Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Three cases concerning juvenile sentencing were consolidated by the Supreme Court for the purpose of this opinion. In each, the Court examined the appropriate remedies for the defendants whose sentences would otherwise be unconstitutional under "Miller v. Alabama," (132 S. CT 2455 (2012)). Under the statutory schemen in place between 1990 and 2006, all three defendants in these cases were given mandatory life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for the crimes they committed as juveniles. Two of the cases, "Colorado v. Tate" and "Banks v. Colorado," came to the Supreme Court on direct review. "Miller" applied to these cases and rendered their sentences unconstitutional. "In order to preserve as much of the legislature’s work as possible, Tate and Banks should be given individualized resentencing hearings that take into account their 'youth and attendant characteristics.'" The third case, "Jensen," was a C.A.R. 50 petition that came on collateral review of a final judgment. Because this case was on collateral review, the issue was whether "Miller" applied retroactively. The Colorado Court found that because the rule announced in "Miller" was procedural rather than substantive, and was not a "watershed" rule of procedure, it did not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review of final judgment. Therefore, "Miller" did not apply to Jensen. View "Colorado v. Tate" on Justia Law

Petitioner Derrick Wilson objected to the prosecutor's use of a peremptory strike to excuse a black veniremember, arguing that the strike violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted in "Batson v. Kentucky," (476 U.S. 79 (1986)). The trial court then allowed the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral reason for the strike. She explained that the prospective juror appeared uncomfortable with DNA evidence and the lack of eyewitness identification. Defense counsel responded that the prospective juror's responses indicated "the exact opposite," but the trial court accepted the prosecutor's explanation and denied Wilson's Batson challenge. The jury later found Wilson guilty of sexual assault, second-degree kidnapping, and unlawful sexual contact. Wilson appealed, and the court of appeals held that the trial court clearly erred in denying his Batson challenge. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was the appropriate resolution of a Batson challenge. After review, the Court held that a prosecutor's error in recollection did not compel a finding of purposeful discrimination in contravention of the Equal Protection Clause as interpreted by Batson. "Rather, the Batson analysis requires the trial court to assess the credibility of the proponent of a peremptory strike and determine whether to believe her race-neutral explanation. Unless the opponent of the strike can prove purposeful discrimination, the trial court should deny the Batson challenge. On appeal, a reviewing court should defer to the trial court's credibility determination and reverse only for clear error." The Court concluded the trial court in this matter did not clearly err by denying Wilson's Batson challenge, and reversed the Court of Appeals. View "Colorado v. Wilson" on Justia Law

In 2006, a jury convicted William J. Hunsaker, Jr.,of sexual assault on a child (count I), a class 4 felony,and sexual assault on a child–pattern of abuse (count II), a class 3 felony. The trial court concluded that these offenses constituted "extraordinary risk crimes"under section 18-1.3-401(10), C.R.S. (2014).This resulted in indeterminate minimum sentencing ranges of two to eight years for count I and four to sixteen years for count II. In 2011, Hunsaker filed a motion to correct his sentences underCrim. P. 35(a) or, in the alternative, a motion to reduce his sentences under Crim. P. 35(b). He argued the two counts could not qualify as extraordinary risk crimes without an explicit finding of aggravating circumstances. The prosecution conceded that neither count qualified as an extraordinary risk crime but asserted only count I's sentence was illegal. The post-conviction court granted Hunsaker's Rule 35(a) motion. The prosecution appealed, and the court of appeals reversed. First, the court of appeals held that the mandatory sentencing statute, section 18-1.3-406, did not require the prosecution to establish aggravating circumstances where the defendant's conviction is for a sex offense that constitutes a crime of violence. Second, the court of appeals concluded that under section 16-12-102(1), C.R.S. (2014), the prosecution can appeal "any decision of a court in a criminal case upon any question of law." Third,the court of appeals held that if a court can correct an illegal sentence on a count merely by removing the excess time that rendered the sentence illegal, a defendant is not entitled to resentencing on other counts with legal sentences. Upon review, the Supreme Court held: (1) when a conviction for a sex offense requires sentencing in accordance with the mandatory sentencing statute, the prosecution is not required to prove aggravating circumstances to support a bottom-end sentence in the aggravated range; (2) the prosecution here was authorized to appeal the post-conviction court's ruling on the defendant's Rule 35(a) motion because it challenged the legal basis for the range the post-conviction court used to impose the sentence; (3) under Crim. P. 35(a), the illegality of a sentence on one count did not entitle a defendant to resentencing on other counts with legal sentences; and (4) if a sentence was subject to correction on one count, Crim. P. 35(b) authorized a resentencing court to reconsider and reduce the legal sentences as to all counts after it has corrected the entire sentence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the court of appeals and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Hunsaker v. Colorado" on Justia Law

