People v. Allman

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA108

Court of Appeals No. 15CA1235
Boulder County District Court No. 14CR552
Honorable Andrew R. Macdonald, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Fredrick Leroy Allman,

Defendant-Appellant.

JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED

Division V
Opinion by CHIEF JUDGE LOEB
Davidson* and Casebolt*, JJ., concur

Announced August 10, 2017

Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Kevin E. McReynolds, Assistant
Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lauretta A. Martin Neff, Alternate Defense Counsel, Bayfield, Colorado, for
Defendant-Appellant

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art.
VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2016.
¶1 Defendant, Fredrick Leroy Allman, appeals the judgment of

conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of eight

counts of identity theft pursuant to section 18-5-902(1)(a), C.R.S.

2016. He also appeals a number of sentencing issues. We affirm.

I. Background

¶2 In the summer of 2013, Allman met the victim, an elderly

widower, at a social event. Using the alias “John Taylor,” Allman

presented himself to the victim as a businessman who had recently

moved from Washington to Colorado. At some point, upon

establishing a rapport with the victim, Allman asked him if he could

temporarily live in the victim’s basement while he adjusted to life in

Colorado. The victim agreed.

¶3 Although Allman’s tenancy was initially intended to be a

temporary stay, it evolved into a semipermanent one. In total,

Allman lived with the victim for approximately five months and,

during the course of that time, he ingratiated himself with the

victim and gained the victim’s trust.

¶4 In December 2013, the victim left for a planned vacation in

Australia. Immediately after the victim’s departure, Allman gained

access to the victim’s bank accounts and stole money from them.

1
 Allman also opened several credit cards in the victim’s name. And,

by the time the victim returned to Colorado five weeks later, Allman

had moved out of his home, taken the victim’s car, and obtained

over $40,000 of credit in the victim’s name. Moreover, because

Allman had been using an alias, police officers were initially unable

to determine his whereabouts.

¶5 Eventually, on March 18, 2014, Allman was arrested while

attempting to purchase a new car with funds from an account that

the police had been monitoring.1 He was subsequently charged

with twelve felonies, including one count of theft of over $500 from

an at-risk adult (Count 1), one count of aggravated motor vehicle

theft (Count 3), eight counts of identity theft (Counts 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,

9, and 10), and two counts of forgery (Counts 11 and 12).

¶6 A jury convicted Allman on all counts. Both at trial and at

sentencing, counsel for Allman objected to the eight counts of

identity theft, arguing that identity theft, as charged in this case,

1 At the time of his arrest, Allman had in his possession copies of
the victim’s personal password lists and identifying information, as
well as personal and financial information belonging to other senior
citizens Allman had come to know in Colorado. It was later
determined that Allman was also wanted on an outstanding
warrant in Oregon for conduct similar to that in this case.

2
 constituted a continuing course of conduct of stealing a single

victim’s identity and should therefore merge into one conviction and

sentence. The trial court overruled these objections and imposed

consecutive sentences for Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, totaling fifteen

years in the custody of the Department of Corrections, concurrent

prison sentences for Counts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, and a ten-year

sentence to probation for Count 12, which would run consecutively

to Allman’s fifteen-year prison term, but concurrently with his

parole, with the option of early termination if Allman paid the full

amount of restitution ordered by the court.

II. Identity Theft

¶7 Allman’s primary contention on appeal is that his convictions

for eight counts of identity theft under section 18-5-902(1)(a) are

unconstitutionally multiplicitous because identity theft is a

continuing crime where, as here, he stole the identity of only one

victim. Thus, Allman argues, all eight convictions for identity theft

must merge into one conviction for that offense. We disagree and

conclude, as a matter of first impression, that the crime of identity

theft under section 18-5-902(1)(a) is not a continuing course of

3
 conduct and, therefore, each discrete act of identity theft under that

subsection is a separately chargeable offense.

A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

¶8 “The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and

Colorado Constitutions protect an accused against being twice

placed in jeopardy for the same crime.” Woellhaf v. People, 105

P.3d 209, 214 (Colo. 2005); see also U.S. Const. amend V; Colo.

