CourtListener.com: All opinions for the Colorado Court of Appeals

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <feed xml:lang="en-us" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>CourtListener.com: All opinions for the Colorado Court of Appeals</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/" rel="alternate"/><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/feed/court/coloctapp/" rel="self"/><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/</id><updated>2024-12-14T00:00:00-08:00</updated><author><name>Free Law Project</name><email>feeds@courtlistener.com</email></author><rights>Created for the public domain by Free Law Project</rights><entry><title>The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Tommy Rae MICKEY</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10145599/the-people-of-the-state-of-colorado-v-tommy-rae-mickey/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-12-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10145599/the-people-of-the-state-of-colorado-v-tommy-rae-mickey/</id><summary type="html"> 543 P.3d 430 2023 COA 106 The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Tommy Rae MICKEY, Defendant-Appellant. Court of Appeals No. 21CA1407 Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. VII. Announced November 9, 2023 Rehearing Denied December 14, 2023 Mesa County District Court No. 20CR599, Honorable Gretchen B. Larson, Judge Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Frank R. Lawson, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Lisa Weisz, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant Opinion by JUDGE TOW Â¶ 1 Defendant, Tommy Rae Mickey, appeals the district courtâs order requiring him to pay restitution. We vacate the order. In so doing, we conclude that the error in entering a restitution order after the expiration of the statutory ninety-one-day period, without an express, timely finding of good cause pursuant to People v. Weeks, 2021 CO 75, 498 P.3d 142, cannot be harmless. I. Background Â¶ 2 Mickey pleaded guilty to second degree burglary and vehicular eluding.1 On October 7, 2020, he was sentenced to six years in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections. On June 29, 2021, more than 250 days after the sentencing hearing, the district court ordered Mickey to pay restitution for unrecovered stolen property. The district court did not make an express finding that there was good cause to determine restitution more than ninety-one days after the sentencing hearing.2 See Â§ 18-1.3-603(1)(b), C.R.S. 2023. II. Vacatur and Error Â¶ 3 Mickey argues that the restitution order was untimely under section 18-1.3-603(1)(b) and must be vacated.3 We agree. [1] Â¶ 4 We review de novo issues of statutory interpretation. Weeks, Â¶ 24. Â¶ 5 Section 18-1.3-603(1)(b) requires courts to determine restitution within ninety-one days after sentencing, unlessâbefore the deadline expiresâthe court expressly finds good cause for extending the deadline. Weeks, Â¶ 5. The district court ordered restitution after the ninety-one-day deadline and did not find good cause for doing so. This was error. Â¶ 6 While the People concede this point, they argue vacatur is not required because any error was harmless. Another division of this court recently rejected a similar argument, holding that the supreme court did not conduct a harmless error analysis in Weeks and that we are bound by that precedent.4 People v. Roberson, 2023 COA 70, Â¶ 32 (first citing Weeks, Â¶Â¶ 14â18; and then citing Peo- ple v. Kern, 2020 COA 96, Â¶ 42, 474 P.3d 197). We agree with Roberson, but we go one step further to point out that a harmless error analysis would be futile when reviewing a restitution order entered without authority. [2] Â¶ 7 In criminal cases, an error is harmless if it &quot;does not affect substantial rights&quot; of the parties. Crim. P. 52(a). The error here was not merely a delay, as the People argue. It was the entry of an order that obliged Mickey to pay restitution in excess of $15,000. We simply cannot see how such an orderâentered without authorityâcan be said to have not affected Mickeyâs … <a href="/opinion/10145599/the-people-of-the-state-of-colorado-v-tommy-rae-mickey/">Original document</a> </summary><category term="Precedential"/></entry><entry><title>Peo in Interest of GDO</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281636/peo-in-interest-of-gdo/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281636/peo-in-interest-of-gdo/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;24CA0756 Peo in Interest of GDO 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 24CA0756 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Jefferson County District Court&lt;span&gt; No. 23JV30013 &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Ann Gail Meinster, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The People of the State of Colorado, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellee, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;In the Interest of G.D.O., a Child, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and Concerning D.T., &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellant. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;JUDGMENT AFFIRMED&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division V &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE &lt;span&gt;LUM&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Freyre&lt;span&gt; and Grove, JJ., concur &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Kimberly Sorrells&lt;span&gt;, County Attorney, Sarah Oviatt, Assistant County Attorney, &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Golden, Colorado, for Appellee &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Samantha Metsger, Guardian Ad Litem &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Harald Van Gaasbeek, &lt;span&gt;Office of Respondent Parentsâ Counsel&lt;/span&gt;, Fort Collins, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Colorado, for Appellant &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;D.T. (mother) appeals the judgment terminating the parent-&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;child legal relationship with her child, G.D.O.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;We affirm. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In January 2023, the Jefferson County Division of Children, &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Youth and Families (Division) received a report of domestic &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;violence &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;between mother and her boyfriend. The Division asked mother t&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;o &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;submit to a drug screen, and she tested positive for controlled &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;substances. After receiving the test results, the caseworker &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;attempted to meet with mother to discuss a safety plan, &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;but while &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;at the home, mother became &lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;escalated&lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; and was arrest&lt;span&gt;ed&lt;/span&gt; for &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;assaulting a police officer.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;As a result, the Division removed the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;child and placed him with maternal great-aunt. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Based on this information, the Division filed a petition in &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;dependency and neglect. Mother admitted to the allegations in the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;petition, and the juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;neglected. The court then adopted a treatment plan for mother t&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;hat &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;required her to (1) address her substance abuse issues; &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;(2) provide &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;for the child&lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;s needs; and (3) ensure a home free of violence. &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In October 2023, the guardian ad litem (GAL) moved &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;to &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;terminate mother&lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;s parental rights. The juvenile court held an &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;evidentiary hearing in January 2024. After considering the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;evidence, the court granted the GAL&lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;s motion and terminated &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;mother&lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;s parental rights. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;II.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Expert Witness Disclosure &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 5&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Mother asserts that the juvenile court erred by allowing &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;the &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;caseworker to testify as an expert witness even though the GAL did &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;not disclose the caseworker as an expert before the termination &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;hearing&lt;span&gt;. &lt;span&gt;She also asserts that the lack of disclosure resulted in a &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;violation of her due process right to a fundamentally … <a href="/opinion/10281636/peo-in-interest-of-gdo/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/peo_in_interest_of_gdo.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Fontanari v. Snowcap</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281647/fontanari-v-snowcap/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281647/fontanari-v-snowcap/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;23CA2181 Fontanari v Snowcap 11-14-2014 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 23CA2181 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Mesa County District Court No. 17CV30314 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Douglas S. Walker, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Jeremy Chaffin, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Brett Fontanari, Trustee of the Rudolph and Ethel Carol Fontanari Revocable &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Living Trust; Britt Fontanari, Trustee of the Rudolph and Ethel Carol Fontanari &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Revocable Living Trust; Kimberly Gross, Trustee of the Rudolph and Ethel &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Carol Fontanari Revocable Living Trust; and Pear Park Baptist Church, Trustee &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;of the Rudolph and Ethel Carol Fontanari Revocable Living Trust&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Plaintiffs-Appellants, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;v. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Snowcap Coal Company, Inc., a Delaware c&lt;span&gt;orporation,&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Defendant-Appellee. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND CASE &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division V &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE LUM &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Freyre and Grove, JJ., concur&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Rider &amp;amp; Quesenberry, LLC, Stephanie Rubinstein, Grand Junction, Colorado, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;for Plaintiff-Appellants &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Hoskin Farina &amp;amp; Kampf, Andrew H. Teske, John T. Pryzgoda, Grand Junction, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Colorado; Curtis, Justus &amp;amp; Zahedi, LLC, John P. Justus, Westminster, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Plaintiffs, Brett Fontanari, Britt Fontanari, Kimberly Grosse &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and Pear Park Baptist Church&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt;Trustees of the Rudolph and Ethel &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Carol Fontanari Revocable Living Trust (Fontanari), appeal the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;judgment in favor of defendant Snowcap Coal Company, Inc. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;(Snowcap), following a bench trial &lt;span&gt;on Snowcapâs breach of contr&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;act &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;claim&lt;span&gt;. &lt;span&gt; We affirm the judgment and remand with directions for the &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;district court to consider reasonable appellate attorney &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;fees. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In 2002, Snowcap acquired the Roadside Portals Mine &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;(the &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;mine) and associated real property subject to reclamation unde&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;r the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act (the Ac&lt;span&gt;t)&lt;/span&gt;, section 34-&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;33&lt;span&gt;-101 to -137, C.R.S. 2024.