The Colorado Supreme Court granted review in two cases to determine what remedy is appropriate for juvenile defendants who were given sentences that would be unconstitutional under the federal Supreme Court's decision in "Miller v. Alabama," (132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)). The issue in a third case centered on whether that remedy applies retroactively. Tenarro Banks and Michael Quinn Tate, were convicted in 2004 of class 1 felonies for acts committed when they were juveniles. Tate was convicted of felony murder for the stabbing death of a friend's father during a burglary when Tate was sixteen. Banks was convicted of first degree murder for shooting another teenager outside of a house party when he was fifteen. Under the sentencing scheme in place at the time, which governed offenses committed between 1990 and 2006, both Banks and Tate were given mandatory sentences to life in prison without the possibility of parole ("LWOP"). While both cases were pending on appeal to the court of appeals, the Supreme Court released its opinion in "Miller." The Miller decision rendered the Colorado statutory scheme for mandatory LWOP in place between 1990 and 2006 unconstitutional as applied to juveniles, including Tate and Banks. The Colorado Court determined that the state legislature had not acted to adopt a new sentencing scheme in light of Miller. The Court therefore remanded these cases for such a determination: if the trial court should determine, after an individualized sentencing process, that LWOP was not warranted, the appropriate sentence (in the absence of legislative action) was life in prison with the possibility of parole after forty years ("LWPP"). This was the sentence that was in place both before and after the mandatory LWOP scheme at issue in this case—that is, before 1990 and after 2006. Eric Jensen was convicted in 1998 of first degree murder for helping a friend kill the friend's mother and dispose of the body. He committed this crime when he was seventeen. Under the sentencing scheme in place at the time, Jensen was given a mandatory sentence to LWOP. On direct appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment. The Colorado Court denied Jensen's certiorari petition, and the judgment became final. Jensen later filed two Crim.P. 35(c) motions for post-conviction relief, the second of which was at issue here: the trial court denied the motion, and Jensen appealed to the court of appeals. While that appeal was pending, the Supreme Court released Miller. Jensen moved for post-conviction relief in light of Miller. The issue Jensen's case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review was whether Miller's holding was retroactive to Jensen's case. The Court concluded that the new rule announced in Miller was procedural, rather than substantive, in nature, and that therefore it did not apply retroactively. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court's order denying his motion for post-conviction relief. View "Colorado v. Tate" on Justia Law

St. Jude’s Co. made a direct appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court a water court decision entered in favor of the Roraring Fork Club, LLC. With regard to the Club’s two applications for water rights, the water court granted appropriative rights, approved the Club’s accompanying augmentation plan, and amended the legal description of the Club’s point of diversion for an already decreed right. With regard to the separate action filed by St. Jude’s Co., the water court denied all but one of its claims for trespass, denied its claims for breach of a prior settlement agreement with the Club, denied its claims for declaratory and injunctive relief concerning its asserted entitlement to the exercise of powers of eminent domain, quieted title to disputed rights implicated in the Club’s application for an augmentation plan, and awarded attorney fees in favor of the Club, according to the terms of the settlement agreement of the parties. Upon review of St. Jude's arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court concluded the Club failed to demonstrate an intent to apply the amount of water for which it sought a decree to any beneficial use. Accordingly, the Court reversed the water court with regard to appropriative rights. The Court found no other reversible errors in the water court's decision. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including a determination of the Club's request for appellate attorney fees. View "St. Jude's Co. v. Roaring Fork Club, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The Douglas County School District implemented its Choice Scholarship Pilot Program (CSP), a program that awarded taxpayer-funded scholarships to qualifying elementary, middle, and high school students. Those students could use their scholarships to help pay their tuition at partnering private schools, including religious schools. Following a lawsuit from Douglas County taxpayers, the trial court found that the CSP violated the Public School Finance Act of 1994, as well as various provisions of the Colorado Constitution. The trial court permanently enjoined implementation of the CSP. The court of appeals reversed, holding that: (1) Petitioners lacked standing to sue under the Act; and (2)the CSP did not violate the Colorado Constitution. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the CSP comported with both the Act and the Colorado Constitution. After review, the Court held that Petitioners lacked standing to challenge the CSP under the Act. Further, the CSP violated article IX, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution. Accordingly, the Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to that court with instructions to remand back to the trial court so that the trial court could reinstate its order permanently enjoining the CSP. View "Taxpayers for Public Education v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

