Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Donald Garcia appealed his conviction of first-degree aggravated motor vehicle theft. A division of the Colorado Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, reversed his conviction because the judge who presided over his trial, Judge Amanda Hopkins, had previously appeared as counsel for Garcia at a single hearing, at which Garcia had failed to appear, when she was a public defender.
The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, finding that Garcia had waived any claim that Hopkins was statutorily disqualified.
The state’s highest court remanded the matter to the appeals court for consideration of Garcia’s alternative arguments that Section 13-1-122 of the Colorado Revised Statutes “deprived the judge of judicial authority and that her service violated his due process right to an impartial judge.”
The appeals courts considered those arguments, found no merit and rejected them.
The appeals court affirmed.
In Re the Marriage of Humphries
In this post-dissolution of marriage case involving Elizabeth Covington and John Humphries, Covington appealed the district court’s July 19, 2022, order that granted Humphries’ motions concerning parenting time disputes under Section 14-10-129.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded the district court erred by relying on subsections (2)(b) and (2)(h) of Section 14-10-129.5 to reallocate sole decision-making responsibility from Covington to Humphries in its July 2022 order.
According to the opinion, if reallocation of decision-making responsibility is implicated as part of a parenting time dispute, Section 14-10-129.5(2)(f) requires the court to comply with Section 14-10-131. Section 14-10-131 governs modifications of decision-making responsibility, imposes a heightened standard of proof and requires a district court to make certain findings not required by Section 14-10-129.5.
Because the district court didn’t apply the correct standard or make the correct findings, the appeals court reversed the portion of the July 2022 order reallocating sole decision-making responsibility from Covington to Humphries and remanded the case.
It also reversed the portion of the July 2022 order imposing a civil fine against Covington as the district court failed to make adequate findings as to how it decided the amount.
The appeals court made evidentiary findings in the case. It found no error in the admission of expert testimony on parental alienation and affirmed the district court’s admission of the expert testimony.
The appeals court also dismissed as nonfinal the portion of the appeal related to the July 2022 order’s award of Humphries’ attorney fees, costs and expenses.
The district attorney for the 3rd Judicial District, Henry Solano, brought a successful declaratory judgment and injunctive action against Huerfano County Sheriff Bruce Newman and the Huerfano County Sheriff’s Office.
Newman and the HCSO appealed, contending the district court erred by declaring that Newman and the HCSO are subject to the requirements of Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and by entering a permanent injunction to ensure they timely disclose rule-compliant materials to Solano.
According to the opinion, the record supports the conclusion that Newman and the HCSO have repeatedly ignored Solano’s requests for rule-compliant materials, leading courts to dismiss numerous criminal cases—many involving serious felony charges—because the prosecuting attorney was unable to meet deadlines.
The Colorado Court of Appeals determined, based on its interpretation of the rule, Colorado case law and case law from other jurisdictions, that the prosecutor must take affirmative steps to ensure he receives government agency investigative materials for timely disclosure to defendants.
One such affirmative step may include, as Solano did here, obtaining injunctive and declaratory relief that ensures Newman and the HCSO produce rule-compliant materials within certain deadlines and to establish procedures for the appropriate handling of evidence.
The appeals court affirmed the declaratory judgment and permanent injunction.