Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Terry Townsend unsuccessfully appealed his conviction on escape charges. The terms of Petitioner's probation mandated he participate in an "intensive supervision program." When he failed to participate, his probation was revoked. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Petitioner argued that jury instructions issued by the trial court at his revocation hearing were an incorrect articulation of the law, and as such, the jury convicted him based on bad information. Furthermore, Petitioner argued that the "ISP" condition of his probation was unconstitutional. Upon careful consideration of the arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's jury instructions correctly stated the applicable law, and that the ISP statute was not unconstitutional. The Court affirmed Petitioner's conviction and sentence.

In this case, two bail-bonds agents were charged with second-degree burglary and felony menacing in pursuit of an alleged âbail jumper.â On appeal, Defendants Jason Oram and Devon Weinstein challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against them at trial and used the common law âbonding agent privilegeâ to excuse their actions. The Supreme Court found that no common law bonding agent privilege exists in Colorado, and that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the charges against Defendants. The Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts.

In 2009, Defendant Cirilo Gonzalez-Zamora was arrested for an open container violation in Palm Beach, Florida. A warrant check by local police revealed an outstanding arrest warrant for murder in Colorado for âCirilo Hernandez-Zamora.â Police took Defendant into custody to resolve the discrepancy between the name Defendant gave when arrested in Florida, and the name on the Colorado arrest warrant. At the station, a Spanish-fluent officer read Defendant his Miranda rights in Spanish, and gave Defendant the opportunity to ask for further explanation should anything be unclear. Instead of an audible response, Defendant gave a gesture or facial expression that there were parts of the officerâs advisement he did not understand. When the officer was finished, he received no questions. Defendant signed an advisement card. Defendant was eventually charged with first-degree murder. At trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress statements he gave in Florida. The trial court granted the motion, asserting that there were âsignificant questionsâ as to whether Defendant waived his Miranda rights knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the trial courtâs order suppressing Defendantâs Miranda waiver. The Court found that the non-verbal gestures during Defendantâs advisement indicated that Defendant was aware and that he understood the rights he was waiving. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court decision.

The district court reversed the county courtâs order to vacate Petitioner Nicanor Sanchez-Martinezâs guilty plea to third degree assault as âunknowing, involuntary and unintelligent.â Petitioner appeared pro se before the county court and pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to probation, and required to complete counseling sessions. Petitioner successfully complied with the terms of his probation, and subsequently the court terminated his sentence. One month following the termination, Petitioner filed a motion with the court that his sentence be set aside in light of new evidence that allegedly negated his guilt. At the hearing, the prosecution elicited testimony from Petitioner that he could not read or write Spanish or English, and was never informed of the constitutional rights he waived by pleading guilty. As a result, the magistrate expressed concern that Petitioner knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty. The magistrate informed both parties that he would set the plea aside as unconstitutional. The prosecution then appealed the magistrateâs decision to the district court. The district court reversed the county court, holding that the county court improperly addressed the constitutionality of Petitionerâs plea. The Supreme Court determined that the county court acted within its discretion and found the lower courtâs conclusion was supported by the record. The Court reversed the district courtâs decision and reinstated the county courtâs judgment vacating Petitionerâs guilty plea.