Const. art II, § 18. The doctrine of multiplicity, which implicates

Double Jeopardy principles, prohibits a defendant from receiving

multiple punishments for a series of repeated acts that occurred as

a part of a continuing course of conduct. See Woellhaf, 105 P.3d at

214-15, 220. However, the Double Jeopardy Clauses “[do] not

prevent the General Assembly from [specifically authorizing]

multiple punishments based upon the same criminal conduct.” Id.

at 214. Thus, where the General Assembly has not defined a crime

as continuous, a defendant may be punished for each separate

criminal act. See People v. McMinn, 2013 COA 94, ¶ 29 (noting that

the doctrine of continuing crimes applies only where the General

Assembly has unmistakably communicated its intent to create such

an offense).

4
¶9 In order to determine whether a crime is a continuing course

of conduct, we apply the analysis articulated in People v. Thoro

Products Co., 70 P.3d 1188, 1192-93 (Colo. 2003) (discussing the

doctrine of continuing offenses in the context of statutes of

limitations); see also People v. Zadra, 2013 COA 140, ¶ 78 (holding

that, for Double Jeopardy purposes, a series of materially false

statements over a short period of time does not constitute a single

instance of perjury for which there can only be one charge), aff’d,

2017 CO 18; McMinn, ¶¶ 28-29 (in the context of a Double Jeopardy

analysis, concluding that the offense of vehicular eluding is not a

continuing offense).

¶ 10 First, we consider “the explicit language of the substantive

criminal statute” and determine whether it “compels” the

conclusion that the offense is continuing. People v. Johnson, 2013

COA 122, ¶ 11. In reviewing the language of the statute, we “give

words their plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at ¶ 7; see also § 2-4-

101, C.R.S. 2016 (In construing a statute, “[w]ords and phrases

shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of

grammar and common usage.”). “Where the statutory language is

clear and unambiguous, we do not resort to legislative history or

5
 further rules of statutory construction.” Smith v. Exec. Custom

Homes, Inc., 230 P.3d 1186, 1189 (Colo. 2010).

¶ 11 Only if we conclude that the statutory text is ambiguous do we

proceed to the second step of the Thoro analysis and examine the

nature of the crime involved and whether it “is such that the

General Assembly ‘must assuredly have intended’ [the offense] be

treated as [a continuing one].” See Thoro, 70 P.3d at 1193 (quoting

Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 115 (1970)); see also § 2-4-

203, C.R.S. 2016 (detailing various aids in construction where a

statute is ambiguous).

¶ 12 We review de novo a claim that multiplicitous convictions

violate a defendant’s constitutional protection against Double

Jeopardy. McMinn, ¶ 18. “Determining whether a particular

violation of law constitutes a continuing offense is primarily a

question of statutory interpretation,” People v. Lopez, 140 P.3d 106,

108 (Colo. App. 2005), and is, therefore, also reviewed de novo, see

Johnson, ¶ 7. However, overlaying our inquiry is a strong

presumption against interpreting criminal offenses as continuing.

Thoro, 70 P.3d at 1193 (citing Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115); McMinn,

6
 ¶ 29 (perceiving no “unmistakable intent” to create the offense of

vehicular eluding as a continuing crime).

B. Analysis

¶ 13 As pertinent here, a person is guilty of identity theft in

Colorado if he or she

[k]nowingly uses the personal identifying
information, financial identifying information,
or financial device of another without
permission or lawful authority with the intent
to obtain cash, credit, property, services, or
any other thing of value or to make a financial
payment.

§ 18-5-902(1)(a) (emphasis added). For the reasons below, we

conclude that the plain language of this statute is unambiguous

and indicates that the General Assembly did not intend for this

offense to be a continuing crime.

¶ 14 In examining the plain language of section 18-5-902(1)(a), we

initially note that the word “uses” is not defined anywhere in either

the elemental identity theft statute, see § 18-5-902, or in the

general definitional statute for identity theft and related offenses,

see § 18-5-901, C.R.S. 2016.

¶ 15 Relying on the rules of grammar, we first conclude that, in the

subsection at issue, the mens rea “knowingly” describes the actus

7
 reus “uses.” Thus, in this context, the word “uses” is a verb. Next,

we consider the dictionary definition of the verb “use.” See § 2-4-

102, C.R.S. 2016 (“The singular includes the plural, and the plural

includes the singular.”); see also People v. Fioco, 2014 COA 22, ¶ 19

(“[W]hen construing statutory terms, ‘[w]e have frequently looked to

the dictionary for assistance in determining the plain and ordinary

meaning of words.’” (quoting People v. Forgey, 770 P.2d 781, 783

(Colo. 1989))).

