People v. Johnston
Santos Sanchez Johnston appealed his judgment of conviction for aggravated driving after revocation prohibited. In so doing, he raised an issue of first impression in Colorado: whether weaving within a single lane of traffic can create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify an investigatory stop.
The Court of Appeals wrote in its opinion that it recognized that slight degrees of incidental weaving within a traffic lane do not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a stop of a vehicle. But the court concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, the police officer’s observation of a defendant’s vehicle weaving continuously within its own lane for over five miles was sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion justifying the traffic stop. Accordingly, the court affirmed.
People v. Lancaster
In May 2007, Larry Lancaster went to trial for charges of sexual assault on a child, bribing a witness, sexual assault, unlawful sexual assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He was represented at trial by Steven Newell. Newell and Lancaster executed a fee agreement detailing the scope of Newell’s representation.
The jury ultimately found Lancaster guilty on six of the seven counts. In October 2007, he received an indeterminate sentence of 14 years to life.
In December 2007, Lancaster filed a motion requesting additional presentence confinement credit. In that motion, Lancaster described himself as pro se. Neither he nor Newell filed a notice of appeal.
In September 2010, Lancaster filed a pro se Crim. P. 35(c) motion alleging that his trial counsel had been constitutionally ineffective by failing to file a notice of appeal. In his motion, Lancaster requested the appointment of post-conviction counsel.
The district court appointed the public defender to represent him in the post-conviction proceedings.
Neither the public defender nor the district court took any action on Lancaster’s motion for more than five years. In February 2016, post-conviction counsel filed a supplemental Crim. P. 35(c) motion. In the supplemental motion, Lancaster renewed the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim from his September 2010 motion and added five additional claims.
The district court ruled that the additional claims were time barred, but it held an evidentiary hearing on Lancaster’s first claim — that his trial counsel’s failure to perfect his appeal deprived him of constitutionally effective trial counsel.
Based on a conclusion that Newell’s representation terminated before the alleged ineffective assistance occurred, the district court denied Lancaster’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim.
Lancaster contended that the district court erroneously denied his Crim. P. 35(c) motion. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the district court’s order denying Lancaster’s Crim. P. 35(c) motion and order that Lancaster is entitled to file his direct appeal out of time.
In re the Estate of Caroline Little
This case involved a dispute over who is entitled to inherit the estate of Caroline Little. On appeal, Little’s former husband, Jeffrey Lynn Curry, contended that the trial court erred in finding that he and Little were not common law remarried as of the time of her death. If they were, the parties agreed that he would be entitled to inherit her estate under the terms of her will. Curry also contended that, even if they were not remarried, the trial court erroneously found that he lacked standing to seek reformation of her will.
Curry sought to reform Little’s will to reflect her intention to devise her estate to him regardless of their marital status. The contingent beneficiaries of Little’s will urged the court to affirm the trial court’s rulings.
The court wrote in its opinion that it was not persuaded that the trial court erred in finding that Curry and Little were not common law remarried. The judges disagreed with the trial court’s conclusion that Curry lacked standing to seek reformation. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings on Curry’s reformation claim.