Peo v. Montoya

── Peo v. Montoya ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General 23CA0860 Peo v Montoya 06-04-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 23CA0860 Alamosa County District Court No. 22CR5011 Honorable Kim Cortez-Rodriguez, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilberto Andres Montoya, Defendant-Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division V Opinion by JUDGE LIPINSKY Yun and Schutz, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced June 4, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Patrick A. Withers, Assistant Solicitor General and Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff- Appellee Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Julieanne Farchione, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Gilberto Andres Montoya appeals his convictions for first degree burglary, second degree burglary, and menacing with a deadly weapon. We reverse his conviction for first degree burglary but otherwise affirm the judgment. I. Background ¶2 A jury could have reasonably found the following facts from the evidence introduced at trial. ¶3 One night, when a family, including a married couple (the victims), returned home, they discovered that their front door was open and that someone had entered the rental house where they lived. The wife found Montoya, whom she recognized as the landlord’s son, behind the house. She confronted Montoya, who grabbed a steak knife and held it up to her. Montoya remained behind the house, where he was arrested. ¶4 The victims smelled gasoline throughout the house. They also discovered that the house had been “trashed” — an intruder had strewn dishes and clothes everywhere, broken the hot water heater, unplugged appliances, opened windows, and torn off closet doors. ¶5 Montoya was charged with first degree burglary, a class 3 felony; second degree burglary, a class 3 felony; and menacing with 1  a deadly weapon, a class 5 felony. The jury convicted Montoya as charged. ¶6 On appeal, Montoya contends that the trial court erred by (1) violating his statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights; (2) failing to instruct the jury that first degree trespass is a lesser included offense of first and second degree burglary; (3) not merging his convictions for second degree burglary and menacing into his conviction for first degree burglary; (4) denying his requests for certain state-paid support services; and (5) rejecting his requests for a change of venue. II. Analysis A. Montoya’s Speedy Trial Rights ¶7 Montoya contends that the trial court violated his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial. We disagree. ¶8 Because a defendant’s constitutional and statutory speedy trial rights are different, we analyze those rights separately. See People v. Harris, 914 P.2d 425, 430 (Colo. App. 1995) (“The constitutional right to a speedy trial, derived from the Sixth Amendment and from Colo. Const. art. II, § 16, is distinct from the 2  statutory speedy trial right and the determination as to one does not necessarily dispose of the other.”). 1. The Trial Court Did Not Violate Montoya’s Statutory Speedy Trial Right a. Standard of Review ¶9 We “review the [trial] court’s findings of fact for clear error, disregarding them only if the record is devoid of support.” People v. West, 2019 COA 131, ¶ 7, 461 P.3d 591, 596. However, we “review de novo the trial court’s interpretation of Colorado’s speedy trial statute.” Id. b.