Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

David Waddell pled guilty to: possession of a controlled substance, a level 1 drug felony; attempted aggravated robbery, a class 4 felony; and vehicular eluding, a class 5 felony. At Waddell’s combined sentencing hearing, the trial court failed to impose the following surcharges: drug offender; rural alcohol and substance abuse; restorative justice; offender identification fund (“genetic testing"); victims and witnesses assistance and law enforcement fund (“victims assistance”); and crime victim compensation fund (“victim compensation”). After the sentencing hearing, however, the court included these surcharges on Waddell’s mittimuses. Waddell appealed his sentences. As relevant here, he argued that the late imposition of the surcharges violated his federal and state constitutional rights against double jeopardy. In an unpublished decision, a unanimous division of the court of appeals disagreed. After review, the Colorado Supreme Court held the drug offender surcharge, which was long ago declared a form of punishment, was statutorily mandated and, thus, the trial court’s failure to order it in open court rendered Waddell’s sentence on his level 1 drug felony conviction illegal and subject to correction at any time pursuant to Crim. P. 35(a). Therefore, the trial court’s imposition of that surcharge after the sentencing hearing did not violate Waddell’s rights under the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Colorado Constitutions. The trial court's imposition of the other five surcharges after the sentencing hearing also did not infringe Waddell's constitutional rights: they were statutorily mandated and subject to correction at any time pursuant to Crim. P. 35(a). The Supreme Court remanded this case to give Waddell an opportunity to request a waiver of the surcharges assessed. View "Waddell v. Colorado" on Justia Law

The State sought interlocutory review of a trial court decision finding Bradley Clark was in custody so as to trigger "Miranda" when he made statements to law enforcement during the execution of a search warrant prior to his formal arrest. The trial court granted Clark's motion to suppress the statements. Firefighters were dispatched to a grocery store in Durango, Colorado to address a fire inside the store. They determined the fire had been set intentionally, and requested police department assistance. Based on review of security camera footage, police pinpointed the suspect who walked from the area of the fire to the self-checkout lines. At his residence, detectives in plain clothes, and one officer in uniform, discussed Clark's whereabouts through the door. They asked Clark if he would be willing to discuss his whereabouts outside; Clark acquiesced, wishing to avoid alarming his wife and children. Notwithstanding prior statements that he knew nothing about the incident, Clark said that he knew about the fire because he had read about it on the internet and that he and his wife had “joked about it.” Having heard Clark contradict himself a number of times, Detective Newman told Clark that there were video cameras in the store and that based on the footage, Clark was the suspect. While Detective Newman spoke with Clark outside, the other officers searched the home. Detective Newman testified that he did not place Clark in handcuffs while the two were talking, nor did he put any other kind of restraints on Clark or otherwise limit Clark's movement. The detective further testified he did not give Clark a Miranda advisement, stating that once Clark was under arrest, he did not question Clark further. Clark pleaded not guilty, resulting in the motion to suppress at issue here. The Colorado Supreme Court determined Clark was not in custody for Miranda purposes when the detective questioned him outside his home regarding the fire that occurred at the grocery store. The trial court erred in suppressing statements Clark made at the time. View "Colorado v. Clark" on Justia Law

John Halaseh petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court for review of a court of appeals' remand order which directed the trial court to enter four convictions for class 4 felony theft in place of the single conviction of class 3 felony theft reflected in the charge and jury verdict. The intermediate appellate court reversed the conviction for class 3 felony theft on the grounds that when the statutory authorization for aggregating separate acts of theft was properly applied, there was insufficient evidence to support a single conviction for theft of $20,000 or more. It also found, however, that there was sufficient evidence to support four separate convictions for aggregated thefts with values qualifying as class 4 felonies, and that substituting these four class 4 felony convictions for the vacated class 3 felony conviction was necessary to fulfill what it understood to be its obligation to maximize the effect of the jury’s verdict. The Supreme Court disapproved of the appellate court's revision to Halaseh's sentence, finding that no such offense was implicitly found by the jury, and therefore none could be entered in lieu of the reversed conviction without depriving defendant of his right to a jury trial. The matter was remanded with directions to simply reverse the conviction for a class 3 felony theft. View "Halaseh v. Colorado" on Justia Law

Michelle Ferrigno Warren, a candidate for the United States Senate, was unable to collect the statutorily required 1,500 signatures in six of the seven required congressional districts. Ferrigno Warren argued that her name should have nevertheless been placed on the ballot because, under the "unprecedented circumstances" presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, her efforts demonstrated “substantial compliance” with the Election Code’s requirements. The Secretary of State disagreed, arguing that “substantial compliance” should be determined by the application of a mathematical formula that discounts the signature requirement by the number of days signature collection was impeded by the pandemic. While the Colorado Supreme Court recognized the uniqueness of the current circumstances, it concluded nontheless that the legislature alone had the authority to change the minimum signature requirements set out in the Election Code. Because Ferrigno Warren did not meet the threshold signature requirement, the Secretary properly declined to place her on the ballot. View "Griswold v. Ferrigno Warren" on Justia Law

