October 20, 2017

Colorado Court of Appeals: Restitution Statute Does Not Require Prosecution’s Requested Specificity for Setoff

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Stanley on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

Traffic Accident—Unapportioned Settlement—Crime Victim Compensation Program—Restitution—Setoff—Burden of Proof.

Stanley’s automobile insurer, Geico Indemnity Co. (Geico), entered into a “Release in Full of All Claims” (release) with the victim and her husband. Under the settlement, Geico paid the victim $25,000 for all claims related to and stemming from the accident in exchange for a full and final release of all claims against Stanley and Geico. Thereafter, Stanley pleaded guilty to felony vehicular assault, driving under the influence, and careless driving. The prosecution filed a motion to impose restitution and attached a report from the Crime Victim Compensation Program (CVCP). It showed that the CVCP had paid the victim $30,000, the maximum amount allowable by statute, for pecuniary losses proximately caused by Stanley’s criminal conduct. The Court awarded Stanley a $25,000 setoff against restitution for the amount paid by Geico, and ordered him to pay the $5,000 net amount.

On appeal, the prosecution argued that Stanley should not receive a setoff for the settlement funds because the release was an unapportioned settlement that did not “earmark” the proceeds for the same expenses compensated by the CVCP, leaving open the possibility that the victim used the proceeds for losses not compensated by the CVCP. When a victim receives compensation from a civil settlement against a defendant, the defendant may request a setoff against restitution “to the extent of any money actually paid to the victim for the same damages.” For purposes of a setoff, however, the court cannot allocate proceeds from an unapportioned civil settlement agreement without “specific evidence that the settlement included particular categories of loss,” because in civil cases victims may recover both pecuniary losses covered by the restitution statute and other damages specifically excluded under the restitution statute. Because the information needed to determine whether a victim has been fully compensated or has received a double recovery is known only by the victim, once a defendant has shown that a civil settlement includes the same categories of losses or expenses as compensated by the CVCP and awarded as restitution, the defendant has met his burden of going forward, and the prosecution may then rebut the inference that a double recovery has occurred. Here, Stanley met his burden of proving a setoff, but the victim may have used some or all of the settlement proceeds for losses not compensated by the CVCP.

The order was affirmed, and the case was remanded to permit the prosecution to show that the victim did not receive a double recovery from the settlement proceeds and the CVCP payment.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Payment Obligation Under Marital Agreement Terminates at Death of Either Party

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In re Estate of Williams on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

Dissolution of Marriage—Premarital Agreement—Separation Agreement—Maintenance—Estate.

Husband and wife executed a premarital agreement providing that husband would pay wife “during her lifetime” and wife would be entitled to receive from husband “during her lifetime” monthly payments on the filing of a petition for dissolution. In exchange for the monthly payments, wife waived maintenance. Husband and wife’s marriage ended in 1996, and husband consistently made monthly payments to wife under their separation agreement until his death. When husband’s estate refused to continue making the payments, wife filed the underlying action. The district court ruled that the premarital and separation agreements obligated the estate to continue making the monthly payments to wife until her death or remarriage. The court also awarded wife attorney fees and costs under the prevailing party provisions of the agreements.

On appeal, the estate contended that the district court erred in ruling that husband’s obligation under the premarital and separation agreements to make monthly payments to wife survived his death as an obligation of his estate. The premarital and separation agreements reflect agreement regarding the duration of the monthly payments relative to the life or marital status of the wife, but say nothing about what would happen on husband’s death. The separation agreement also released the parties and their estates from claims and demands. Therefore, husband’s personal obligation to pay ended when he died, absent a clear indication to the contrary, which neither the premarital nor separation agreement provided.

The estate also contended that the district court erroneously awarded wife attorney fees and costs and that it should have been awarded its own attorney fees under the prevailing party provisions of the agreements. The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed.

The order and judgments were reversed and the case was remanded with directions.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: UCCJEA Required Trial Court to Conduct Further Inquiries Before Assuming Jurisdiction

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of C.L.T. on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

Termination of Parental Rights—Dependency and Neglect—Jurisdiction—Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act—Emergency Jurisdiction.

