Charge-Stacking Theory — Theft Counts Against JWI

Goal: maximum criminal exposure, straightest line, JWI as the primary target. The question you raised — "if there's a six-month window, is each later theft a new Class 3, and can we stack three Class 3s plus some Class 4/5 instead of one giant Class 2?" — is exactly the right instinct. Here is how the two aggregation rules actually work and how to use them.

CRS links (all from law.justia.com per your standing rule): - Theft: § 18-4-401 - At-risk / position-of-trust enhancement: § 18-6.5-103

1. Value tiers — CRS 18-4-401(2)

There is no Class 1 theft tier — Class 2 is the ceiling for a single count. So a single aggregated count maxes out at Class 2. **More total exposure comes from more counts, not a higher single class.**

2. The two aggregation rules — § 18-4-401(4)

• (4)(a) — the six-month rule. Two or more thefts committed within any six-month period may be aggregated into one count, valued in the aggregate. Corollary you spotted: thefts **more than six months apart fall into different aggregation groups — so a course of conduct spanning years naturally breaks into multiple separately-chargeable counts.**
• (4)(b) — the one-scheme rule (the one we want). Two or more thefts against the same person pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct may be aggregated with no time limit. All of this was against one entity (the JHF Trust) / one person (LCF) over a continuous course of conduct → (4)(b) lets us reach the $1,000,000 Class 2.

Key: both rules say "may be aggregated." Aggregation is the prosecutor's election, not a requirement. That is what lets us have it both ways (Section 5).

3. Timeline of intensity (the §2.2 "$1MM theft" mapped to dates)

Each discrete taking, in order — note how they recur far outside any six-month window, which both proves a course of conduct (4)(b) and means they survive as separate counts (4)(a):

The intensity escalates and clusters in 2018–2024, with the two largest discrete takings (Section 17 self-deed; §1031 shortfall) both completed within ~weeks of each other around the turn of 2023→2024 — the peak of the scheme.

4. Discrete-count menu against JWI (max penalty)

Three independent Class 3 felonies, each clearing $100k on its own proof:

• Count T-1 — §1031 shortfall, $442,676.55. Admitted in writing by JWI's own counsel. Cleanest count in the case. (Also a flat Class 3 as at-risk theft ≥ $500, [§ 18-6.5-103(5)].)
• Count T-2 — Section 17 Trust ½, ~$279,000 (REC#883505, 11/30/2023). Documentary; JWI signed both sides. See 2026.06.15 Section 17 — How 560ac Reached Justin.
• Count T-3 — 2012 Patriot sprayer, ~$250,000. Needs the depreciation/title record to firm the value (Sheriff [OBTAIN]).

Two Class 4 felonies ($20k–$100k each), naturally separate (11 months apart, different six-month groups):

• Count T-4 — Check 1031 $36,500 round-trip (FY2018). See 2026.06.15 The $36,500 Round-Trip — Checks 1031 & 1038.
• Count T-5 — Check 1038 $36,500 round-trip (FY2019).

One Class 3 (or Class 4/yr) — Count T-6 — withheld rents ~$103,500, 2021–2023 (strongest for 2023 when JWI held full control).

Forgery (separate from theft) — Count F-1 — Check 1031, [§ 18-5-102], if the "Lewis Frenzl" signature is not genuine (O-4 analysis).

5. The recommended structure — charge in the alternative

You cannot convict on the same dollars twice — you can't both fold $442k + $279k + sprayer into a Class 2 aggregate and separately convict on each as a Class 3 (double-jeopardy / unit-of-prosecution bar). So you plead them in the alternative — standard prosecution practice:

1. Lead count: one aggregated Class 2 under (4)(b) — all takings, one scheme, > $1,000,000. Single clean theory, no time-window argument needed.
2. In the alternative / additionally: the discrete Class 3 counts (T-1, T-2, T-3) and Class 4 counts (T-4, T-5) for any takings the jury might not tie into the single scheme — so a partial failure on the aggregate still yields multiple felony convictions.
3. Stacked, non-mergeable counts that don't share the theft dollars: forgery (F-1), exploitation of an at-risk person (ICAv2 Count 1), obtaining a signature by deception (Count 3), false instrument for recording (Count 5), criminal impersonation (Count 6), tampering (Count 7). These add exposure on top of the theft counts because they punish distinct conduct, not the same dollars.

6. Max-penalty math (why stacking matters)

Colorado presumptive ranges (per count; at-risk/position-of-trust under § 18-6.5-103 forces a mandatory minimum at the midpoint and these are extraordinary-risk crimes):

• One Class 2 alone: 8–24 (up to 48 aggravated).
• Three Class 3s + two Class 4s, if run consecutively: 3×(4–12) + 2×(2–6) = 16–48 years presumptive, far more aggravated — exceeds the single Class 2. But consecutive vs. concurrent is the court's discretion, and courts often run a single course of conduct concurrently.
• The non-theft counts (Counts 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, F-1) stack on top regardless — they don't merge into the theft dollars.

Bottom line: the discrete-count structure produces the **most convictions and the highest potential sentence, while the aggregated Class 2 is the cleanest single theory. Charge both, in the alternative, leading with the admitted $442k. Hone hardest on T-1 (the admission)** — it is the count JWI's own lawyer already proved.

Caveats (keep us honest — the prosecutorial memo warned against overreach)

• "May be aggregated" = prosecutor's discretion; the DA decides the final count structure. This note is the menu, not the charging decision.
• The same dollars can't be counted in both an aggregate and a discrete count for conviction — alternative pleading handles this.
• Sprayer (T-3) and rents (T-6) values need the [OBTAIN] records before they're firm.
• Consecutive sentencing is not guaranteed.