¶ 16 Black’s Law Dictionary defines the verb “use” as “[t]o employ

for the accomplishment of a purpose; to avail oneself of.” Black’s

Law Dictionary 1776 (10th ed. 2014); see also Webster’s Third New

International Dictionary 2523 (2002) (defining “use” similarly). In

turn, the verb “employ” is defined as “1. To make use of. 2. To hire.

3. To use as an agent or substitute in transacting business.”

Black’s Law Dictionary 638 (10th ed. 2014) (emphasis omitted). We

find these definitions instructive, because each connotes a discrete

action, as opposed to a sustained or continuous one.

¶ 17 The verb “uses” in subsection (1)(a) describes the object clause

of the sentence, namely, “the personal identifying information,

financial identifying information, or financial device of another.”

8
 § 18-5-902(1)(a). In that regard, the object clause does not describe

another’s identity, as Allman argues, but another’s personal

belongings, which are means of authenticating one’s identity.

¶ 18 In addition, the final verb clause of subsection (1)(a) describes

the crime of identity theft as including the unauthorized use of

another’s belongings “to make a financial payment.” Id. (emphasis

added). Here, too, the statute describes a singular act, as opposed

to a continuing course of conduct. In our view, the use of another’s

personal or financial information to make a single financial

payment supports the conclusion that subsection (1)(a) does not

describe a continuing course of conduct.

¶ 19 Allman’s reliance on People v. Pérez, 129 P.3d 1090, 1092-93

(Colo. App. 2005), in which a division of this court held that the

crime of criminal impersonation was a continuing offense, is

misplaced. To commit the crime of impersonation, one must

“knowingly . . . assume[] a false or fictitious identity.” § 18-5-

113(1), C.R.S. 2016 (emphasis added). In contrast, to commit the

crime of identity theft under section 18-5-902(1)(a), one must

“knowingly use[] the personal identifying information, financial

identifying information, or financial device of another.” The

9
 difference in language is significant, and, in our view, assuming a

person’s identity is not the same actus reus as using, for example,

someone’s credit card or other financial device, notwithstanding

that both offenses are a species of fraud.

¶ 20 Finally, the crime of identity theft under section 18-5-902(1)(b)

may well constitute a continuing offense, although we need not

resolve that issue. Under subsection (1)(b), a person commits

identity theft through the unauthorized possession of another’s

information or financial device with the intent to use it for some

benefit in the future. Crimes of possession have typically been

viewed as continuing. See, e.g., People v. Zuniga, 80 P.3d 965, 968-

70 (Colo. App. 2003) (concluding that theft by receiving is a

continuing crime because “retaining” is akin to “possession,” which

“connotes something other than mere momentary possession”). To

read the language “uses the personal identifying information,

financial identifying information, or financial device of another

without permission or lawful authority,” § 18-5-902(1)(a), as

describing a continuing course of conduct that encompasses both

active use and inactive possession would potentially render

subsection (1)(b) superfluous. See St. Vrain Valley Sch. Dist. RE-1J

10
 v. A.R.L., 2014 CO 33, ¶ 23 (“In interpreting a statute, whenever

possible, we give each word independent effect so that no word is

rendered superfluous.”).

¶ 21 In sum, we conclude that, according to the plain meaning of

“uses” in section 18-5-902(1)(a), the General Assembly has

authorized punishment for each discrete, unauthorized use of a

victim’s “personal identifying information, financial identifying

information, or financial device,” with the intent to obtain some

benefit “or to make a financial payment.” See § 18-5-902(1)(a).

Therefore, the crime of identity theft under subsection (1)(a) is not a

continuing offense for purposes of Double Jeopardy. Rather, the

offense is committed on each occasion where “all of the [statutory]

elements are complete,” People v. Flagg, 18 P.3d 792, 794 (Colo.

App. 2000) (quoting People v. Bastian, 981 P.2d 203, 205 (Colo.