C.L.T., a child, was adjudicated dependent and neglected. Thereafter, the Denver Department of Health and Human Services moved to terminate the parental rights of mother and father, alleging that they had not complied with their treatment plans and that both of them were unfit parents. The trial court found that although reasonable efforts had been made to rehabilitate mother, her treatment plan had not been successful, she was not fit to parent the child, and she was not likely to become fit within a reasonable period of time. The court made similar findings regarding father. Then it terminated the parental rights of both mother and father.

On appeal, mother contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to terminate her parental rights because it failed to comply with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). She argued that because a child welfare case remained open in Texas when the Colorado case was filed, the Colorado court could exercise only emergency jurisdiction unless and until it acquired ongoing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. The information in the record, which was limited but contained at least some indication that the court may not have had the requisite jurisdiction, was insufficient to establish whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter any order beyond the temporary emergency order.

The judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for the trial court to undertake further inquiries about proceedings concerning the child in other states, confer with courts in other states as appropriate, and make express findings about its UCCJEA jurisdiction.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Meal Plans Provided Wholesale to College and Therefore Improperly Taxed

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Sodexo America, LLC v. City of Golden on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

Tax—Meal Plans—Students—Wholesale—Contract.

Sodexo America, LLC (Sodexo) provides food services and food to the Colorado School of Mines (Mines) pursuant to a contract with Mines. Mines, in turn, contracts with its students to provide them food (the food obtained, prepared, and served by Sodexo) through various meal plans. The City of Golden (City) taxes Sodexo for students’ use of the meal plans. Sodexo collects and remits sales tax on campus food purchased with cash, check, or credit card. But the City also assesses Sodexo for sales tax on transactions whereby students swipe meal cards in exchange for meal plan meals, which taxation Sodexo challenged. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on Sodexo’s challenges to the City’s assessment and denial of refunds.

On appeal, Sodexo contended that the City can’t tax it for meals purchased by Mines’ students under the students’ contracts with Mines. The Golden Municipal Code states that the City may levy sales tax on the purchase price of food, but exempts from taxation wholesale sales. Under the relevant contract and pursuant to the plain language of the Code, no sales occur between Sodexo and Mines’ students with meal plans; instead, Sodexo sells meal plan meals to Mines at wholesale. Because the Code expressly exempts wholesale sales from taxation, the City’s assessment is invalid.

The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for entry of judgment in Sodexo’s favor and for any other proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Statute of Limitations Tolled While Defendant Incarcerated in Minnesota

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Butler on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

Sexual Assault—Child—Statute of Limitations—Tolling—Out-of-State.

In 1995, Butler was convicted in Colorado and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment for sexually assaulting a child. In 1999, the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) placed Butler in a Minnesota prison, where he served the remainder of his Colorado sentence until he was released in 2006. A month after his release, Butler attempted to contact L.W., prompting L.W. to report abuse he had allegedly suffered as a child between January 1992 and May 1995. Charges were then brought against Butler in the present case based on L.W.’s allegations of sexual assault, and he was convicted. Butler filed a Crim. P. 35(c) motion asserting that the charges were barred by the applicable 10-year statute of limitations. The postconviction court denied Butler’s motion based on tolling of Colorado’s limitations period while Butler was incarcerated and thus “absent from the state of Colorado.” Butler did not raise the statute of limitations argument on direct appeal.

The people initially contended that Butler was barred from pursuing his statute of limitations claim in a postconviction proceeding under the abuse of process rule. However, under an exception to the abuse of process rule, any claim that the sentencing court lacked subject matter jurisdiction may be pursued in a postconviction proceeding. Consequently, Butler’s claim was not barred.

On appeal, Butler contended that the postconviction court erred in ruling that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction for purposes of the statute of limitations’ tolling provision because he was absent from Colorado while he was incarcerated in Minnesota for his prior Colorado convictions. The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that a defendant is “absent” from Colorado for statute of limitations purposes when he has been transferred by the DOC to an out-of-state facility to serve out the remainder of a Colorado sentence. Consequently, the applicable 10-year limitations period was tolled while Butler was in Minnesota. Additionally, under the circumstances here, the prosecution’s failure to plead Butler’s absence from the state did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to proceed.

The order was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Defendant Lacked Fixed Address and was Charged with Failure to Register as Sex Offender Under Incorrect Statute

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Jones on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

Sex Offender—Failure to Register—Evidence—Address—C.R.S. § 16-22-108(3)(i)—C.R.S. § 18-3-412.5(1)(g).