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;Snowcap holds a permit issued &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;pursuant to the Act, under which it is responsible for conducting &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the reclamation work.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;As required by the Act, Snowcap posted a &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;performance bond to ensure the completion of reclamation.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;See&lt;/span&gt; Â§ &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;34&lt;span&gt;-&lt;span&gt;33&lt;span&gt;-113, C.R.S. 2024. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;About a year later, Snowcap entered into &lt;span&gt;a &lt;/span&gt;Purchase and Sale &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Agreement (PSA) to convey to Fontanari a&lt;span&gt;n &lt;/span&gt;approximately 226-acre &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;portion of Snowcapâs property within the &lt;span&gt;reclamation boundary&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The PSA contained a&lt;span&gt;n âas is, where isâ &lt;/span&gt;clause under which &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Fontanari agreed that it would rely solely on its own inspection to &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;determine the condition of the property.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;Additionally, it contained &lt;span&gt;a &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;broad indemnity provision … <a href="/opinion/10281647/fontanari-v-snowcap/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/fontanari_v._snowcap.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Peo v. Lansky</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281626/peo-v-lansky/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281626/peo-v-lansky/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;23CA1742 Peo v Lansky 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 23CA1742 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;El Paso&lt;span&gt; County District Court No. 07CR547 &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Samuel A. Evig, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The People of the State of Colorado, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Plaintiff-Appellee, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;v. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Valdamar Lansky, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Defendant-Appellant. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;ORDER AFFIRMED &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division III &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE NAVARRO &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Dunn and Gomez, JJ., concur &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, &lt;span&gt;John T. Lee, First &lt;/span&gt;Assistant Attorney &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Valdamar Lansky, Pro Se &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Defendant, Valdamar Lansky, appeals the postconviction &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;courtâs order denying his â&lt;span&gt;petition for state &lt;/span&gt;writ of habeas corp&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;us,â &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;which the court construed as his second Crim. P. 35(c) motion. &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; We &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;affirm. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In 2008, a jury found Lansky guilty of two counts of sexual &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;assault on a child and two counts of sexual assault on a child by &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;one in a position of trust. &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;The jury also found that he committed all &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;four offenses as part of a pattern of abuse. &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;The trial court found &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;that Lansky was a habitual sex offender against children and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;sentenced him to thirty-six years to life in prison. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;On direct appeal, a division of this court affirmed the &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;judgment. &lt;span&gt;See People v. Lansky&lt;/span&gt;, (Colo. App. No. 08CA22&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;55, July &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;29, 2010) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)). &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;The mandate &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;was issued in 2010. &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In 2013, Lansky filed his first pro se Crim. P. 35(c) motion, in &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;which he rais&lt;span&gt;ed&lt;/span&gt; numerous claims &lt;span&gt;of&lt;/span&gt; trial court error, prosecutorial &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;misconduct, and ineffective assistance of his trial counsel&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt; The &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;court issued a written order denying the motion without a hea&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ring. &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Over a year later, Lansky appealed the order&lt;span&gt;. &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;A division of this &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;court dismissed the appeal with prejudice because Lansky had not &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;shown good cause for failing to timely appeal the order. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 5&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;More than eight years later, i&lt;span&gt;n 2023, Lansky filed his âpetition &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;for state writ of habeas corpus.â &lt;span&gt; H&lt;span&gt;e &lt;/span&gt;again raised numerous clai&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ms &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;of&lt;span&gt; trial court error, prosecutorial misconduct, and in&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;effective &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;assistance of his trial counsel. He also asked the postconviction &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;court to conduct a âforensic reviewâ &lt;span&gt;of his claims by comparing &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;them to the trial transcripts. &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;Further, he requested that t&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;he court &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;appoint counsel for him and … <a href="/opinion/10281626/peo-v-lansky/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/peo_v._lansky.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Peo v. Czeponis</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281629/peo-v-czeponis/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281629/peo-v-czeponis/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;23CA0005 Peo v Czeponis 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 23CA0005 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Boulder County District Court No. 19CR2137 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Nancy W. Salomone, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The People of the State of Colorado, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Plaintiff-Appellee, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;v. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Michael David Czeponis, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Defendant-Appellant. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;JUDGMENT AFFIRMED&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division II &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE &lt;span&gt;JOHNSON&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Fox &lt;span&gt;and Schock, JJ., concur &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Caitlin E. Grant, Assistant Attorney &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Lauretta A. Martin Neff, &lt;span&gt;Alternate Defense Counsel, Montrose, Colorado, for &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Defendant-Appellant &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Defendant&lt;span&gt;, &lt;span&gt;Michael David Czeponis (Czeponis), appeals the &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;guilty of &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;five counts of sexual assault on a child and one count each of &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;criminal mischief, assault, cruelty to animals, and harassment&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;He contends that the district court erred by (1) giving a time-&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;fused deliberation instruction and making a mid-deliberation juro&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;r &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;replacement, depriving him of a fair trial; and (2) all&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;owing the jury &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;to rewatch A.S.âs forensic interview during deliberations.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;We &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;disagree with his contentions and therefore affirm&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Czeponis and his five children, A.S., E.S., K.C., S.C., and M.C., &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;lived in an apartment&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;Due to housing instability, &lt;span&gt;Czeponisâ friends &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and their three children, T.L., S.L., and A.L., later moved in with &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Czeponis and his children. Czeponis spent a lot of time with the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;children&lt;span&gt;, &lt;span&gt;as well as K.L., who was a friend of the children. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;One day, Czeponis and his oldest daughter, A.S., got into an &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;argument &lt;span&gt;over A.S.âs relationship&lt;/span&gt; with her partner.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;Czeponis lost &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;his temper and punched A.S. giving her a bloody nose and black &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;eye. During the same incident, Czeponis also injured &lt;span&gt;his friendsâ&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;dog&lt;span&gt;; &lt;span&gt;poured alcohol on E.S.âs bed&lt;/span&gt;; kicked E.S.; and sent t&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;hreatening &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;text messages to R.E., A.S.âs partner&lt;span&gt;. &lt;span&gt;Czeponis then got drunk and &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;added graffiti to a skate park with angry language targeting his &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;children. &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 5&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;A few days after this incident, &lt;span&gt;the friendsâ child &lt;/span&gt;T.L. disclosed &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;to family and social workers that Czeponis had been sexually &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;assaulting her. T.L. stated in a forensic interview that, on several &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;instances, Czeponis had touch&lt;span&gt;ed&lt;/span&gt; her breasts and vagina. And o&lt;span&gt;n &lt;/span&gt;at &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;least one occasion, T.L. woke up naked, and Czeponis was touching &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;her breasts and … <a href="/opinion/10281629/peo-v-czeponis/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/peo_v._czeponis.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Peo in Interest of JXS</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281633/peo-in-interest-of-jxs/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281633/peo-in-interest-of-jxs/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;24CA0594 Peo in Interest of JXS 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 24CA0594 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Arapahoe County District Court No. 22JV30147 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Victoria Klingensmith, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The People of the State of Colorado, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Petitioner, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;In the Interest of &lt;span&gt;J.S., &lt;/span&gt;a Child, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and Concerning M.W., &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellant &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;S.H., &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellee. