Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2015, Jesus Rodriguez-Morelos began offering Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) classes, falsely claiming they were affiliated with the nonprofit organization United with Migrants. He charged students for these classes, which were not state-approved, and used the nonprofit's name and tax-exempt document without authorization. Complaints about the classes led to an investigation by the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA), revealing that Rodriguez-Morelos was unlawfully receiving money for the unapproved classes.Rodriguez-Morelos was charged with several crimes, including identity theft under section 18-5-902(1)(a), C.R.S. (2024). A jury convicted him on all charges. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the theft and criminal impersonation convictions but vacated the identity theft conviction. The court concluded that the identity theft statute's definition of "personal identifying information" pertains to individuals, not organizations, and thus did not apply to Rodriguez-Morelos's use of the nonprofit's name and document.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the identity theft statute's reference to "personal identifying information" applies only to information concerning single, identified human beings, not organizations. Therefore, Rodriguez-Morelos's actions did not constitute identity theft under the statute. View "People v. Rodriguez-Morelos" on Justia Law

Five elderly African elephants, Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo, reside at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo. The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. (NRP) filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on behalf of the elephants, seeking their transfer to a suitable elephant sanctuary. NRP argued that the elephants were unlawfully confined and had a right to bodily liberty due to their cognitive and social complexities. The petition included affidavits from animal biologists supporting the elephants' autonomy and complex needs.The El Paso County District Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Colorado's habeas corpus statute only applies to persons, not nonhuman animals. The court accepted NRP's allegations as true but concluded that the elephants lacked standing to seek habeas relief. The court also determined that NRP did not have proper next friend status to bring the petition on the elephants' behalf. Additionally, the court found that NRP failed to make a prima facie case that the elephants were unlawfully confined, as the zoo was operating within legal standards.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the habeas corpus statute in Colorado applies only to persons, defined as human beings, and does not extend to nonhuman animals. The court rejected NRP's argument to rely on common law for broader habeas corpus rights, emphasizing that the statute explicitly limits relief to persons. The court also noted that recognizing nonhuman animals as persons would have significant legal and societal implications. Consequently, the elephants did not have standing to bring a habeas corpus claim, and the district court's dismissal was upheld. View "Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Soc'y" on Justia Law

During Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, Black Hills Colorado Electric LLC incurred extraordinary natural gas costs to ensure continuous electric service to its customers. Holcim U.S. Inc., a large retail electric customer, argued that the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) set an unjust and unreasonable charge for electricity over a five-day period, disproportionately allocating utility costs to Holcim. Holcim also claimed that the PUC's charge constituted a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.The District Court for the City and County of Denver upheld the PUC's decision, finding that the rate was just and reasonable and did not violate Holcim's constitutional rights. The court noted that the PUC's rate structure was based on total customer usage forecasts and was applied uniformly to all customers.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the PUC's rate was just and reasonable, as it accurately reflected the cost of service, distributed costs among customers fairly, and maintained the utility's financial integrity. The court also found that Holcim's actual electricity usage during the storm did not impact the costs incurred by Black Hills, which were based on forecasted needs.Additionally, the court rejected Holcim's constitutional claims. It concluded that Holcim did not adequately develop its takings claim and that the PUC's decision did not violate Holcim's due process rights, as the PUC provided a fair hearing, considered competent evidence, and made its determination based on evidence rather than arbitrarily. View "Holcim U.S. Inc. v. Colo. Pub. Utils. Comm'n" on Justia Law

