May 27, 2017

Archives for September 14, 2016

Toni-Anne Dasent Named Executive Director of Metro Volunteer Lawyers

toni-anne-dasentThe Denver Bar Association is pleased to announce Toni-Anne Dasent as the new director of Metro Volunteer Lawyers (MVL). She assumed her responsibilities on August 22, 2016.

Dasent holds a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Windsor, Canada, where she also served as director and group advisor of the university’s Community Legal Aid Program. She went on to become a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada in Ontario, and after spending some time working for Canada’s largest law firm, she relocated to Colorado in 1994.

Shortly after moving to Colorado, Dasent started as an intake volunteer for the Legal Aid Society (now Colorado Legal Services). After passing the bar exam, she continued to work as a volunteer attorney, devoting her energies to Project Safeguard in Judge Brian Campbell’s Denver courtroom. There, she assisted clients who were seeking restraining orders. Her dedication to helping underserved populations with their civil legal matters fueled her longstanding commitment to volunteering with MVL’s Family Law Court Program and taking on individual cases in a pro bono capacity.

Dasent is well-versed in MVL’s 50-year history and wants to ensure that the organization remains a dynamic force in promoting a more equitable society. “As director of MVL, I am looking forward to working with a dedicated and knowledgeable team to continue to provide access to justice for those in our community who would otherwise not be able to obtain fair and competent legal representation,” commented Dasent. She feels fortunate to have a team that works with Colorado Legal Services to assist many clients through the Family Law Court Program, Pro Bono Attorney Program, Post Decree Clinic, Power of Attorney Clinic and Legal Clinic at the Denver Indian Center. “I am grateful for the dedication and hard work of the current and past team members and past directors who have achieved so much in their time,” she said.

For Dasent, MVL is more than a job: It is a passion infused with responsibility. “My intent is to steadfastly promote those aspects of legal services in which we excel and work toward achieving greatness in those areas where there is room for improvement,” she explained. “I look forward to working with the Denver Bar Association and Colorado Legal Services in this new capacity and to continuing to provide exemplary services to our community.”

Colorado Court of Appeals: No Time Limit Exists for Prosecuting Sexual Assaults Where DNA Proves Defendant’s Identity

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Shores on Thursday, September 8, 2016.

Sexual Assault—Statute of Limitations—CRE 404(b) Evidence.

In 1994, an elderly woman was found badly beaten and sexually assaulted. No suspect was initially identified. The victim died in 2000 from cancer. In 2010, the DNA evidence from the victim’s case was matched to Shores’s DNA, but the district attorney’s office chose not to file charges against Shores at that time. Several years later, the Denver Police Department learned that Shores had been tied, through DNA, to a 2013 sexual assault of a woman, D.B., in Texas. This information led to the 2014 charges against Shores for first degree sexual assault and a crime of violence enhancer. Shores was convicted as charged.

On appeal, Shores argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for failure to file charges within the 10-year statute of limitations in effect in September 1994. The change in the statute, however, provides that there is no time limit for prosecuting certain sexual assaults committed after July 1, 1991, if (1) the defendant’s identity is determined in whole or in part by DNA and (2) the offense is reported to a law enforcement agency within 10 years after its commission. Shores conceded that his identity was determined by DNA but argued that the second prong was not met because the victim herself did not report the crime to law enforcement. The statute does not require that the victim be the person who reported the offense, only that the offense was reported. Here, the police had known about the physical assault on the victim from their response to the initial call, and they received further information from the hospital about her condition, including the results of the sexual assault examination kit.  Accordingly, there was no statutory time limit in which to file charges against Shores, and the trial court correctly denied his motion to dismiss.

Shores next argued that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting CRE 404(b) evidence of the 2013 sexual assault in Texas. The evidence relating to D.B. was probative of the ultimate fact of whether Shores committed the offense charged and was logically relevant independent of bad character evidence because it had a tendency to make it more probable that the victim did not consent than it would be without the evidence. The court acted within its discretion in determining that the danger of unfair prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of this evidence.

The judgment of conviction was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Trial Court Did Not Err in Considering Unredacted Invoices on Remand

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Thompson v. United Securities Alliance, Inc. on Thursday, September 8, 2016.

Judgment—Garnishment—Mandate—Prejudgment Interest—Post-judgment Interest.

Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against United Securities Alliance, Inc. (United), and then instituted garnishment proceedings against Catlin Insurance Company (UK) Ltd. (Catlin), United’s insurer. The district court deducted from the policy limit the amount of attorney fees incurred by Catlin in defending the underlying arbitrations against United, and entered judgment for plaintiffs for the remainder of the policy. The court denied plaintiffs’ requests for pre- and post-judgment interest.

On appeal, plaintiffs contended that the district court acted beyond the scope of the court of appeals’ mandate because, by considering the unredacted attorney fees invoices submitted after the mandate, the district court expressly disregarded the mandate’s instruction to review “the existing record.” Given the unusual procedural posture of this case and the largely “indiscernible” unredacted invoices, the language to review “the existing record” was permissive rather than restrictive, and the remand order meant that the district court could rely exclusively on the existing record to calculate reasonable fees, not that it had to. Accordingly, the district court did not err in considering the unredacted invoices.

Plaintiffs next contended that the district court erred in declining to award prejudgment interest pursuant to C.R.S. § 5-12-102(1). This statute, however, governs contract and property damage cases. Because garnishment actions do not result in damages to the garnishor, prejudgment interest is not appropriate.

Plaintiffs also argued that an award of post-judgment interest was mandatory under C.R.S. § 5-12-106(1)(b) and the district court erred by denying their request. Because the court of appeals’ mandate did not direct the district court to award post-judgment interest and plaintiffs did not request that the court amend its mandate, the district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to make such an award.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary available courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 9/13/2016

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and five unpublished opinions.

United States v. Martinez

Wyles v. Sussman

United States v. Coleman

United States v. Maurek

United States v. Johnson

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.