Peo v. Arellano

── Peo v. Arellano ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General 23CA1897 Peo v Arellano 04-16-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 23CA1897 Jefferson County District Court No. 22CR2704 Honorable Randall C. Arp, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Lee Arellano, Defendant-Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division VII Opinion by JUDGE PAWAR Johnson and Gomez, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced April 16, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Patrick A. Withers, Assistant Solicitor General and Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff- Appellee Eric A. Samler, Alternate Defense Counsel, Hollis A. Whitson, Alternate Defense Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Defendant, Richard Lee Arellano, appeals his convictions for various offenses arising out of an incident in which he stole numerous items from a Walmart. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 Arellano and a companion attempted to leave a Walmart through a fire exit with a shopping cart full of unpaid-for items. A first loss prevention officer (LPO) confronted them near the exit and told them to leave the items and come to the office. Arellano refused and opened his jacket pocket, revealing something metallic inside. ¶3 At this moment, a second LPO approached. When the second LPO was about fifteen feet away, Arellano took a gun from his pocket and pointed it at the second LPO, who backed up and told Arellano to take the items. Arellano then fled the store, fled from police, fired his gun at police, and was eventually arrested. ¶4 Arellano was ultimately convicted of two counts of attempted second degree murder for shooting at two police officers, one count of attempted reckless manslaughter for shooting at a third police officer, and felony menacing. He was also convicted of four counts of aggravated robbery — two for each LPO (the multiple aggravated 1  robbery counts for each victim were based on slightly different theories). At sentencing, the four aggravated robbery convictions merged into two, such that Arellano was punished for one aggravated robbery conviction for each LPO. ¶5 On appeal, Arellano argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his aggravated robbery convictions as to the second LPO and that the trial court erred by denying his Batson challenge to a prospective juror. We disagree with both arguments and affirm. II. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶6 We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. People v. Black, 2020 COA 136, ¶ 34. This inquiry requires us to view the evidence as a whole and in the light most favorable to the prosecution, giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable and fair inferences from the evidence. Id. Viewing the evidence this way, it is sufficient if it would support a conclusion by a reasonable mind that the defendant is guilty of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Donald, 2020 CO 24, ¶ 18. ¶7 Arellano argues that there was insufficient evidence that he took something from the person or presence of the second LPO — a required element of both aggravated robbery convictions at issue 2  here. See §§ 18-4-301(1), 18-4-302(1)(b), (d), C.R.S. 2025. We disagree. ¶8 Property is in a victim’s presence if (1) the victim has the right to exercise control over the property; and (2) the property is within the victim’s reach, inspection, or observation such that the victim would be able to retain control over the property but for the defendant’s threat of force. People v. Mortenson, 2023 COA 92, ¶ 8. Arellano concedes, and we agree, that the second LPO had the right to exercise cont