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division I &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE &lt;span&gt;LIPINSKY&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;J. Jones&lt;span&gt; and Sullivan, JJ., concur &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Alison A. Bettenberg, Guardian Ad Litem &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Just Law Group, LLC, John F. Poor&lt;span&gt;, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Lindsey Parlin, Office of Respondent Parentsâ Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellee &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;M.W. (father) appeals the &lt;span&gt;juvenile courtâs&lt;/span&gt; judgment allocating &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;parental responsibilities for J.X.S. (the child) to S.H-M. (mothe&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;r). &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;We reverse and remand with directions. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;The Arapahoe County Department of Human Services filed a &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;petition in dependency and neglect regarding the then-seven-year-&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;old child and several of his half- and step-siblings. In the petition&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the Department alleged that F.S. Jr. (stepfather) threw a phone at &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;one of the childâs half&lt;span&gt;-siblings, resulting in an injury that requir&lt;span&gt;ed&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;stitches. The Department also alleged that mother and ste&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;pfather &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;told the children to lie about the incident&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;The Department confirmed that physical discipline was often &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;used in the home. Although it initially attempted to keep the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;children in the home, the Department received reports of ongoing &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;domestic violence incidents involving mother and stepfather. For &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;this reason, the Department removed the children from the home&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The Department initially placed the child and his half-siblings with &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;maternal relatives&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Father, who had little relationship with the child at the t&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ime &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the Department filed the &lt;span&gt;petition, entered a âno&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;-&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;faultâ admissi&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;on to &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the petition&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt; The juvenile court adjudicated the child dependent &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and neglected and adopted a treatment plan for father&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;Mother and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;stepfather also admitted to the &lt;span&gt;petitionâs allegations&lt;/span&gt;, and the court &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;adopted treatment plans for them, as well. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 5&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;About four months after the Department filed the petition, &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;father moved to have the child placed with him. Before the juvenil&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;e &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;court could hold a hearing on fatherâs motion, &lt;span&gt;however, maternal &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;relatives informed the Department they could no … <a href="/opinion/10281633/peo-in-interest-of-jxs/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/peo_in_interest_of_jxs.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Peo in Interest of TN</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281631/peo-in-interest-of-tn/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281631/peo-in-interest-of-tn/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;24CA0726 Peo in Interest of TN 11-14-2024&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 24CA0726 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Adams County District Court No. 22JV30087 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Caryn A. Datz, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The People of the State of Colorado, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellee, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;In the Interest of Tyl.N. and Tyr.N., Child&lt;span&gt;ren&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and Concerning G.T.N. and S.J.P., &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellants. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;JUDGMENT AFFIRMED&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division VII &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE TOW &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Pawar and Schutz, JJ., concur &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Heidi Miller, County Attorney, &lt;span&gt;Lisa Vigil, &lt;/span&gt;Assistant County Attorney, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Westminster&lt;span&gt;, Colorado, for Appellee &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Alison Bettenberg, Guardian Ad Litem &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The Morgan Law Office, &lt;span&gt;Kristofr P. Morgan&lt;/span&gt;, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellant G.T.N. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Lindsey Parlin&lt;span&gt;, &lt;span&gt;Office of Respondent Parentsâ Counsel, &lt;/span&gt;Denver, Colorado, for &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellant S.J.P. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;S.J.P. (mother) and G.T.N. (father) appeal the judgment &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;terminating their parent-child legal relationships with their &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;children, Tyl.N. and Tyr.N. We affirm. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In November 2022, the Adams County Human Services &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Department (Department) received a report that mother ha&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;d given &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;birth to the children and admitted to using controlled sub&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;stances &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;during her pregnancy. Mother had an open dependency and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;neglect case at the time with an older child who had also tested &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;positive for methamphetamine at birth. The Department remov&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ed &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the children and placed them in foster care. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Based on this information, the Department filed a petition in &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;dependency and neglect. After each parent entered a no-fault &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;admission&lt;span&gt;, &lt;span&gt;the juvenile court adjudicated the children dependent &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and neglected. The court then adopted treatment plans for the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;parents that required them to (1) address their substance &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;dependence and mental health concerns; (2) attend family time; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;(3) provide a safe and stable home &lt;span&gt;and meet the childrenâs need&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;s; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and (4) cooperate with the Department and professionals.&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In August 2024, the Department moved to terminate the &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;parentsâ parental rights. The juvenile court held an evident&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;iary &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;hearing over three days in March 2024. In a comprehensive writt&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;en &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;order, the court granted the &lt;span&gt;Departmentâs &lt;/span&gt;motion and terminated &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the parentsâ parental rights. &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;II.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Reasonable Efforts &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 5&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Mother asserts that the juvenile court erred by finding&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; that the &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Department made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate her an&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;d reunify &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;her with the children. We disagree. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;A.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Applicable Law and Standard of Review &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 6&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In … <a href="/opinion/10281631/peo-in-interest-of-tn/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/peo_in_interest_of_tn.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Peo v. Erickson</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281628/peo-v-erickson/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281628/peo-v-erickson/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;21CA1741 Peo v Erickson 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 21CA1741 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Douglas County District Court No. 19CR451 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Theresa Slade, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The People of the State of Colorado, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Plaintiff-Appellee, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;v. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Devon Michael Erickson, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Defendant-Appellant. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;AND CASE &lt;span&gt;REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division II &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE &lt;span&gt;FOX&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;J&lt;span&gt;ohnson&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; and Schock, JJ., concur &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, T&lt;span&gt;rina&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span&gt;K. K&lt;/span&gt;issel, Senior Assistant Attorney &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;General &amp;amp; Assistant Solicitor General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Eric A. Samler&lt;span&gt;, Alternate Defense Counsel, Hollis A. Whitson, Alternate &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Defense Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Defendant, Devon Michael Erickson, appeals the judgment of &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of forty-six &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;counts including, as relevant here: one count of first deg&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ree murder &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;after deliberation; one count of first degree extreme indifference &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;murder (EIM)&lt;span&gt;; &lt;/span&gt;one count of conspiracy to commit first degree &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;murder after deliberation; six counts of attempted first deg&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ree &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;murder after deliberation; twenty-five counts of attempted first &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;degree extreme indifference murder (AEIM); and twelve counts &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;unrelated to murder or attempted murder. We affirm in part, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;vacate the conviction as to count 31, and reverse and reman&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;d in &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;part to the district court with instructions to merge t&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;he sentences &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and convictions for counts 1 and 2, 4 and 10, 5 and 20, 6 an&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;d 21, 8 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and 16, and 9 and 25. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;On&lt;span&gt; May 7, 2019, Erickson &lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt; then eighteen years old and &lt;span&gt;a &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;senior at STEM School Highlands Ranch &lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt; and a fellow student, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;A.M., entered Ericksonâs English classroom&lt;span&gt;, room 107, with guns &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and started shooting.