. Dunlap</span>, 36 </div>
<div>P.3d 778, 780 (Colo. 2001).<span> <span>“</span></span>The court may, after considering the </div>
<div>motion and supporting documents, if any, deny the mot<span></span>ion without </div>
<div>a hearing.<span>” </span>Crim. P. 35(b). </div>
<div>¶ 7<span> <span>“Any decision to reduce a sentence based on a Crim. P. 35(b) </span></span>
</div>
<div>motion remains within the sound discretion of the trial <span></span>court.”<span> </span>
</div>
<div>Dunlap<span>, 36 P.3d at <span>780</span><span>.</span><span> </span>A trial court abuses its discretion when <span></span>its </span>
</div>
<div>ruling is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfa<span></span>ir<span>. </span><span>People v. </span>
</div>
<div>Vigil<span>, 2024 COA 72, ¶ 19. </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf5" data-page-no="5">
<div><div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>In resolving a Crim. P. 35(b) motion, a trial court must </span>
</div>
<div>“consider all relevant and material factors, including<span></span> new evidence </div>
<div>as well as facts known at the time the original sentence was </div>
<div>pronounced.” <span>People v. Busch<span>, 835 P.2d 582, 583 (Colo. A<span></span>pp. </span></span>
</div>
<div>1992).<span> <span>A court is not required to make factual findings but should </span></span>
</div>
<div>“provide a statement of the basic reasons in support of it<span></span>s ruling”<span> </span>
</div>
<div>on a Crim. P. 35(b) motion.<span> </span><span>People v. Olivas</span>, 911 P.2d 675, 677 </div>
<div>(Colo. App. 1995). “Only if the trial court has refuse<span></span>d to cons<span>ider </span>
</div>
<div>any <span>information in mitigation and fails to make findings in <span></span>support </span>
</div>
<div>of its decision is there a failure by the trial court to exercise it<span></span>s </div>
<div>judicial discretion.”<span> </span><span>Busch</span><span>, 835 P.2d at 583. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>Based on the record, we conclude that the postconviction </span>
</div>
<div>court did not abuse its discretion because its ruling den<span>ying</span> Leon-</div>
<div>Caballero’s <span>Crim. P. 35(b) motion is not manifestly arbitrary, </span>
</div>
<div>unreasonable, or unfair<span>. </span><span>See Dunlap</span>, 36 P.3d at 783 (affirming the </div>
<div>court’s order <span>denyi<span>ng</span><span> </span></span>the defendant’s Crim. P. 35(b) motion bec<span></span>ause </div>
<div>i<span>t <span>“adequately demonstrate[d] that the trial judge considered the </span></span>
</div>
<div>mitigating factors presented in the motion and determined that <span></span>they </div>
<div>did not warrant a sentence reduction,<span>” and, thus, </span>the court </div>
<div>sufficiently explained its reasoning); <span>People v. Barnett</span>, 2020 COA </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf6" data-page-no="6">
<div><div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>167, ¶ 33 (affirming the <span>court’s order </span><span>denyi<span>ng</span></span> <span>the defendant’s Cri<span></span>m. </span>
</div>
<div>P. 35(b) motion because <span>it</span> <span>“noted that </span>[the court] had reviewed the </div>
<div>motion, concluding that ‘the court is well familiar with <span></span>this case and </div>
<div>finds that the original sentence imposed is appropriate t<span></span>o the </div>
<div>circumstances of this case’” and, “[i]n doing so, the court provid<span></span>ed </div>
<div>its ‘basic reasons in support of its ruling’”); <span>Olivas</span><span>, 911 P.2d at <span></span>677 </span>
</div>
<div>(affirming the order denyi<span>ng</span> a Crim. P. 35(b) motion because the </div>
<div>court, in its order, <span>“noted the mat</span>ters it considered prior to t<span></span>he </div>
<div>denial of the defendant’s motion” and provided an adequately </div>
<div>detailed statement for its denial)<span>; </span><span>see also People v. Morrow</span>, 591 </div>
<div>P.2d 1026, 1028 (Colo. 1979) (relevant factors <span>in</span> <span>a </span>sentence </div>
<div>reconsideration proceeding include the underlying crime<span>’s nature</span> </div>
<div>and the defendant’s prior criminal history)<span>. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>Contrary to Leon-<span>Caballero’s assertion</span>, we are convinced that </span>
</div>
<div>the postconviction court sufficiently detailed in its order its basic </div>
<div>reasons for denyi<span>ng</span> the Crim. P. 35(b) motion.<span> </span><span>See Dunlap</span>, 36 P.3d </div>
<div>at 782<span>; </span><span>see also Barnett</span>, ¶¶ 33, 35-36 (<span>“W</span>e will neither fault the </div>
<div>court for its short order nor construe such brevity as a f<span></span>ailure to </div>
<div>exercise discretion in its denial of [the defendant’s] Crim. P.<span></span> 35(b) </div>
<div>motion.<span>”).</span><span> <span> </span></span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf7" data-page-no="7">
<div><div>
<div>6 </div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>The order is affirmed. </span>
</div>
<div>JUDGE WELLING and JUDGE BROWN concur. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>