Jones was required to register as a sex offender. In 2011, he registered as a sex offender with the Aurora Police Department (Aurora P.D.) in Colorado. In August 2012, Jones was released from prison onto parole in an unrelated case, and he was given a voucher to stay at a particular motel in Aurora (and in Adams County). On August 12, 2012, Jones updated his sex offender registration with the Aurora P.D., listing the motel’s address as his new residence. On August 20, 2012, when the voucher expired, Jones left the motel and did not return. He did not report a change of address with the Aurora P.D. and did not register as a sex offender with any other local law enforcement agency in Adams County or in any other jurisdiction in Colorado until 2013. The People charged him with failure to register as a sex offender between August 26, 2012 and November 28, 2012.

At the close of evidence of his trial, Jones moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that (1) the prosecution presented no evidence of where he resided during the relevant time period, and (2) ceasing to reside at an address and thereafter lacking a fixed residence does not fall within the meaning of “changing an address” under C.R.S. 18-3-412.5(10(g). The trial court denied the motion, and Jones was convicted of the charge.

On appeal, Jones contended that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove that he failed to register “upon changing an address” under C.R.S. § 18-3-412.5(1)(g). The Colorado Sex Offender Registration Act (Act), C.R.S. §§ 16-22-101 to -115, requires sex offenders to register with the local law enforcement agency where the person resides. C.R.S. § 16-22-108(3)(i) criminalizes the failure to register upon “ceasing to reside at an address and [thereafter] lacking a fixed residence.” A violation of this section must be charged under the catchall provision in C.R.S. § 18-3-412.5(1). Here, the prosecution elected to charge Jones only under C.R.S. § 18-3-412.5(1)(g), which criminalizes the “[f]ailure to register with the local law enforcement agency in each jurisdiction in which the person resides upon changing an address, establishing an additional residence, or legally changing names.” Although Jones was required to register as a sex offender in each jurisdiction where he resided, there was no evidence that Jones had a fixed residence during any portion of the relevant time period. Because the evidence at trial did not establish a violation of C.R.S. § 18-3-412.5(1)(g), he was wrongfully convicted under that statutory provision.

The judgment was vacated.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Findings of Inventory Search of Vehicle Need Not Be Suppressed Because Search Was Lawful

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Camarigg on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol—Impound—Vehicle—Inventory Search—Warrant—Prosecutorial Misconduct—Burden of Proof—Beyond a Reasonable Doubt—Evidence—Intent to Manufacture Methamphetamine.

After defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), officers impounded his vehicle because it was parked in front of a gas pump at a gas station. The officers conducted an inventory search of the vehicle and discovered a sealed box containing items commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Based on those items, they obtained a warrant to search the vehicle and found additional items used to manufacture methamphetamine. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search and warrant. The trial court denied the motion. A jury convicted defendant of DUI, careless driving, and possession of chemicals, supplies, or equipment with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.

On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court should have excluded evidence discovered in the inventory search of his vehicle and under the subsequently issued warrant. A vehicle is lawfully taken into custody if the seizure is authorized by law and department regulations and is reasonable. Inventory searches are an exception to the warrant requirement and are reasonable if (1) the vehicle was lawfully taken into custody; (2) the search was conducted according to “an established, standardized policy”; and (3) there is no showing that police acted in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation. Here, the decision to impound the vehicle was reasonable, and the inventory search was conducted according to standard policy and was constitutional. Because the inventory search was constitutional, evidence obtained under the subsequently issued warrant could not have been tainted.

Defendant next argued that the prosecutor improperly quantified the concept of reasonable doubt and lowered the burden of proof by using a puzzle analogy during closing argument. The prosecutor used a puzzle analogy to convey the difference between proof beyond a reasonable doubt and proof beyond all doubt, which other courts have found permissible. Further, the prosecutor used the analogy to rebut the defense argument that evidence of defendant’s guilt was speculative. The Court of Appeals concluded there was no reasonable possibility that the prosecutor’s analogy contributed to defendant’s conviction. Additionally, the jury was properly instructed on the reasonable doubt standard. Therefore, any impropriety in the prosecutor’s analogy was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lastly, defendant contended there was insufficient evidence that he intended to manufacture methamphetamine. There was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a rational jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to manufacture methamphetamine.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 9/7/2017

On Thursday, September 7, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued seven published opinions and 23 unpublished opinions.