App. 1998).2

2 Although several courts across the country have addressed the
question of whether identity theft is a continuing crime, Allman
does not cite, nor have we found, any decision concluding that
identity theft is a continuing crime for purposes of Double Jeopardy
where the statutory language at issue was identical or similar to
that in section 18-5-902(1)(a). Compare People v. Mitchell, 78 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 855, 864-66 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (identity theft is not a

11
¶ 22 Accordingly, we reject Allman’s contention that all eight of his

identity theft convictions are multiplicitous.

III. Sentencing Issues

¶ 23 Allman next raises five contentions related to his sentences.

First, he contends that, because identity theft is a continuing crime,

his sentences for those counts should merge. Second, in the

alternative, he contends that all eight of his identity theft sentences

should run concurrently because they are based on identical

evidence. Third, he contends that his sentences for two counts of

forgery should run concurrently to each other and to one of his

sentences for identity theft because each count is based on identical

evidence. Fourth, Allman contends that his consecutive sentence to

probation for one count of forgery (Count 12) was illegal (or at least

an abuse of discretion) because the court sentenced him to the

custody of the Department of Corrections on all other counts and

he received a concurrent sentence on his other forgery count (Count

continuing offense even where defendant only stole from one
victim), and State v. Green, 172 P.3d 1213, 1218 (Kan. Ct. App.
2007) (same), with State v. Leyda, 138 P.3d 610, 337-38 (Wash.
2006) (identity theft is a continuing crime), superseded by statute
as stated in In re Newlun, 240 P.3d 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010), and
State v. Ramirez, 633 N.W.2d 656, 661 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001) (same).

12
 11). Fifth, Allman contends that his sentence on Count 1 for theft

from an at-risk adult should run concurrently to his other

sentences, because the jury could have relied on identical evidence

with regard to that offense. We disagree with each of these

contentions.

A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

¶ 24 We review sentencing decisions that are within the sentencing

court’s statutory authority for an abuse of discretion “because the

trial court’s ‘familiarity with the facts of the case’ places it ‘in the

best position to fix a sentence that reflects a balance of the relevant

considerations.’” People v. Torrez, 2013 COA 37, ¶ 71 (quoting

People v. Vigil, 718 P.2d 496, 507 (Colo. 1986)).

¶ 25 Where the defendant argues that a court exceeded its

statutory sentencing authority, “[o]ur inquiry . . . requires us to

interpret statutes.” People v. Jenkins, 2013 COA 76, ¶ 12. We

review such issues de novo. Id.

¶ 26 Where a defendant has been charged with multiple counts for

a continuing crime, those convictions should merge at sentencing.

See Woellhaf, 105 P.3d at 214-15, 220.

13
¶ 27 Where a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses that

are supported by identical evidence, “the sentences imposed [for

those offenses] shall run concurrently.” § 18-1-408(3), C.R.S. 2016

(emphasis added). However,

[a] sentencing court is mandated to impose
concurrent sentences only when the evidence
will support no other reasonable inference
than that the convictions were based on
identical evidence. In all other instances, the
trial court retains its sentencing discretion,
and its decision must be upheld unless the
trial court abused its discretion.

Juhl v. People, 172 P.3d 896, 900 (Colo. 2007) (emphasis added)

(citation omitted).

¶ 28 In lieu of a prison sentence, a court may impose probation.

The probationary power of the court is as follows:

When it appears to the satisfaction of the court
that the needs of justice and the best interest
of the public, as well as the defendant, will be
served thereby, the court may grant the
defendant probation for such period and upon
such terms and conditions as it deems best.

§ 18-1.3-202(1), C.R.S. 2016. The statute accordingly delegates

broad authority to sentencing courts to consider the availability,

conditions, and duration of a probationary sentence. See Jenkins,

¶ 39 (concluding that the probation statutes give trial courts broad

14
 powers to craft appropriate conditions of probation). The purpose of

this authority is to ensure that sentencing courts “retain flexibility

in order to best serve the ends of justice and the interests of the

public.” People v. Guatney, 214 P.3d 1049, 1052 (Colo. 2009).

