Peo v. Arrington

── Peo v. Arrington ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General 23CA0697 Peo v Arrington 04-16-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 23CA0697 Boulder County District Court No. 21CR441 Honorable Nancy W. Salomone, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Kasey James Arrington, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division VII Opinion by JUDGE JOHNSON Pawar and Gomez, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced April 16, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Brenna A. Brackett, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado; Michael T. Dougherty, District Attorney, Ryan P. Day, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Boulder, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant Christopher Gehring, Alternate Defense Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee ¶1 Defendant, Kasey James Arrington (Arrington), appeals his judgment of conviction on a jury verdict finding him guilty of second degree kidnapping, unlawful sexual contact, and criminal attempt to commit sexual assault. The jury also made special findings that (1) Arrington caused submission through force or violence during the unlawful sexual contact, elevating that charge from a misdemeanor to a felony; and (2) L.M., the person kidnapped, was also the victim of another specified crime. ¶2 Arrington contends that (1) the district court erred by denying his motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct; and (2) the unlawful sexual contact (force) conviction violates his due process and equal protection rights. On cross-appeal, the Attorney General contends that the district court was required to impose consecutive sentences and thus erred by sentencing Arrington concurrently. ¶3 We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Arrington’s motion for a new trial and that his unlawful sexual contact (force) conviction does not violate his due process and equal protection rights. But we partially agree with the Attorney General’s cross-appeal that the district court erred by sentencing Arrington concurrently, and not consecutively, with respect to the 1  kidnapping and sexual assault offenses. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the district court for resentencing. I. Background ¶4 The prosecutor presented the following facts upon which the jury found Arrington guilty. ¶5 L.M. was attacked by Arrington while she worked alone at a drive-through coffee kiosk. She testified that the assailant attacked her from behind, putting his hands on her crotch, pulling down her leggings and underwear, and touching her vaginal area. The attacker moved her into the bathroom area, she continued to resist and scream, and eventually he fled. The identity of L.M.’s attacker was disputed and a critical issue at trial, but L.M.’s testimony and DNA evidence on a number of objects at the kiosk, including on L.M.’s facemask and ear, tied Arrington to the attack. ¶6 Arrington was charged with and ultimately convicted of three counts: (1) second degree kidnapping, elevated to a class 2 felony because the jury found L.M. was the victim of a sexual offense during the kidnapping; (2) unlawful sexual contact, elevated to a class 4 felony as the jury found Arrington caused L.M.’s submission 2  through force or violence; and (3) criminal attempt to commit sexual assault, a class 5 felony. The district court sentenced him to twelve years in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC) for the kidnapping conviction, eight years to life in DOC for the unlawful sexual contact conviction, and