People v. Camarigg

People v. Jones

People v. Butler

Sodexo America, LLC v. City of Golden

People in Interest of C.L.T.

In re Estate of Williams

People v. Stanley

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 Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 8/31/2017

On Thursday, August 31, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 14 unpublished opinions.

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

Colorado Court of Appeals: Counties Not Liable for Attorney Fees to Defend Disciplinary Action Against District Attorney

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Ruybalid v. Board of County Commissioners of Las Animas County on Thursday, August 24, 2017.

Ruybalid was the District Attorney for the Third Judicial District, and he admitted to serial violations of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct during his tenure as District Attorney. Ruybalid believed the counties should have defended him against his disciplinary actions, but the counties refused to pay for his attorney fees and costs. Ruybalid hired an attorney and entered into a settlement, admitting a pattern of discovery violations that led to the dismissal of criminal charges in several cases and stipulating that he did not diligently represent the people and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

After resolving the disciplinary action, Ruybalid filed a complaint for declaratory relief against the counties, seeking reimbursement of his attorney fees and costs incurred in defending the disciplinary action. The counties moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing Ruybalid had no right to fees and costs. Ruybalid countered that he had a statutory right to fees and costs, and also an equitable claim. The district court concluded that Ruybalid had failed to state a claim and had no right to fees and costs, and dismissed the complaint. Ruybalid appealed.

The court of appeals noted that the American Rule generally requires parties to pay their own fees and costs. Ruybalid argued that C.R.S. § 20-1-303 required the counties to pay his attorney fees, but the court of appeals disagreed, finding nothing in the rule to require the counties to pay attorney fees or costs. The court refused to infer an exception to the American Rule not explicitly authorized by statute. The court declined to consider the attorney fees and costs incurred in defending Ruybalid’s disciplinary action as “expenses necessarily incurred” in discharging a district attorney’s official duties. The court also noted that Ruybalid failed to allege any facts that tended to support that the expenses incurred were for the benefit of the counties.

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Trial Court Within Discretion to Impose Surcharge in Protective Proceeding

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Becker v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. on Thursday, August 24, 2017.

Aaron Becker was the conservator on an account set up for his daughter after she was the beneficiary of settlement funds from a personal injury claim. The trial court’s order to set up the restricted account specified that “no funds could be withdrawn from the account except by ‘separate certified order of this court.'” However, due to a “coding error,” Wells Fargo failed to set up the account as a restricted account. The account balance was $56,642.46 as reported in August 2013. Wells Fargo allowed Becker to make unauthorized withdrawals until the balance was negative, then closed the account.

The trial court issued an order to show cause in August 2016 to both Wells Fargo and Becker regarding the withdrawn funds. At the show cause hearing, Becker testified that he used the funds for his personal expenses, as well as to pay rent, groceries, utilities, sports activities expenses, and other expenses for the beneficiary. The court ordered Becker to file an accounting of how the funds were used from August 2013 until the account was closed. He agreed to do so, but never filed the accounting.

The court ordered Becker and Wells Fargo to restore to the account the last amount reported and found them jointly and severally liable for breach of fiduciary duty. The court ordered Wells Fargo to restore $56,642.46 to a new restricted account. 

Wells Fargo appealed, arguing the court should have apportioned liability per C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5. Wells Fargo also requested a hearing to determine the amount of the funds used to benefit the protected person so as not to afford her a double recovery. The trial court denied Wells Fargo’s motion.

On appeal, the court of appeals disagreed with Wells Fargo that C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5 applied, ruling instead that the court properly determined that it was a surcharge action under C.R.S. §§ 15-10-501 to -504. The court noted that the trial court had authority to impose a surcharge on Wells Fargo for failing to correct its error. The court of appeals agreed with Wells Fargo, however, that requiring the bank to restore the full amount of the settlement funds could potentially result in an impermissible double recovery to the protected person, and remanded for a determination of how the conservatorship funds were spent.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 8/24/2017

On Thursday, August 24, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and 34 unpublished opinions.

Ruybalid v. Board of County Commissioners of Las Animas County

Becker v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.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.