October 20, 2017

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 10/19/2017

On Thursday, October 19, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued nine published opinions and 39 unpublished opinions.

People v. Juarez

People v. Robinson

People v. Mendez

People v. Heredia-Cobos

People v. Fallis

People in Interest of T.T.

Adams v. Sagee

HDH Partnership v. Hinsdale County Board of Equalization

People in Interest of C.A.

Summaries of these cases are forthcoming.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Defendant May Fire Retained Counsel for Any Reason but Must Face Consequences

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ronquillo v. People on Monday, October 16, 2017.

Criminal Law—Counsel—Choice of Counsel—Continuance.

The Colorado Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice includes the right to fire retained counsel without having to show good cause, even when the defendant wants appointed counsel. But defendants who fire retained counsel will not necessarily be allowed to proceed as they wish. Accordingly, trial courts must ensure that defendants understand the consequences of firing retained counsel. The court outlined the analysis that trial courts should conduct before releasing retained counsel from a case. Because the Colorado Court of Appeals erred by requiring Ronquillo to show good cause for firing retained counsel, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 10/19/2017

On Thursday, October 19, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and two unpublished opinions.

United States v. Prieto

United States v. Palmer

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions.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

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 10/18/2017

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and two unpublished opinions.

United States v. Mosley

United States v. Graves

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions.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

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 10/17/2017

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and seven unpublished opinions.

United States v. Tovilla-Martinez

Dietz v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp.

United States v. Harvey

Musclepharm Corp. v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc.

United States v. Ellis

United States v. McLean

Castillo v. Las Cruces Police Department

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

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 10/16/2017

On Monday, October 16, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and three unpublished opinions.

Sigg v. Allen County, Kansas

United States v. Rodela-Castillo

Bird v. Wyoming Attorney General

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

Colorado Supreme Court: Announcement Sheet, 10/16/2017

On Monday, October 16, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court issued one published opinion.

Ronquillo v. People

The summary of this case is forthcoming.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 10/13/2017

On Friday, October 13, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and four unpublished opinions.

Cooley v. Town of Kiowa

Ali v. Jones

Brimeyer v. Nelson

United States v. Jordan

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

Colorado Supreme Court: Hospital Has No Private Right of Action Against Police Department for Cost of Treatment

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in City of Arvada ex rel. Arvada Police Department v. Denver Health & Hospital Authority on Monday, October 9, 2017.

Prisons—Costs of Incarceration.

Arvada police arrested a severely injured man and sent him to Denver Health Medical Center. Denver Health and Hospital Authority (Denver Health) sued Arvada for the cost of care, claiming that C.R.S. § 16-3-401, which says that persons in custody “shall be . . . provided . . . medical treatment,” required Arvada to pay the hospital for the detainee’s care. Here, the Colorado Supreme Court clarified that (1) whether a statute provides a private right of action is a question of standing, and (2) the same test for a private right of action under Allstate Insurance Co. v. Parfrey, 830 P.2d 905 (Colo. 1992), applies for claims against both governmental and non-governmental defendants. Applying Parfrey to Denver Health’s statutory claim, the court held that C.R.S. § 16-3-401 does not provide hospitals a private right of action to sue police departments for the cost of providing healthcare to persons in custody. Accordingly, it concluded that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Denver Health on the statutory claim. The court remanded the case for consideration of Denver Health’s unjust enrichment claim based on Arvada’s statutory duty to provide care for persons in custody.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Colorado Human Smuggling Statute Preempted by Federal Immigration & Nationality Act

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Fuentes-Espinoza v. People on Monday, October 9, 2017.

Alien Smuggling—Field Preemption—Conflict Preemption.

This case required the Colorado Supreme Court to determine whether Colorado’s human smuggling statute, C.R.S. § 18-13-128, is preempted by the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101–1537 (2017) (INA). The court concluded that the INA preempts C.R.S. § 18-13-128 under the doctrines of both field and conflict preemption. In reaching this conclusion, the court agreed with a number of federal circuit courts that have reviewed the same INA provisions at issue here and have determined that those provisions create a comprehensive framework to penalize the transportation, concealment, and inducement of unlawfully present aliens and thus evince a congressional intent to occupy the field criminalizing such conduct. In addition, applying the analyses set forth in those federal decisions, the court concluded that C.R.S. § 18-13-128, like the state human smuggling statutes at issue in the federal cases, stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congress’s purposes and objectives in enacting its comprehensive framework. Accordingly, the court reversed petitioner’s judgment of conviction under C.R.S. § 18-13-128.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 10/12/2017

On Thursday, October 12, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 37 unpublished opinions.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 10/12/2017

On Thursday, October 12, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and two unpublished opinions.

Kirk v. Burke

Dudley v. Kansas Department of Corrections

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