B. Analysis

¶ 29 Allman first contends that his sentences for identity theft are

multiplicitous and, thus, his sentences for those counts should

merge. Because we have already concluded that Allman was

properly charged with, and convicted of, eight separate counts of

identity theft, we conclude that his sentences for those counts do

not merge. See Patton v. People, 35 P.3d 124, 129 (Colo. 2001) (“For

purposes of both double jeopardy and merger, a defendant may be

subjected to multiple punishments based upon the same criminal

conduct as long as such punishments are ‘specifically authorized’

by the General Assembly.” (quoting People v. Leske, 957 P.2d 1030,

1035 (Colo. 1998))).

¶ 30 Second, we reject Allman’s alternative contention that, even if

his sentences for identity theft do not merge, those sentences

should run concurrently because they are based on identical

evidence. Based on our review of the record, Allman’s eight

15
convictions for identity theft were based on factually distinct

evidence:

 Count 2: On December 9, 10, and 12, 2014, Allman,

identifying himself as the victim, made several

unauthorized transfers from one of the victim’s Wells

Fargo accounts to another account without the victim’s

permission.

 Count 4: On December 12, 2013, Allman obtained a

Citibank Visa credit card and made several charges to it,

in the name of the victim and without the victim’s

permission.

 Count 5: On December 11, 2013, Allman obtained

another Citibank Visa credit card and made several

charges to that card, in the name of the victim and

without the victim’s permission.

 Count 6: On December 11, 2013, Allman obtained a Bill

Me Later credit card and made two charges to it, in the

name of the victim and without the victim’s permission.

 Count 7: On December 30, 2013, Allman obtained a First

National Bank of Omaha Visa credit card and made

16
 several charges to it, in the name of the victim and

without the victim’s permission.

 Count 8: On December 10, 2013, Allman obtained an

American Express credit card and made several charges

to it, in the name of the victim and without the victim’s

permission.

 Count 9: Between December 8, 2013, and January 9,

2014, Allman attempted to obtain a Bank of America

credit card, in the name of the victim and without the

victim’s permission.

 Count 10: On December 9, 2014, Allman obtained an

American Express credit card and made several charges

to that card, in the name of the victim and without the

victim’s permission.

¶ 31 Because each of these offenses was factually distinct, the trial

court was not required to impose concurrent sentences. See Juhl,

172 P.3d at 900 (“A sentencing court is mandated to impose

concurrent sentences only when the evidence will support no other

reasonable inference than that the convictions were based on

identical evidence.”); see also § 18-1-408(3). We perceive nothing in

17
 the record to indicate the court abused its discretion in how it

imposed sentences on Allman’s identity theft convictions. Torrez,

¶ 71.

¶ 32 Third, Allman contends that his sentences for both of his

forgery convictions should run concurrently with one another and

with his sentence for Count 4 (identity theft) because he used the

same Citibank Visa credit card for all three offenses. We disagree.

¶ 33 Count 4 was charged as identity theft based on Allman’s use

of the victim’s information to obtain the Citibank Visa without the

victim’s permission. By contrast, Allman’s two forgery convictions

were based on the following evidence:

 Count 11: Allman defrauded a liquor store, located at

100 Superior Plaza Way #100, Superior, CO 80027, by

authorizing a credit card payment at that location.

 Count 12: Allman defrauded another retailer, located at

400 Marshall Road, Superior, CO 80027, by authorizing a

credit card payment at that location.

¶ 34 The record is clear that neither forgery offense is factually

identical to the other, nor is either of them factually identical to

Count 4. Therefore, the court was not required to impose

18
 concurrent sentences for these offenses. See Juhl, 172 P.3d at 900;

see also § 18-1-408(3).

¶ 35 Fourth, Allman contends that the sentencing court illegally

sentenced him to both the custody of the Department of Corrections

and probation. Specifically, he argues that the sentencing court

was only authorized to impose an overall sentence either to

probation or imprisonment — but not both — notwithstanding that

he was convicted of multiple offenses. We disagree.

¶ 36 As an initial matter, we note that a sentence to probation is

not ordinarily subject to appellate review unless it was granted

contrary to the provisions of section 18-1.3-104(1)(a), C.R.S. 2016,

or section 18-1.3-202(1). See Jenkins, ¶ 10; see also People v.