The trial court completely closed the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover officers in respondent Omer Hassen's trial. The Colorado Supreme Court granted review of this case to determine whether this closure constituted structural error. The Court concluded that the closure violated respondent's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, rejecting the State's argument that the closure was so trivial that it did not implicate respondent's constitutional rights. View "Colorado v. Hassen" on Justia Law

At issue in this case were two water court rulings upholding the Special Improvement District No. 1 (“Subdistrict”) of the Rio Grande Water Conservation District’s (“District”) and the State Engineer’s approval of the 2012 Annual Replacement Plan (“ARP”) developed pursuant to the Subdistrict’s decreed Plan of Water Management (“Amended Plan”). In "San Antonio, Los Pinos & Conejos River Acequia Preservation Association v. Special Improvement District No. 1" (“San Antonio”), (270 P.3d 927 (Colo. 2011)), the Supreme Court affirmed the water court’s May 2010 Decree that approved the Subdistrict’s Amended Plan and imposed additional decree conditions on that Plan. The 2012 ARP under review here was the first ARP prepared pursuant to the Subdistrict’s Amended Plan. Water levels in the unconfined aquifer within the Subdistrict declined significantly due to increased groundwater consumption and sustained drought. The Amended Plan required the Subdistrict to prepare, and obtain the State Engineer’s approval of, an ARP that prevented injury to senior water rights. Objectors San Antonio, Los Pinos and Conejos River Acequia Preservation Association Save Our Senior Water Rights, LLC, Richard Ramstetter, and Costilla Ditch Company were senior surface water right holders on the Rio Grande River and its tributaries. They appealed two pretrial rulings as well as a judgment and decree upholding the 2012 ARP. Upon review of the objections, the Supreme Court concluded that the 2012 ARP complied with the Amended Plan and 2010 Decree, and protected against injury. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the water court's pretrial orders, judgment and decree pertaining to the 2012 ARP. View "San Antonio, Los Pinos & Conejos River Acequia Preservation" on Justia Law

In 2009, a jury found defendant Kevin Elmarr guilty of first degree murder for strangling his ex-wife. In an unpublished decision, the court of appeals reversed Elmarr’s conviction and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of two alternate suspects Before the new trial, the State moved to exclude evidence of similar acts by one of those alternate suspects, as well as out-of-court statements made by that alternate suspect implicating himself in both the other similar acts and the charged crime. The trial court, relying largely on the court of appeals’ decision remanding the case, denied the State's motion. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court failed on remand to conduct the proper analysis to determine the admissibility of the alternate suspect evidence, in particular, evidence of other similar acts committed by the alternate suspect and statements made by the alternate suspect to law enforcement. The State contended that this area of the law has generated considerable confusion and asked the Supreme Court to clarify the proper framework for examining the admissibility of such evidence. Upon review, the Court agreed with the State that the trial court failed to conduct the proper analysis and thus make absolute our rule to show cause. The trial court understood the court of appeals’ decision remanding the case to require admission of the alternate suspect However, the court of appeals applied an incorrect framework for analyzing the admissibility of alternate suspect evidence. The Court used the opportunity of this opinion to set forth the proper framework, and remanded this case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "In re Colorado v. Elmarr" on Justia Law

This case centered on appropriate resolution of a Batson challenge. Petitioner Derrick Wilson objected to the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory strike to excuse a black veniremember and argued that the strike violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmen tas interpreted in "Batson v. Kentucky," (476 U.S. 79 (1986)). The trial court allowed the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral reason for the strike. She explained that the prospective juror appeared uncomfortable with DNA evidence and the lack of eyewitness identification. Defense counsel responded that the prospective juror’s responses indicated “the exact opposite,” but the trial court accepted the prosecutor’s explanation and denied Wilson’s Batson challenge. The jury later found Wilson guilty of sexual assault, second-degree kidnapping, and unlawful sexual contact. Wilson appealed, and the court of appeals held that the trial court clearly erred in denying his Batson challenge. The State appealed, and the Colorado Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that a prosecutor’s error in recollection did not compel a finding of purposeful discrimination in contravention of the Equal Protection Clause pursuant to Batson. "Rather, the Batson analysis requires the trial court to assess the credibility of the proponent of a peremptory strike and determine whether to believe her race-neutral explanation. Unless the opponent of the strike can prove purposeful discrimination, the trial court should deny the Batson challenge." View "Colorado v. Wilson" on Justia Law