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;A.M. fired nine shots and Erickson fired four. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Classmate K.C. was fatally shot after tackling Erickson, and five &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;students suffered gunshot wounds: J.J., J.G.&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;M.K.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt;G.M.O., and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;L.A. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;On the day of the shooting, police interviewed A.M. and &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Erickson. Erickson told police that A.M. forced him to do c&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ocaine &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and then participate in the shooting. Originally, A.M.&lt;span&gt;âs version of &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;events matched Ericksonâs.&lt;span&gt; However, A.M. testified &lt;/span&gt;at Ericksonâs &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;trial that he had lied in his police interview&lt;span&gt;; &lt;/span&gt;they had in fact &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;planned the shooting for several weeks, and their original plan was &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;to have Erickson shoot A.M., who was suicidal, and then blame &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;A.M. for … <a href="/opinion/10281628/peo-v-erickson/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/peo_v._erickson.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Marriage of Battles</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281645/marriage-of-battles/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281645/marriage-of-battles/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;23CA1879 Marriage of Battles 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 23CA1879 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Arapahoe County District Court No. 21DR31702 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Cajardo &lt;span&gt;Lindsey, Judge&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;In re the Marriage of &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Meghann Mary Ward Battles, n/k/a Meghann Mary Ward McPherson, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellee, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Cort Owen Battles, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellant. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART,&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division V &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE LUM &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Freyre and Grove, JJ., concur&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Meghann Mary Ward McPherson, Pro Se &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Caroline C. Cooley, Christopher J. Linas, Castle Rock, Colorado, for Appellant &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, Cort Owen Battles &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;(father) appeals the portion of the permanent orders that&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; allocate &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;parental responsibilities f&lt;span&gt;or&lt;/span&gt; the two minor children to Meghann &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Mary Ward McPherson, f/k/a Meghann Mary Ward Battles &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;(mother). Father also appeals the trial court&lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;s denial of his &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;motion &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;for a new trial. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for furt&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;her &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;proceedings. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Mother and father are the parents of two minor children, &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;C.B. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and F.B., who were thirteen and eleven (respectively) at &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;the time of &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;permanent orders.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;Because of allegations that father had verbally &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;(and sometimes physically) abused the children, the children&lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;s &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;therapist made a report to the Department of Huma&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;n Services.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Early in the case, the court ordered that father&lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;s parenting time be &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;supervised by a reintegration therapist. The court also appoint&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ed &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Dr. Edward Budd as the parental responsibilities evaluator (PRE). &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;During the pendency of the case, both children participated in &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;individual therapy, along with sessions with the reint&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;egration &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;therapist.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;F.B. participated in some sessions with the reintegration &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;therapist and father, while C.B. refused to have cont&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;act with father.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;After the permanent orders hearing, the court ordered t&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;hat father &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;would not have any parenting time with either child, and mother &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;would have sole decision-making responsibility. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 5&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Father filed a C.R.C.P. 59 motion based on newly dis&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;covered &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;evidence; namely, a status report from the reintegration thera&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;pist.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The court denied father&lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;s motion. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 6&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Father now appeals. He contends the trial court erred by &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;restricting his parenting time, allocating sole decision-making &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;authority to mother, and denying the motion for a new t&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;rial. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;II.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Parenting Time … <a href="/opinion/10281645/marriage-of-battles/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/marriage_of_battles.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Peo in Interest of IG</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281635/peo-in-interest-of-ig/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281635/peo-in-interest-of-ig/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;24CA0686 Peo in Interest of IG 11-14-2024&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 24CA0686 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Prowers County District Court No. 23JV30020 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Mike Davidson, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The People of the State of Colorado, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Petitioner, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;In the Interest of I.G., a Child, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and Concerning &lt;span&gt;R.G.,&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellant. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;JUDGEMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division V &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE &lt;span&gt;FREYRE&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Grove and &lt;span&gt;Lum, JJ., concur&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Jenna L. Mazzucca, Guardian Ad Litem&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Katayoun A. Donnelly, Office of Respondent Parentsâ Counsel, Denver, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Colorado, for Appellant &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;R.G. (father) appeals the judgment adjudicating I.G. (the child) &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;dependent and neglected by summary judgment. We affirm the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;adjudication, but we reverse the disposition and remand the &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;case to &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the juvenile court to ensure compliance with the Indian &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;Child &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978, 25 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 1901-1963, and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Coloradoâs ICWA statute, Â§ 19&lt;span&gt;-1-126, C.R.S. 2024.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In July 2023, the Prowers County Department of Human &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Services (Department) received a report that the &lt;span&gt;childâs half&lt;/span&gt;-sibling &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;had tested positive for controlled substances at birth.&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; The &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Department opened a voluntary case, but mother did not comply.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The Department then filed a petition in dependency and neglect and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;alleged, among other things, that father was in prison&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;Father &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;denied the allegations in the petition and asked for a jury trial. &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;The juvenile court set the matter for an adjudicatory trial in &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;November 2023&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;However, prior to trial, the Department moved for &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;an adjudication by summary judgment. In response, father &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;asserted that summary judgment was improper at the adjudicato&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ry &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;phase of a dependency and neglect case because he &lt;span&gt;had âan &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;unqualified right to tri&lt;span&gt;al by a jury.â&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;After considering the partiesâ &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;pleadings and arguments, the court granted the Department&lt;span&gt;âs &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;motion, vacated the jury trial, and adjudicated the child dependent &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and neglected. The court then adopted a treatment plan fo&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;r father. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;II.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;ICWA &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;As a preliminary matter, because the record does not establish &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;that the juvenile court complied with the provisions of ICWA and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Coloradoâs ICWA statute, we reverse the disposition and reman&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;d the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;case for further proceedings.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;See People in Interest of M.V.&lt;/span&gt;, 2018 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COA 163, Â¶ 35 (noting that a dispositional … <a href="/opinion/10281635/peo-in-interest-of-ig/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/peo_in_interest_of_ig.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Peo v. Vigil</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281624/peo-v-vigil/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281624/peo-v-vigil/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;22CA0551 Peo v Vigil 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 22CA0551 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Jefferson &lt;span&gt;County District Court No. 97CR1195 &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Tamara S. Russell, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The People of the State of Colorado, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Plaintiff-Appellee, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;v. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Frank Vigil, Jr.&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Defendant-Appellant. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;SENTENCE AFFIRMED &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division II &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE &lt;span&gt;JOHNSON&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Fox&lt;span&gt; and Schock, JJ., concur &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, &lt;span&gt;Jessica E. Ross, Assistant &lt;/span&gt;Solicitor General, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Kathleen A. Lord&lt;span&gt;, Alternate Defense Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellant&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Defendant, Frank Vigil, Jr. (Vigil), appeals the district &lt;span&gt;courtâs&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;order resentencing him to life with the possibility of parol&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;e (LWPP) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;after forty years for his after deliberation first degree murder &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;conviction for a crime he committed as a juvenile&lt;span&gt;. &lt;span&gt;He&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; contends that &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the district court erred because, under the statute, his conviction &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;for felony murder, in addition to after deliberation murder, gave the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;court discretion to sentence him to a determinate sentence of thirty&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;to fifty years.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;In the alternative, he argues that the sentencing &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;statute is ambiguous and that &lt;span&gt;the concept of âmaximizing the jury &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;verdictâ should not apply to juvenile sentencing schemes.&lt;span&gt; We &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;conclude that the district court properly interpreted the &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;plain &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;language of the statute, and that, even if the statute is ambigu&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ous, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the legisla&lt;span&gt;tive history supports the district courtâs interpretat&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ion. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Therefore, we affirm his sentence. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In&lt;span&gt; February 1998, Vigil, who was sixteen at the time, was &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;convicted of first degree felony murder and first degree after &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;deliberation murder&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt;among other crimes&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;At the time of his &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;conviction, after deliberation murder and felony m&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;urder were class &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 felonies. &lt;span&gt;Vigilâs felony murder &lt;/span&gt;conviction was merged with the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;after deliberation murder count&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;His convictions were the result of &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;his participation in the kidnapping, rape, torture, and mu&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;rder of a &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;fourteen-year-old girl. Vigil was sentenced to a mandatory senten&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ce &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;But in &lt;span&gt;Miller v. Alabama&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;,&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;567 U.S. 460, 489 (2012), the &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;United &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;States Supreme Court held that imposing a mandatory LWO&lt;span&gt;P &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;sentence on a juvenile who commits murder violates the Eight&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;h &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Amendmentâs ban on cruel and unusual punishment&lt;span&gt;. &lt;span&gt;And later, &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the Supreme Court announced that &lt;span&gt;Miller&lt;span&gt;âs&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; holding should be &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;applied retroactively.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Montgomery v. Louisiana&lt;/span&gt;, 577 U.S. 190, 206 &lt;/div&gt; … <a href="/opinion/10281624/peo-v-vigil/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/peo_v._vigil.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Matter of Arredondo</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281640/matter-of-arredondo/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281640/matter-of-arredondo/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;24CA0251 Matter of Arredondo 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 24CA0251 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Rio Grande County District Court No. 20PR1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Crista Newmyer-Olsen, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;In the Matter of Anestacio Damian Arredondo, Protected Person. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Yvonne Arredondo,&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellant, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;v. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Andres Arredondo, Guardian, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellee. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;ORDER AFFIRMED &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division VI &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE BERNARD* &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Welling and Martinez*, JJ., concur&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Erich Schwiesow, &lt;span&gt;PC, &lt;/span&gt;Erich Schwiesow&lt;span&gt;, Alamosa, Colorado, for Appellant &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Brown &amp;amp; Brown, P.C., Daniel F. Fitzgerald, Grand Junction, Colorado, for &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellant &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;VI, Â§ 5(3), and Â§ 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Appellants Yvonne Arredondo and her attorney, Erich &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Schwiesow, &lt;span&gt;appeal the district courtâs &lt;/span&gt;joint and several award of &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;attorney fees and costs to Andres Arredondo. We affirm&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;This appeal arises out of a contested guardianship. The ward &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;of this guardianship, Anestacio Damian Arredondo, is &lt;span&gt;a &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;twent&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;y-five-&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;year-old man with severe autism&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Ms. Arredondo is the &lt;span&gt;wardâs mother. Until fairly recently,&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span&gt;she &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;was the &lt;span&gt;wardâs &lt;/span&gt;primary caretaker. But, in December 2019, she was &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;arrested for vehicular eluding, reckless endangerment,&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; obstructing &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;a peace officer, resisting arrest, crimes against an at-risk adult (the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;ward), reckless driving, damaging a highway&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt;and failing to drive in &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;a single lane. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In January 2020, because of this arrest, the w&lt;span&gt;ardâs sister&lt;/span&gt; filed &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;a petition for guardianship in &lt;span&gt;the wardâs interest&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;Her petition &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;explained that the w&lt;span&gt;ard âis unable to do everyday tasks such &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;as &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;taking a shower, cooking or making any financial decisions. He is &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;essentially nonverbal with respect[] to a few words and sim&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ple &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;sentences.â Ms. Arredondo&lt;span&gt; filed a competing petition to become t&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;he &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;wardâs guardian. &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 5&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;After the court held a hearing on the dueling petitions, &lt;span&gt;it&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;appointed the sister to be &lt;span&gt;the wardâs guardian, but the ward &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;continued to live with Ms. Arredondo. Less than three weeks later, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the sister resigned the position due to her &lt;span&gt;âhealth plummet[ing] &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;with the stress of having to deal with [Ms.] Arredondo.â &lt;span&gt; In her &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;resignation, the sister reported that Ms. Arredondo would be âm&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ore &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;friendly and cooperativeâ if the wardâs adult brother, &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;Andres &lt;/div&gt; … <a href="/opinion/10281640/matter-of-arredondo/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/matter_of_arredondo.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Marriage of Bolton</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281644/marriage-of-bolton/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281644/marriage-of-bolton/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;23CA0720 Marriage of Bolton 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 23CA0720 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Jefferson&lt;span&gt; County District Court No. 17DR30236 &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable &lt;span&gt;Lily W. Oeffler, Judge&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;In re the Marriage of &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Stacey Bolton, n/k/a Stacey Stafford, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellee, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Michael K. Bolton, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellant. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND CASE&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division I &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE &lt;span&gt;J. JONES&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Lipinsky&lt;span&gt; and Sullivan, JJ., concur &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The Harris Law Firm PLLP, &lt;span&gt;Katherine O. Ellis&lt;/span&gt;, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Feingold Horton, PLLC, Frances C. Fontana, Greenwood Village, Colorado, for &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellant &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In this post-dissolution of marriage proceeding involving &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Michael K. Bolton (father) and Stacey Bolton, now known as S&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;tacey &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Stafford (mother), father appeals the district court&lt;span&gt;âs&lt;/span&gt; post-decree &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;orders on spousal maintenance modification, child support &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;modification, and attorney fees. We affirm. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Mother petitioned to end the partiesâ &lt;span&gt;twenty-four-year &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;marriage in 2017. The next year, the district court entered a &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;dissolution decree and permanent orders.