The petitioners, including The Gazette and the Invisible Institute, sought records from the Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (POST) regarding peace officer demographics, certification, and decertification. They argued that these records should be disclosed under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). POST countered that the records were criminal justice records governed by the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act (CCJRA), which allows the custodian discretion in disclosing records.The Denver District Court agreed with POST, concluding that POST is a criminal justice agency under the CCJRA and that the requested records were criminal justice records. The court found that POST's activities, such as conducting criminal background checks and investigating officers, qualified it as a criminal justice agency. The court held that the custodian did not abuse her discretion in partially denying the records requests due to concerns about officer safety and ongoing investigations.The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, albeit on slightly different grounds. The appellate court concluded that POST is a criminal justice agency because it collects and stores arrest and criminal records information when it revokes a peace officer's certification.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. The court held that POST qualifies as a criminal justice agency because it performs activities directly related to the detection or investigation of crime. This includes conducting criminal investigations into officers and applicants suspected of criminal offenses. Consequently, the CCJRA governs the records requested by the petitioners, allowing the custodian discretion in their disclosure. View "The Gazette v. Bourgerie" on Justia Law

Marcus A. Fear was involved in a rear-end collision in 2018, resulting in injuries and medical treatment. He held an underinsured motorist (UIM) policy with GEICO and settled with the tortfeasor's insurer for $25,000. Fear sought additional compensation from GEICO, which offered $2,500 and later $4,004, but Fear did not accept these offers. He then sued GEICO for statutory bad faith under section 10-3-1115, alleging unreasonable delay in payment of his UIM claim.The case proceeded to a bench trial where experts disagreed on GEICO's handling of the claim. The district court found that $3,961 of Fear's non-economic damages were undisputed and ruled that GEICO violated section 10-3-1115. GEICO appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that non-economic damages are inherently subjective and that admitting GEICO's claim evaluation as evidence of undisputed benefits violated CRE 408.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and agreed with the lower court that CRE 408 bars the admission of internal settlement evaluations to show undisputed benefits owed. However, it noted that such evaluations might be admissible for other purposes, such as establishing an insurer's good or bad faith. The court also concluded that non-economic damages could be undisputed or not subject to reasonable dispute in some cases, contrary to the appellate court's ruling that they are always reasonably disputable.Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment, finding that Fear did not provide admissible evidence to show that any portion of his non-economic damages was undisputed or not subject to reasonable dispute. View "Fear v. GEICO Cas. Co." on Justia Law

In 1996, Rodney Dewayne McDonald was convicted by a jury of attempted first-degree murder, second-degree assault, possession of a weapon by a previous offender, and two habitual criminal counts. The habitual criminal counts were based on prior felony convictions from 1994 and 1995. McDonald was sentenced to seventy-two years in prison, and his conviction became final in 1999.In 2007, McDonald sought a proportionality review of his sentence, which the district court denied, concluding that the sentence was not grossly disproportionate. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Following the 2019 Wells-Yates decision, which altered the proportionality-review process in Colorado, McDonald moved for a second proportionality review, arguing that his sentence was unconstitutional under the new rules. The district court denied this motion, stating that Wells-Yates had not been applied retroactively by higher courts. The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld this decision, agreeing that Wells-Yates did not apply retroactively.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and concluded that the Wells-Yates decision did not announce new substantive rules of constitutional law and therefore did not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. The court held that Wells-Yates merely clarified existing law and did not change the substantive reach of the habitual criminal statute. Consequently, McDonald was not entitled to a second proportionality review of his sentence. The judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "McDonald v. State" on Justia Law

In 1993, David L. Ward was convicted by a jury of robbery, aggravated robbery, and three habitual criminal counts based on prior felony convictions. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment. Ward appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed his robbery and aggravated robbery convictions but remanded the case to determine if Ward had a justifiable excuse for his untimely challenge to the prior convictions. The trial court found no justifiable excuse, and the appellate court affirmed the habitual criminal counts. Ward's convictions became final in 1999.In 2020, Ward filed a pro se motion for a proportionality review of his sentence under the Wells-Yates decision. The postconviction court concluded that Ward's claims were time-barred under Colorado law. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals held that Wells-Yates did not create a new substantive constitutional rule that applies retroactively and affirmed that Ward's collateral attack was untimely.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and applied its conclusion from a companion case, McDonald v. People, that Wells-Yates's holdings do not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. The court found that Ward did not establish justifiable excuse or excusable neglect for failing to collaterally attack his prior convictions within the required three-year period. Consequently, the court concluded that Ward's collateral attack was untimely and affirmed the judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals. View "Ward v. State" on Justia Law

