Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Victoria Carbajal and Luis Leal filed an action against Rebekah Watada under a theory of malicious prosecution. Initially, the district court granted Watada absolute prosecutorial immunity.
On appeal, a prior panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s application of absolute prosecutorial immunity to Watada and remanded the matter to the district court to conduct further proceedings on Watada’s immunity claims.
The district court subsequently did so and found that Watada was not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity but instead was entitled to qualified immunity.
Carbajal appealed to the 10th Circuit again, challenging the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Watada. In addition to responding to Carbajal’s argument, Watada argued, as an alternative ground for affirmance, that the 10th Circuit should grant her absolute prosecutorial immunity based on evidence in the record.
The 10th Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Watada and reversed the district court’s determination of the favorable termination element of prosecution in light of the U.S. Supreme Court case Thompson v. Clark, which was decided while this case was on appeal.
Thompson v. Clark clarified that, contrary to what the 10th Circuit said before, an affirmative indication of actual innocence isn’t required to establish favorable termination in a malicious prosecution case. The 10th Circuit recognized that its previous decisions have been abrogated.
The 10th Circuit vacated the district court’s findings of qualified immunity and reversed the district court’s finding that Carbajal failed to satisfy the favorable termination element of their malicious prosecution claim. The 10th Circuit remanded the case to the district court for it to resume its consideration of the three remaining elements of a malicious prosecution claim that it didn’t previously consider, so that it may determine whether qualified immunity applies. It also rejected Watada’s alternative ground for affirmance, finding that, consistent with the previous appeal in this case, she isn’t entitled to absolute immunity.
Omar Godinez is serving a sentence of 32 years to life in Colorado state prison for kidnapping two victims and sexually assaulting them. He was a minor at the time of his conviction.
After exhausting state appeals, he sought habeas relief in federal court, challenging the constitutionality of his sentence. The district court denied relief.
Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Florida, he claimed that his sentence is unconstitutional because it violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscriptions against unreasonable sentences for minors.
In Graham v. Florida, the nation’s high court interpreted the Eighth Amendment to prohibit non-homicide minor offenders from receiving a sentence of life imprisonment without a meaningful opportunity for parole based on maturity and rehabilitation.
Godinez is not eligible for parole until 2034. He argues that his sentence, governed by Colorado’s Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act, is unconstitutional because the statute will not permit the Colorado Parole Board to consider his maturity and rehabilitation when he is eligible.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question to the Colorado Supreme Court to help it evaluate Godinez’s challenge to the statute. The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that SOLSA permits consideration of maturity and requires consideration of rehabilitation.
The 10th Circuit concluded that Godinez couldn’t show that the Colorado courts unreasonably applied federal law in imposing his sentence. The Colorado courts concluded that when Godinez is eligible for parole, the parole board can consider his maturity and rehabilitation.
The 10th Circuit also found that if the state parole board fails to adhere to constitutional requirements set forth in Graham v. Florida when Godinez is eligible for parole, he can assert any constitutional challenges to the parole board’s evaluation of his parole eligibility. Until then, the 10th Circuit concluded that his challenge isn’t ripe for adjudication.
The 10th Circuit denied Godinez’s petition for habeas relief.