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; This case arises out &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;of &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;two post-decree motions filed by father&lt;span&gt;: &lt;/span&gt;one to modify parenting &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;time and decision-making responsibility &lt;span&gt;regarding the partiesâ &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;children and the other to modify spousal maintenance and child &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;support&lt;span&gt;. &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;The court denied the first motion and awarded wife her &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;attorney fees incurred &lt;span&gt;in&lt;/span&gt; responding to that motion under section &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;14&lt;span&gt;-&lt;span&gt;10&lt;span&gt;-119, C.R.S. 2024. Father appealed the award of attorn&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ey &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;fees. A division of this court reviewed the attorney fees award an&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;d &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;remanded for additional findings on the partiesâ overall econ&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;omic &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;circumstances. &lt;span&gt;In re Marriage of Bolton&lt;/span&gt;, (Colo. App. No. 22CA043&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;5, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;May 4, 2023) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)) (&lt;span&gt;Bolton I&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;)&lt;span&gt;. &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;While that appeal was pending, father filed the second moti&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;on. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The district court denied that motion. It concluded that, as t&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;o &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;maintenance, no modification was appropriate in light of t&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;he &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;partiesâ respective incomes&lt;span&gt;. And as to child support, the court &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;determined that the $3,000 figure to which the parties had &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;stipulated for purposes of permanent orders remained &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;appropriate &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;given the partiesâ respective incomes and other relevant economic &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;circumstances. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 5&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Around the same time, as the prior division directed&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt;the &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;district court entered an order on &lt;span&gt;motherâs &lt;/span&gt;attorney fees incurred in &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;responding to &lt;span&gt;fatherâs motion to modify parenting time and &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; … <a href="/opinion/10281644/marriage-of-bolton/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/marriage_of_bolton.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Peo v. Xiong</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281623/peo-v-xiong/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281623/peo-v-xiong/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;22CA0895 Peo v Xiong 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 22CA0895 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Morgan County District Court No. 17CR448 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Charles M. Hobbs, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The People of the State of Colorado, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Plaintiff-Appellee, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;v. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Ha &lt;span&gt;Xiong&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Defendant-Appellant. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;ORDER AFFIRMED &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division IV &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE HARRIS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Yun&lt;span&gt; and Graham*, JJ., concur &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Brock &lt;span&gt;J. &lt;/span&gt;Swanson, Senior Assistant &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, &lt;span&gt;Lisa Weisz, Deputy State &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;VI, Â§ 5(3), and Â§ 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Defendant, Ha Xiong, &lt;span&gt;appeals the district courtâs order &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;denying his Crim. P. 35(a) motion&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;Because we conclude the motion &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;was untimely, we affirm. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Fact&lt;span&gt;ual Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;A.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Trial Court Proceedings &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;The People charged Xiong with possession with intent to &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;manufacture or distribute more than fifty pounds of marij&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;uana or &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;marijuana concentrate, possession of methamphetamine, and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;driving under the influence. The charges stemmed from an incident &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;in which Xiong crashed a rented car into a semitruck while he was &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;transporting over a hundred pounds of marijuana. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In exchange for dismissal of the original charges, Xiong &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;pleaded guilty to an amended count of driving while ability &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;impaired &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and an added count of possession with intent to manufacture &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;or &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;distribute a controlled substance. &lt;span&gt;As&lt;/span&gt; part of his plea agreement,&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;t&lt;span&gt;he&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; parties stipulated that Xiong &lt;span&gt;âis to&lt;/span&gt; pay all restitution, including &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;but not limited to [the semitruck driver&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt;the rental car company,] &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and any other party injured or property damaged as a result of &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;th[e] &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;incident.&lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;At the May 2019 sentencing hearing&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt;the trial court imposed a &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;controlling four-year prison sentence. The court gave the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;prosecution ninety-one days to file its restitution request and gave &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the defense time to object.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;The mittimus does not mention &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;restitution. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 5&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Xiong did not directly appeal his convictions or sentence. &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 6&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Forty-eight days after sentencing, the prosecution submitted a &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;request for $36,809.12 in restitution. Four days later, Xiong &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;objected&lt;span&gt;, &lt;span&gt;requesting a hearing and &lt;span&gt;asserting that he â[did] not &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;believe this [wa]s a reasonable … <a href="/opinion/10281623/peo-v-xiong/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/peo_v._xiong.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Peo v. Ibarra</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281627/peo-v-ibarra/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281627/peo-v-ibarra/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;22CA1017 Peo v Ibarra 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 22CA1017 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;City and County &lt;span&gt;of Denver &lt;/span&gt;District Court No. 21CR1655 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Martin F. Egelhoff, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The People of the State of Colorado, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Plaintiff-Appellee, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;v. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Jacob R. Ibarra&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Defendant-Appellant. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;JUDGMENT AFFIRMED&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division III &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE NAVARRO &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Dunn and Gomez, JJ., concur &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Caitlin E. Grant, Assistant Attorney &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Daniel J. Sequeira, Deputy &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Defendant, Jacob R. Ibarra, appeals the judgment of &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of tampering &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;with physical evidence. We affirm. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;The prosecution charged Ibarra with tampering with physic&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;al &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;evidence and two counts of cruelty to animals after an incident&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; that &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;resulted in his dog&lt;span&gt;âs death&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;Before trial, the trial court granted the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;prosecution&lt;span&gt;âs motion to&lt;span&gt; dismiss one of the cruelty to animals &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;counts.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that Ibarra and &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;his friend drove &lt;span&gt;with Ibarraâs dog in the &lt;/span&gt;bed of his pickup truck. &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The dog wore a harness and was attached to the truck by its lea&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;sh. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Though Ibarra or his friend periodically looked back to check on t&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;he &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;dog, at some point the dog jumped out of the truck. Other drive&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;rs &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;alert&lt;span&gt;ed&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; Ibarra, who pulled over.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;Unfortunately, the dog suffered a &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;serious head injury and died on scene. Ibarra and his friend left in &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Ibarraâs truck&lt;span&gt;, without the dog, while bystanders called the police.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Approximately a week later, law enforcement officers found &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Ibarraâs truck. The &lt;span&gt;tailgate had been painted from red to black, so &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;it matched the rest of the black-colored truck. &lt;span&gt;A &lt;/span&gt;temporary tag ha&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;d &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;been removed from the back window (and was recovered in the &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;front &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;seat)&lt;span&gt;. The dogâs leash was never &lt;/span&gt;found.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 5&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Ibarra defended the charges on a theory that &lt;span&gt;the dogâs death &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;was an accident and he did not tamper with physical evidence. The &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;jury agreed in part, acquitting him of the cruelty to animals c&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ount &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;but convicting him of tampering with physical evidence.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;II.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Sufficiency of the Evidence &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ … <a href="/opinion/10281627/peo-v-ibarra/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/peo_v._ibarra.