Background
Robert Timothy Cadaret shared an apartment with A.B. and her boyfriend. After Cadaret said the couple owed him rent, he broke through the deadbolted door to A.B.’s bedroom with a weight, struck her, fought with her over her gun, and shot her in the temple. He left carrying a box containing A.B.’s purse, cash, drugs, and gun.
A jury convicted Cadaret of attempted second degree murder, first degree assault, aggravated robbery, first degree burglary, and theft, among other counts. The district court imposed three consecutive thirty-two-year prison terms for attempted murder, first degree assault, and first degree burglary, and awarded restitution that included interest accruing before sentencing.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals rejected Cadaret’s challenges to his convictions. His theft conviction under the general theft statute was not mutually exclusive with aggravated robbery because theft under that provision does not require a taking without force. The court also held that first degree assault did not merge into either first degree burglary conviction: one burglary theory rested on use or threatened use of a deadly weapon, and the assault-predicate burglary could rest on Cadaret’s separate assault with the weight rather than the gunshot.
The court held, however, that the attempted second degree murder and first degree assault convictions were supported by identical evidence: the single gunshot to A.B.’s head. Colorado’s mandatory concurrent-sentencing statute therefore required those two sentences to run concurrently. The burglary sentence could remain consecutive because proving burglary required additional evidence, including Cadaret’s unlawful entry and other conduct. The court also upheld prejudgment restitution interest because Cadaret was not yet serving a sentence during his presentence confinement.
Key Takeaways
- General theft and aggravated robbery are not mutually exclusive merely because the robbery involved force.
- Separate assaults during one episode can support separate burglary and assault convictions without merger.
- Convictions based on the same single gunshot require concurrent sentences, even when both are crimes of violence.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between offenses that share some evidence and offenses supported by identical evidence. For Colorado sentencing, that distinction can determine whether violent-crime sentences must be consecutive or instead must run concurrently.
The court affirmed the convictions and restitution order, vacated the sentencing judgment in part, and remanded for the mittimus to reflect concurrent sentences for attempted second degree murder and first degree assault.