People v. Allen
2010 WL 4782249, 310 P.3d 83, 2010 Colo. App. LEXIS 1743 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sentencing court is not bound by the recommendation of a risk assessment screening instrument (RASI) and may designate a defendant as a sexually violent predator (SVP) if the court makes specific, record-supported factual findings justifying its decision.
Facts:
- Brandon David Allen, wearing a mask and gloves, broke into the home of his neighbor, the victim, while she was sleeping.
- Allen pulled the sheets off the victim, removed her underwear, placed a pillow over her face, and squeezed her neck.
- He threatened to kill her if she reported the incident, stating, "If you do, I will come and kill you!"
- Allen proceeded to sexually assault the victim for several hours.
- During the assault, Allen told the victim he enjoyed breaking into houses "because of the rush" and that this was his "first time for a sexual assault."
- The victim identified her neighbor, Allen, as fitting the description of her attacker.
- DNA testing confirmed that sperm cells recovered from the victim matched Allen's DNA profile.
Procedural Posture:
- Brandon David Allen was charged in district court with multiple felony counts, including sexual assault, burglary, and menacing.
- Allen entered into a plea agreement and pled guilty to first degree sexual assault, second degree burglary, and second degree assault.
- Prior to sentencing, Allen filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the district court denied after a hearing.
- Allen subsequently filed a motion to continue sentencing for a competency evaluation, which the district court also denied.
- At the sentencing hearing, the trial court designated Allen as a sexually violent predator (SVP), a finding contrary to the recommendation of the sexual assault risk assessment screening instrument (RASI).
- Allen (appellant) appealed the district court's orders and the SVP designation to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a sentencing court have the discretion to designate a defendant as a sexually violent predator (SVP) when the statutorily required risk assessment screening instrument (RASI) and the evaluator recommend against such a finding?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Hawthorne
Yes. A sentencing court has the discretion to designate a defendant as an SVP contrary to the recommendation of a risk assessment because the assessment is intended to assist, not bind, the court. The governing statute requires the court's findings to be 'based upon' the risk assessment's results, which merely establishes a starting point for analysis, not a mandatory conclusion. The legislature's use of the word 'assist' in a related statute confirms its intent for the RASI to be an advisory tool. To hold otherwise would improperly cede judicial sentencing discretion to an administrative evaluator. Therefore, a court may override the RASI's recommendation as long as it provides specific, detailed factual findings supported by competent evidence in the record to justify its contrary conclusion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the balance of power between judicial discretion and administrative or expert assessments in the context of sentencing. It establishes that while statutorily mandated tools like the RASI must be considered, they do not supersede the court's ultimate authority to weigh all evidence and make a final determination. The ruling empowers trial judges to look beyond standardized scores and consider the totality of a defendant's conduct and character, ensuring that labels like 'sexually violent predator' are not mechanically applied or withheld. This precedent reinforces the principle that sentencing is a judicial function and requires judges who disagree with an assessment's conclusion to articulate a clear, record-supported rationale for their decision.