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Marriage of Stone</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281641/marriage-of-stone/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281641/marriage-of-stone/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;23CA1801 Marriage of Stone 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 23CA1801 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;El Paso&lt;span&gt; County District Court No. 20DR31770 &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Diana &lt;span&gt;K. &lt;/span&gt;May, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;In re the Marriage of &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Christopher Everett Stone, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellee and Cross-Appellant, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Iryna Hermanova Stone, n/k/a Iryna Hermanova Mokhoshchokova, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellant and Cross-Appellee. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART&lt;span&gt; AND &lt;span&gt;REVERSED IN PART, &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division V &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE G&lt;span&gt;ROVE&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Freyre&lt;span&gt; and &lt;span&gt;Lum, JJ., concur&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Belzer Law, Aaron B. Belzer, Ashlee N. Hoffman, Boulder, Colorado, for &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellee and Cross-Appellant &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Mark Anthony Law, Mark Anthony Barrionuevo, Colorado Springs, Colorado, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;for Appellant and Cross-Appellee &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, &lt;span&gt;Ir&lt;/span&gt;yna Hermanova &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Stone, n/k/a Iryna Hermanova Mokhoshchokova (mother) appeals &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the portion of the district courtâs permanent orders &lt;span&gt;allocating &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;property and parental responsibilities between herself and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Christopher Everett Stone (father). Father also appeals, arguing the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;district court erred when it declined to enforce &lt;span&gt;a &lt;/span&gt;marital agreement&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;that purported to control the disposition of the marital pro&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;perty and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;committed a series of errors when it declined to declare an oral &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;decree of dissolution a final judgment. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand the case for &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;further proceedings. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Mother and father met in Ukraine in 2001 while father was on &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;vacation looking for romance through a companion busine&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ss&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Mother is from Ukraine and worked at the companion b&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;usiness &lt;span&gt;as &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;an interpreter. The two started a romantic relationship, and in &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2002, mother arrived in the United States on a marriage visa. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Father presented mother with an estate plan and, allegedly, &lt;span&gt;a &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;marital agreement. Mother signed the estate plan, but as we &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;explain further below, the district court found that she did n&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ot sign &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the marital agreement. After the estate plan was signed&lt;span&gt;, t&lt;span&gt;he&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; couple &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;married in Las Vegas on February 7, 2002. &lt;span&gt;Fatherâs parents &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;witnessed the wedding. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 5&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;The marriage produced two children&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt; Until 2014, mother was &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the childrenâs primary caretaker and &lt;span&gt;father was the primary earn&lt;span&gt;er&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;He served in the United States Air Force before the marriage; &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;while &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the parties were married, he worked as an engineer and executive &lt;/div&gt; … <a href="/opinion/10281641/marriage-of-stone/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/marriage_of_stone.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Board of Nursing v. Long-Romero</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281649/board-of-nursing-v-long-romero/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281649/board-of-nursing-v-long-romero/</id><summary type="html"> 24CA0427 Board of Nursing v Long-Romero 11-14-2024 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 24CA0427 Colorado State Board of Nursing Nos. 2019-0043 &amp; 2019-5983 State Board of Nursing, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Shari L. Long-Romero, R.N., C.N.M., R.X.N., Respondent-Appellant. ORDER AFFIRMED Division III Opinion by JUDGE DUNN Navarro and Gomez, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced November 14, 2024 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Amy Meiburg, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ashley Barrett Carter, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellee Hershey Decker Drake, Carmen N. Decker, Kaylyn Peister, Lone Tree, Colorado, for Respondent-Appellant 1 Â¶ 1 In this second appeal involving her advanced practice nursing registration, Shari L. Long-Romero (Romero) appeals the State Board of Nursingâs order disciplining her for violations of the Nurse and Nurse Aide Practice Act (Act). Romero specifically argues that the Board violated the remand order and mandate from her first appeal. Because we disagree, we affirm the order. I. Background A. The Charges and the Boardâs Original Order Â¶ 2 Romero is registered as a certified nurse midwife on the advanced practice nurse registry. Within a roughly thirteen-month span, two of Romeroâs patientsâ babies had no detectable fetal heart rate upon delivery. Despite attempts to resuscitate them, the babies died. 1 Â¶ 3 Complaints about the patientsâ care led to formal charges against Romero. The charges alleged that Romero violated the Act by (1) acting in a manner inconsistent with patient health and safety under section 12-255-120(1)(c), C.R.S. 2024; (2) failing to 1 We focus on the facts and procedural history relevant to this appeal. For details on the facts leading to the disciplinary charges, see Colo. State Bd. of Nursing v. Long-Romero, (Colo. App. No. 20CA1995, June 9, 2022) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)). 2 meet generally accepted standards of care under section 12-255- 120(1)(f); and (3) failing to make correct or essential patient record entries under section 12-255-120(1)(h). After an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge issued an initial decision finding that Romero violated the Act as charged. The initial order imposed sanctions for the violations, which included restrictions on Romeroâs advanced nursing registration and prescriptive authority. On review, the Board entered a final order, adopting the initial decision. 2 B. The First Appeal Â¶ 4 Romero appealed, challenging both the Boardâs findings that she violated the Act and the sanctions imposed. A division of this court reversed the portions of the Boardâs order finding that Romero failed to (1) make an essential entry regarding one patient and (2) consult with a physician regarding the other patient. See Colo. 2 For disciplinary proceedings, the Board is divided into two panels. See Â§ 12-255-119(1)(a), C.R.S. 2024; see also Colo. State Bd. of Med. Examârs v. Ogin, 56 P.3d 1233, 1240 (Colo. App. 2002). The two panels can each function as an inquiry panel (which investigates and prosecutes complaints) or a hearing panel (which reviews the initial decision and issues a final order). See Ogin, 56 P.3d at 1240. Where helpful, … <a href="/opinion/10281649/board-of-nursing-v-long-romero/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/html/2024/11/14/board_of_nursing_v._long-romero.html" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="application/octet-stream"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Mercer v. Colo Spgs</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281639/mercer-v-colo-spgs/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281639/mercer-v-colo-spgs/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;24CA0434 Mercer v Colo Spgs 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 24CA0434 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;El Paso&lt;span&gt; County District Court No. 23CV31684 &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable Gregory R. Werner, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Lianne Mercer&lt;span&gt;; &lt;/span&gt;Jeremy Mercer&lt;span&gt;; &lt;span&gt;Karen Sublett&lt;/span&gt;; Barbara Snow; Ultreia Homes &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;LLC, &lt;span&gt;a Colorado &lt;/span&gt;LLC, &lt;span&gt;d/b/a Courtyard at San Miguel and Yuma; &lt;span&gt;Kevin &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Comesky; Marissa Comesky; &lt;span&gt;William Snider&lt;/span&gt;; &lt;span&gt;Ruth Snider&lt;/span&gt;; Sylvia Wulf; Tracy &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Schlotman; Sara Webb; &lt;span&gt;Ethan Howard&lt;/span&gt;; &lt;span&gt;Lauren Howard&lt;/span&gt;; Mack Mason; and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Abdillahi Jama Buni, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Plaintiffs-Appellants, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;v. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;City of Colorado Springs, City Council, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Defendant-Appellee. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;JUDGMENT &lt;span&gt;AFFIRMED &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division III &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE NAVARRO &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Dunn and Gomez, JJ., concur &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Frederick&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;W.&lt;/span&gt; Newall, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Wynetta P. Massey&lt;span&gt;, City Attorney, Brian Stewart, Senior City Attorney, &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Plaintiffs, owners of residential property in Colorado Springs, &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Colorado, appeal the &lt;span&gt;district courtâs order upholding&lt;/span&gt; the Colorado &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Springs City Council&lt;span&gt;âs decision adopting &lt;/span&gt;City Ordinance 23-&lt;span&gt;38&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;which rezoned certain land. We affirm. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Factual and Procedural History &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In January 2023, Kum &amp;amp; Go, LLC (the applicant) sought &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;approval from the City to construct &lt;span&gt;a &lt;/span&gt;convenience sto&lt;span&gt;re&lt;/span&gt; with a gas &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;station on a vacant lot&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;The land was zoned as &lt;span&gt;â&lt;span&gt;PBC/cr&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; (Planned &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Business Center with Conditions of Record). The Conditions of &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Record included the following: &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;(1)&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;a prohibition of auto service business&lt;span&gt;es&lt;/span&gt;, bars, sexually &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;oriented businesses, medical marijuana businesses, and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;liquor stores; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;(2)&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;a requirement that all activities be conducted entirely &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;within a building; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;(3)&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;a prohibition on storing materials outside; and &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;(4)&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;a maximum building height of thirty feet. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;The applicant ultimately requested removal of the second &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;condition: that all activities be conducted entirely within&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; a building. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;After review, the City&lt;span&gt;âs&lt;/span&gt; staff supported changing the zoning of the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;property in accordance with the a&lt;span&gt;pplicantâs&lt;/span&gt; request.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;The Colorado Springs Planning Commission held a public &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;hearing about the project&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;Residents had the opportunity to offer &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;their views on the project.