Matt Roane was involved in litigation with the Archuleta County Board of Commissioners when he submitted a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request to Archuleta County Clerk and Recorder, Kristy Archuleta, seeking a recording of a recent Board meeting. Archuleta denied the request, claiming it circumvented the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. Roane had not sought any records through discovery in his civil action against the Board. Roane then sued Archuleta, alleging a violation of CORA.The district court granted Roane's motion to show cause, rejecting Archuleta's argument that the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure prohibited Roane from obtaining evidence outside of discovery procedures. The court ordered Archuleta to produce the recording. Archuleta appealed, arguing that the district court allowed Roane to bypass discovery rules. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, holding that CORA allows litigants to inspect public records even if they are relevant to pending litigation.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and held that a litigant may obtain records under CORA even if those records are relevant to pending litigation and the litigant has not made document requests under the Rules of Civil Procedure. The court emphasized that CORA and the Rules of Civil Procedure are distinct legal regimes and that CORA does not limit inspection rights simply because the requester is involved in litigation with the public entity. The court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Archuleta v. Roane" on Justia Law

Parker Water and Sanitation District, a Colorado special district, applied for six permits to construct wells to withdraw nontributary groundwater from the Denver Basin aquifers. The State Engineer approved the applications and issued the permits, including an allowed average annual withdrawal rate and, for the first time, an explicit condition limiting the total volume of groundwater that could be withdrawn over the life of the permits. Parker challenged this condition, arguing that the State Engineer lacked the authority to impose such a limit.The Water Division One court found in favor of the State Engineer, concluding that section 37-90-137, C.R.S. (2024), and the Statewide Nontributary Ground Water Rules unambiguously set forth a total volumetric limit on the amount of nontributary Denver Basin groundwater a permittee may withdraw. The court determined that the statute and rules require a total volumetric limit equal to the quantity of nontributary groundwater underlying the land owned by the applicant, as determined by the State Engineer at the time the well permit is issued.The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the water court's decision, holding that section 37-90-137 unambiguously imposes a total volumetric limit on nontributary groundwater withdrawals over the lifetime of a well permit. The court also held that this limit applies to well permits issued under both the current statute and the earlier version enacted through Senate Bill 213. Additionally, the court concluded that the Statewide Nontributary Ground Water Rules unambiguously impose a total volumetric limit and that the State Engineer has the authority to include such a limit in well permits. The court further held that water court decrees determining use rights for nontributary Denver Basin groundwater set forth a total volumetric limit on withdrawals unless an underlying decree explicitly provides otherwise. Finally, the court found that the water court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery. View "Parker Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Rein" on Justia Law

Francine Erica Segura was involved in an armed home invasion robbery and was subsequently charged and convicted of multiple crimes, including second-degree kidnapping and aggravated robbery. She was sentenced to 111 years in prison, which was later reduced to 73 years upon her request for sentence reconsideration. Segura then filed a pro se motion under Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c), claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel and requesting postconviction counsel.The trial court reviewed Segura's motion and denied ten out of eleven claims, forwarding the remaining claim to the prosecution and the Office of the Public Defender (OPD). Due to a conflict of interest, an attorney from the Office of Alternate Defense Counsel (OADC) was appointed. This attorney filed a supplemental motion focusing on the single surviving claim, which was ultimately denied after an evidentiary hearing. Segura appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision in part, ruling that the trial court had improperly restricted the scope of postconviction counsel's representation.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and held that under Rule 35(c)(3)(IV)-(V), a trial court must either deny all claims in a pro se motion or forward the entire motion to the OPD if any claim has arguable merit. The court rejected the prosecution's argument for a hybrid approach that would allow partial denial of claims. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, ruling that the trial court violated the procedural requirements of Rule 35(c)(3)(IV)-(V) by limiting the scope of postconviction counsel's representation. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "People v. Segura" on Justia Law