Whitlock, 2014 COA 162, ¶ 29. However, “where, as here, a

defendant contends that ‘a court has exceeded its statutory

authority’ in imposing a probationary sentence, appellate review is

warranted.” Jenkins, ¶ 10 (quoting People v. Rossman, 140 P.3d

172, 174 (Colo. App. 2006)).

¶ 37 Under section 18-1.3-202(1),

the court may grant the defendant probation
for such period and upon such terms and
conditions as it deems best. The length of

19
 probation shall be subject to the discretion of
the court and may exceed the maximum period
of incarceration authorized for the
classification of the offense of which the
defendant is convicted . . . .

(Emphasis added.) Under the plain language of this statute, a

sentencing court has broad authority to impose a sentence to

probation. See Jenkins, ¶ 39. This discretion is limited only by

restrictions “derived from statute.” Chism v. People, 80 P.3d 293,

294 (Colo. 2003).

¶ 38 There are certain limitations on the probationary power of a

court.3 See, e.g., Veith v. People, 2017 CO 19, ¶ 4 (holding that a

defendant must consent to probation); People v. Bassford, 2014

COA 15, ¶ 25 (concluding that a sentencing court may not impose a

sentence of incarceration for a single offense and then suspend that

sentence and order probation). None of these statutory limitations

is at issue in this case.

3 One reason for the broad discretion given to a sentencing court is
to ensure that the court “select[s] a sentence, a sentence length,
and a level of supervision that addresses the offender’s individual
characteristics and reduces the potential that the offender will
engage in criminal conduct after completing his or her sentence.”
§ 18-1-102.5(1)(e), C.R.S. 2016.

20
¶ 39 Furthermore, in People v. Trujillo, 261 P.3d 485, 487-88 (Colo.

App. 2010), a division of this court held that a sentencing court is

authorized to impose a sentence of probation that runs

consecutively to the end of the defendant’s period of incarceration

in a separate case. The division reasoned that there is “no

meaningful distinction between an order for a probationary

sentence to be served consecutively to the entirety of another

sentence, and an order for a probationary sentence to be served

consecutively to the incarceration component of another sentence.”

Id. at 488. We perceive the holding and reasoning in Trujillo to be

applicable here as well. In our view, if Trujillo permits the

imposition of a sentence to probation consecutively to a sentence of

imprisonment in another case, we see no reason why its rationale

should not also encompass the imposition of a sentence to

probation that runs consecutively to a sentence of imprisonment for

a separate offense in the same case.

¶ 40 We are not persuaded by Allman’s reliance on People v.

Flenniken, 749 P.2d 395, 399 (Colo. 1988). In Flenniken, the

supreme court held that a trial court was prohibited from

sentencing a defendant to both imprisonment and probation for a

21
single offense in the same case. Id. Allman argues that Flenniken

should thus be extended to hold that a sentencing court lacks

authority to impose a consecutive sentence to probation for one

offense where the court has sentenced the defendant to prison for

other offenses in a single case. However, Allman does not cite, nor

have we found, any statute or case suggesting that the probationary

power of the court is so limited. See Trujillo, 261 P.3d at 488-89.

Indeed, the sentencing statutes generally, and the text of the

probationary power of the sentencing court specifically, are replete

with language suggesting that a sentence is indivisible only for each

offense; nowhere in those statutes are convictions for multiple

offenses regarded as a package for purposes of sentencing. See,

e.g., § 18-1-102.5(1)(a), C.R.S. 2016 (referring to sentences for each

“offense,” not for each case); see also § 18-1.3-202(1) (“The length of

probation shall be subject to the discretion of the court and may

exceed the maximum period of incarceration authorized for the

classification of the offense of which the defendant is

convicted . . . .”) (emphasis added). Contrary to Allman’s argument,

as discussed above, we are more persuaded that Trujillo provides

22
 the proper analytical framework for resolving this issue. See

Trujillo, 261 P.3d at 487-88.

¶ 41 In sum, we conclude that, where, as here, a court sentences a

defendant for multiple offenses in the same case, it may, within its

discretion, impose imprisonment for certain offenses and probation

for others — including probation consecutively to a period of

incarceration — subject only to statutory limitations. Accordingly,

we perceive no error in Allman’s consecutive sentence to probation

for forgery under Count 12. See Torrez, ¶ 71.