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;After the hearing, the planning &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;commission recommend&lt;span&gt;ed&lt;/span&gt; that the City Council remove the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;relevant Condition of Record, as memorialized in Ordinance 23-&lt;span&gt;38&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;The commission also recommended approval of the a&lt;span&gt;pplicantâs&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;concept plan for the property. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 5&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;The City Council convened a public hearing about the zoning &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; … <a href="/opinion/10281639/mercer-v-colo-spgs/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/mercer_v._colo_spgs.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Baker v. Rincon</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281650/baker-v-rincon/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281650/baker-v-rincon/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;24CA0323 Baker v Rincon 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 24CA0323 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;El Paso&lt;span&gt; County District Court No. 23CV30775 &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable &lt;span&gt;Eric Bentley&lt;/span&gt;, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Rachel Elizabeth Baker&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Plaintiff-Appellee, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;v. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Eduardo Ivan Rincon&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Defendant-Appellant. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;JUDGMENT AFFIRMED&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division III &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE GOMEZ &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Dunn and Navarro, JJ., concur &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Modern Family Law, Craig R. Valentine, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Plaintiff-Appellee &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Janko Family Law, &lt;span&gt;Sabra Janko, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Defendant-&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Appellant &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Defendant, &lt;span&gt;Ed&lt;/span&gt;uardo Ivan Rincon, appeals the judgment &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;entered in favor of plaintiff, Rachel Elizabeth Baker, following a trial &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;to the court&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt; Rincon contends that the trial court reversibly erred &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;by (1) determining that he was unjustly enriched &lt;span&gt;by Bakerâs &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;conveyance of a one-half undivided interest in her house to him an&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;d &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;(2) not considering the rent payments Baker received from others &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;who lived in the house in its &lt;span&gt;calculation of Rinconâs equita&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ble share&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;of the house. We disagree and affirm. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Background &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Baker and Rincon were in a romantic relationship for about &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;five years, from sometime in 2018 to March of 2023. In early 2021, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Baker purchased a house and took out a mortgage on it. Baker was &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;the sole owner of the house and the sole person responsibl&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;e for the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;mortgage payments.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Baker and Rincon lived &lt;span&gt;in&lt;/span&gt; the house together, along with &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;several other friends and family members, all of whom paid &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;rent to &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Baker. &lt;span&gt;Rincon initially paid $500 per month in rent, but &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;it wasnât &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;revealed how much the other people paid.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;The house needed substantial work, so Baker made significant &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;improvements to &lt;span&gt;it&lt;/span&gt; with the help of friends and family. Rincon also &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;helped with some of the improvements.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 5&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In April 2022, Baker executed a quitclaim deed conveying a &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;one-half undivided interest in the house to Rincon as joint tenants. &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Baker recorded the deed. Baker later added Rincon to the t&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;itle in &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;response &lt;span&gt;to&lt;/span&gt;, as the trial court described it, &lt;span&gt;â[Rinconâs]&lt;/span&gt; repeated &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;demands that she do so or &lt;span&gt;he&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span&gt;would leave the relationship.â &lt;/span&gt; Baker &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;also recorded this transaction. Afterwards, Rincon began paying &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;$750 per month in rent, but he didn&lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;t take on any other obligati&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;ons &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;relating … <a href="/opinion/10281650/baker-v-rincon/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/baker_v._rincon.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry><entry><title>Murphy Creek v. Matise</title><link href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281638/murphy-creek-v-matise/" rel="alternate"/><published>2024-11-14T00:00:00-08:00</published><author><name>Colorado Court of Appeals</name></author><id>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281638/murphy-creek-v-matise/</id><summary type="html"> &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div id=&quot;pdf-container&quot; style=&quot;width: 782px&quot;&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf1&quot; data-page-no=&quot;1&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;24CA0230 Murphy Creek v Matise 11-14-2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Court of Appeals No. 24CA0230 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Arapahoe County District Court No. 23CV31209 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Honorable &lt;span&gt;Elizabeth Beebe Volz&lt;/span&gt;, Judge &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Murphy Creek Development, Inc., a Colorado corporation and Murphy Creek, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Plaintiffs-Appellants, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;v. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Brian K. Matise, &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Defendant-Appellee. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;ORDER AFFIRMED AND CASE &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Division III &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Opinion by JUDGE NAVARRO &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Gomez and &lt;span&gt;Richman*&lt;/span&gt;, JJ., concur &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Announced November 14, 2024 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Seter, Vander Wall &amp;amp; Mielke, P.C., &lt;span&gt;Kim J. Seter&lt;/span&gt;, Elizabeth A. Dauer, &lt;span&gt;Russell &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Newton, Greenwood Village, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellants &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Winget&lt;span&gt;, Spadafora &amp;amp; Schwartzberg, LLP, Derek C. Anderson, &lt;span&gt;Jennifer &lt;span&gt;R. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;OâShea&lt;span&gt;, Boulder, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;VI, Â§ 5(3), and Â§ 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024. &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf2&quot; data-page-no=&quot;2&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;1 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 1&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Plaintiffs, Murphy Creek Development, Inc. and Murphy &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Creek, LLC (collectively, Murphy Creek), appeal the &lt;span&gt;district courtâs&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;dismissal of the claims against defendant, Brian K. Matise, under &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;section &lt;span&gt;13&lt;span&gt;-&lt;span&gt;20&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;-1101, C.R.S. 2024, commonly known as the anti-&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;SLAPP statute.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;(&lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;SLAPP&lt;span&gt;â&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; stands for strategic lawsuit against pu&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;blic &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;participation.)&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;We affirm the order and remand with directions. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;I.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt;Factual and Procedural History &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 2&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Mu&lt;span&gt;rphy Creek Metropolitan District No. 3 (the District) is &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;organized under the Special District Act. &lt;span&gt;See&lt;/span&gt; Â§ &lt;span&gt;32&lt;/span&gt;-1-101 to -113&lt;span&gt;, &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;C.R.S. 2024. Under the control of its board of directors, t&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;he District &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;has the authority to provide services for properties within &lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;its &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;boundaries, such &lt;span&gt;as&lt;/span&gt; security, landscaping, and snow removal&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Murphy Creek Dev., Inc. v. Murphy Creek Metro. Dist. No. 3&lt;span&gt;, slip op. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;at Â¶ 4 (Colo. App. No. 20CA2106, Apr. 28, 2022) (not published &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)&lt;span&gt;).&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;To pay for these services, the District &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;may impose fees on owners and developers of the properties&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;I&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;d.&lt;span&gt; &lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 3&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;Murphy Creek owns property &lt;span&gt;within the Districtâs boundaries&lt;/span&gt; &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;as well as bordering property&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt;Much of the land owned by Murphy &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Creek was vacant at the times relevant to this case&lt;span&gt;. &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div id=&quot;pf3&quot; data-page-no=&quot;3&quot;&gt; &lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt; &lt;div&gt;2 &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Â¶ 4&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;&lt;span&gt;In 2018, the District, through its board, hired Matise as &lt;/span&gt; &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;general counsel.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;The District asked Matise if it could impose fees &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;that would &lt;span&gt;be&lt;/span&gt; allocated differently between occupied prop&lt;span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;erty and &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;vacant property.&lt;span&gt; &lt;/span&gt;Matise informed the board that the fees could be &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;allocated differently between occupied and vacant lots if the &lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;allocation … <a href="/opinion/10281638/murphy-creek-v-matise/">Original document</a> </summary><link href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/txt/2024/11/14/murphy_creek_v._matise.txt" length="0" rel="enclosure" type="text/plain"/><category term="Unknown Status"/></entry></feed>

CINXE.COM

CourtListener.com: All opinions for the Colorado Court of Appeals