After being charged, fourteen-year-old G.S.S. was detained for more than three months without bail, even though he had not entered a plea and had not been tried on the charges against him. At that point, G.S.S.’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that G.S.S.’s “right to a speedy trial” had been violated under section 19-2-509(4)(b), C.R.S. (2019). The trial court agreed and dismissed the case against G.S.S. with prejudice, and the court of appeals affirmed in Colorado in Interest of G.S.S., 2019 COA 4M, __ P.3d __. The Colorado Supreme Court then granted certiorari to determine the proper remedy for a violation of the sixty-day limit in section 19-2-509(4)(b). The Supreme Court determined the remedy for a section 19-2-509(4)(b) violation was for the trial court to immediately hold a bail hearing and order the juvenile's release. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed. View "Colorado In Interest of G.S.S." on Justia Law

William Persichette, through Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C., brought an underinsured-motorist (“UIM”) action against Owners Insurance Company (“Owners”) for allegedly handling his insurance claim unreasonably and in bad faith. About three months later, Persichette retained Mark Levy of Levy Law, P.C. (collectively “Levy Law”) as co-counsel. Owners promptly moved to disqualify Levy Law pursuant to Colo. RPC Rule 1.9(a) on the ground that Levy Law was Owners’ longtime former counsel and had a conflict of interest. The district court denied the motion, finding that Levy Law’s representation of Persichette was not “substantially related” to Levy Law’s decade-plus representation of Owners. Owners then filed a C.A.R. 21 petition invoking the Colorado Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in denying Owners’ motion to disqualify, and reversed. View "Persichette v. Owners Ins. Co." on Justia Law

This case and its companion, Langer v. Board of Larimer County Commissioners, 2020 CO 31, __ P.3d __, arose out of a contentious zoning dispute involving the propriety of constructing a gravity-based mountain roller coaster in a part of the Estes Valley, Colorado in which “significant view sheds, woodlands, rock outcroppings, ridgelines, other sensitive environmental areas and low-density residential development comprise the predominant land use pattern.” The issue presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on whether the local authorities tasked with making and reviewing zoning determinations abused their discretion in interpreting and applying the Estes Valley Development Code (the “Code”) when they determined that the proposed mountain coaster could be constructed. Applying a deferential standard of review for an action brought pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), the Court concluded that they did not. Furthermore, the Court determined the constitutionality of the Code could not be appropriately raised or considered in a suit brought exclusively as a Rule 106 claim: "Rule 106 proceedings are reserved for challenges to the judicial and quasi-judicial actions of government actors. In other words, these claims challenge the application of a law in a particular instance, not the law itself." View "Yakutat Land Corp. v. Langer" on Justia Law

This case and its companion, Yakutat Land Corp. v. Langer, 2020 CO 30, __ P.3d __, arose out of a contentious zoning dispute involving the propriety of constructing a gravity-based mountain roller coaster in a part of the Estes Valley, Colorado in which “significant view sheds, woodlands, rock outcroppings, ridgelines, other sensitive environmental areas and low-density residential development comprise the predominant land use pattern.” The issue presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on whether the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners (the “BOCC”) misconstrued applicable law and abused its discretion in finding that defendant Yakutat Land Corporation’s mountain coaster project was properly classified as a Park and Recreation Facility, rather than as an Outdoor Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishment. The Supreme Court concluded the BOCC correctly construed the applicable code provisions, and, applying the deferential standard of review mandated here, it further concluded that the BOCC did not abuse its discretion in classifying the mountain coaster project as a Park and Recreation Facility. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Langer v. Board of County Commissioners" on Justia Law

Defendant Pamela Coke was charged with sexual assault on a child. The prosecution filed this interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order suppressing: (1) evidence obtained from Coke’s cell phone; and (2) certain statements she made to the police before her formal arrest. After review, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed that portion of the trial court’s order suppressing the evidence from Coke’s cell phone, but reversed the portion suppressing her statements. The Court determined the warrant at issue in this case contained no particularity as to the alleged victim or to the time period during which the assault allegedly occurred. "Rather, it permitted the officers to search all texts, videos, pictures, contact lists, phone records, and any data that showed ownership or possession. We conclude that such broad authorization violates the particularity demanded by the Fourth Amendment." Because the warrant authorized a general search of Coke's phone, it was also unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Coke v. Colorado" on Justia Law

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of law to the Colorado Supreme Court. The certified question arose from a dispute in which plaintiff Amica Life Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it was not required to pay defendant Michael Wertz benefits under a life insurance policy naming Wertz as the beneficiary. The policy, which was issued in compliance with a standard enacted by the Interstate Insurance Product Regulation Commission (the “Commission”), contained a two-year suicide exclusion, and the insured committed suicide more than one year but less than two years after Amica had issued the life insurance policy to him. Wertz contended that the policy’s two-year suicide exclusion was unenforceable because it conflicted with Colorado statute, section 10-7-109, C.R.S. (2019). Wertz asserted that the Colorado General Assembly could not properly delegate to the Commission the authority to enact a standard that would effectively override this statute. After review, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with Wertz, and accordingly, answered the certified question narrowly: the General Assembly did not have the authority to delegate to the Commission the power to issue a standard authorizing the sale of life insurance policies in Colorado containing a two-year suicide exclusion when a Colorado statute prohibited insurers doing business in Colorado from asserting suicide as a defense against payment on a life insurance policy after the first year of that policy. View "Amica Life Insurance Company v. Wertz" on Justia Law