¶ 42 Allman also appears to argue that the court abused its

discretion by sentencing him both to probation under Count 12 and

to imprisonment on all other counts, because a sentence to

imprisonment is exclusively punitive, whereas a sentence to

probation is exclusively rehabilitative. Again, we disagree. As

discussed above, nothing in the applicable statutes prohibits such

sentencing. And Trujillo expressly recognizes the practical

difficulties of ordering a probationary sentence to run concurrently

with a sentence to incarceration. See Trujillo, 261 P.3d at 488-89.

Further, the record shows that the sentencing court relied on a

presentencing memorandum from the prosecution recommending

23
 that Allman serve his probation after his period of incarceration to

allow him to repay the significant restitution owed in this case.

¶ 43 As noted by a division of this court in People v. Maxich,

“[r]estitution is part of the criminal sentence rather than merely a

debt owed by the defendant to the victim. Payment of restitution

advances the rehabilitative purpose of a probationary sentence.”

971 P.2d 268, 269 (Colo. App. 1998) (citation omitted).4 Under

these circumstances, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the

court’s imposition of the consecutive sentence to probation on

Count 12.

¶ 44 Finally, Allman contends that his sentence on Count 1 for

theft from an at-risk adult should run concurrently to his other

sentences because the jury was not expressly required to make a

specific finding regarding what, exactly, Allman stole from the

4 To the extent that Allman argues that the victim in this case will
likely be deceased by the time he completes his prison sentence,
and, therefore, the purpose of his probation sentence is futile, he is
incorrect. Where a victim, for purposes of restitution, “is deceased
or incapacitated, the person’s spouse, parent, legal guardian,
natural or adopted child, child living with the victim, sibling,
grandparent, significant other . . . or other lawful representative,”
who is “aggrieved by the conduct of [the] offender,” is entitled to
restitution. People v. Lane, 2014 COA 48, ¶ 44 (emphasis added)
(quoting § 18-1.3-602(4)(a), C.R.S. 2016).

24
 victim as the basis for that count. Allman argues that,

consequently, the jury could have based its verdict on evidence

identical to his other convictions under section 18-1-408(3). Here,

too, we disagree.

¶ 45 According to our supreme court, “[t]he mere possibility that

the jury may have relied on identical evidence in returning more

than one conviction is not sufficient to trigger the mandatory

concurrent sentencing provision” set forth in section 18-1-408(3).

People v. Muckle, 107 P.3d 380, 383 (Colo. 2005); accord Juhl, 172

P.3d at 900. “Instead, [section 18-1-408(3)] requires courts to

impose concurrent sentences ‘only when the evidence will support

no other reasonable inference than that the convictions were based

on identical evidence.’” Torrez, ¶ 33 (quoting Juhl, 172 P.3d at 900).

¶ 46 During closing argument, the prosecutor explained to the jury

exactly what evidence supported the theft count, stating as follows:

So in relation to the theft, we’re talking about
the Victim’s bank account, 6005, the account
that [the victim] set up specifically to go to
Australia, because that is the account that
[Allman’s] purchases were made from. And the
value of those purchases, which you saw, was
$1,763.75 and was made over a four-day
period, between the 9th and 13th of December.
And so you have two questions to answer in

25
 relation to that theft. If you decide that
[Allman] stole that money from [the victim]’s
Wells Fargo bank account, you then have to go
on and decide did [Allman] steal over $500;
and, secondly, did [Allman] know that [the
victim] was an “at risk” elder? Did he know
[the victim] was over 70? . . . So that’s the first
count involving the bank account. And look at
the elements of the theft and decide if you
think that is proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.

¶ 47 Accordingly, under these circumstances, we cannot conclude

that the sentencing court was required to order a concurrent

sentence for Allman’s theft conviction. See Muckle, 107 P.3d at

383; see also Torrez, ¶ 33.

¶ 48 For the reasons stated above, we perceive no error in any of

Allman’s sentences in this case. See Torrez, ¶¶ 71-72.

IV. Conclusion

¶ 49 The judgment and sentence are affirmed.

JUDGE DAVIDSON and JUDGE CASEBOLT concur.

26