Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the Colorado Court of Appeals reversibly erred in determining Anthony Smith preserved all of the claims he had raised in a pro se Criminal Procedure 35(c) motion, despite his not pursuing some of those claims in the later briefing on his motion and at the postconviction hearing; counsel may abandon some of a defendant’s pro se Criminal Procedure 35(c) claims without first obtaining the defendant’s informed consent; and abandonment of individual postconviction claims requires a showing of intent to do so.
According to a footnote in the opinion, the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari on the following issues: whether the postconviction court correctly held the defendant waived his pro se claims where the claims were conclusory and defense counsel pursued other claims but not these; whether defense counsel, as captain of the ship, may decline to pursue and abandon individual pro se claims absent defendant’s informed consent to such abandonment; and whether abandonment of individual postconviction claims required a showing of an intent to abandon such claims.
The Colorado Supreme Court concluded Smith abandoned the claims he ceased pursuing and the appeals court erred in determining all of Smith’s pro se claims were preserved. The state Supreme Court also concluded that because the “captain of the ship” doctrine allocates to counsel the authority to make strategic decisions, including which claims to pursue, counsel may abandon some, although not all, of a defendant’s pro se Criminal Procedure 35(c) claims without the client’s informed consent. Finally, the state Supreme Court noted that because the record in this case establishes Smith intended to abandon the pro se claims he had ceased pursuing, it need not decide whether the abandonment of individual postconviction claims requires a showing of intent to abandon such claims.
The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the division.
Smith was convicted of one count of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust as part of a pattern of sexual abuse, three counts of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, victim under 15 years old and four counts of promotion of obscenity to a minor. He appealed his conviction, and the appeals court affirmed.
Upon review of Smith’s pro se filing, the postconviction court ordered a copy of Smith’s motion be served on the public defender’s office and the office to respond as to whether it intended to enter an appearance. The court further ordered the public defender’s office to identify whether any conflict existed, request any additional time needed to investigate and “add any claims the Public Defender finds to have arguable merit.”
The postconviction court issued a written order addressing and denying all of the claims raised in the counsel’s motion. It found Smith’s trial and appellate counsel’s actions didn’t fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. In a footnote, the postconviction court also determined that because counsel’s motion incorporated only some of the claims Smith had made in his pro se motion, and the prosecution’s answer and Smith’s reply addressed only the claims asserted in counsel’s motion, Smith had waived the omitted pro se claims.
The division reversed the portion of the postconviction court’s order finding a waiver of some of Smith’s pro se claims and remanded the case for an independent evaluation of those claims.
Smith and the prosecution cross-petitioned for certiorari review, and the state Supreme Court granted the prosecution’s petition.
After evaluation, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that because Smith had abandoned the claims he had ceased pursuing, the division erred in determining Smith’s omitted pro se claims were preserved, and Smith’s appointed postconviction counsel, as “captain of the ship,” had the authority to abandon the omitted pro se claims without first obtaining Smith’s informed consent.
Kaiser v. Aurora Urban Renewal Authority
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the Colorado State Property Tax Administrator’s methodology for implementing tax increment financing violates Colorado’s urban renewal law.
Aurora Urban Renewal Authority, Fitzsimons Village Metropolitan 1st, 2nd and 3rd Districts and Corporex Colorado LLC (collectively “AURA”) sued JoAnn Groff, the administrator and PK Kaiser, the Arapahoe County Assessor, contending, as pertinent here, the Administrator’s methodology for implementing tax increment financing violates the state’s urban renewal law to the extent it differentiates direct benefits from indirect benefits when proportionately adjusting the base and increment values of blighted property located in urban renewal areas.
According to the opinion, AURA argued the administrator’s methodology improperly deprived urban renewal authorities of property tax revenues the authorities should’ve received due to “market perceptions that properties located in a TIF plan are more … valuable.” In a split division, the Colorado Court of Appeals agreed with AURA, reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the assessor and remanded the entry of a declaratory judgment voiding the portion of the administrator’s methodology AURA complained about.
The state Supreme Court concluded the administrator’s methodology and the assessor’s application of that methodology didn’t violate the urban renewal law. The law expressly requires the assessor to proportionately adjust the base and increment values of properties located in an urban renewal area but doesn’t prescribe a methodology for doing so. Instead, the law imbues the administrator with broad authority to determine how the base and increment values of those properties should be calculated and proportionately adjusted. Because the urban renewal law doesn’t preclude, and precedent supports the administrator’s methodology, the state Supreme Court reversed the portion of the appeals court judgment concerning the administrator’s methodology for adjusting the base and increment values and concluded the district court correctly entered summary judgment.
After evaluation, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the portion of the appeal court’s judgment that voids the administrator’s methodology for proportionately adjusting the base and increment values of property located in urban renewal areas and concluded the district court correctly entered summary judgment.