February 25, 2017

Colorado Court of Appeals: “Newsletter Exclusion” Did Not Apply to Unlicensed Securities Advisor

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Mandel v. Rome on Thursday, December 30, 2016.

Colorado Securities Act—Licensure—Summary Judgment—Investment Adviser—First Amendment—Restitution—Permanent Injunction.

Defendants Mandel and Wall Street Radio, Inc. hosted a radio show devoted to security investments, Wall Street Radio (WSR). They also offered through a website a variety of investment related services under two plans. The Master Membership Plan, with a $500 annual fee, provided newsletters, seminars, and the opportunity to email or call defendant Mandel twice a week with questions about specific stocks (crystal ball readings). The Lead Trader Membership Plan, under which subscribers paid between $1000 and $2000 annually, provided the same services as Master Membership and also offered the opportunity to mimic Mandel’s own security trades through an investment vehicle known as auto-trading. In auto-trading, trades are automatically made that mimic the lead trader’s trades without the need for approval. Followers are often not aware of the trades until after they have occurred.

The auto-trading was done through a company called Ditto Trade, in which Mandel owned an interest. Ditto Trade requires its lead traders to attest that they are either registered investment advisers or exempt from registration. Neither Mandel nor WSR were licensed in Colorado as investment advisers or investment adviser representatives. In 2008, Mandel had applied for a license, but his application was denied in an administrative action. A stipulated consent order denying the application precluded him from reapplying for 10 years and barred him from acting as a solicitor or otherwise associating with any Colorado licensed investment adviser or “federally covered” adviser. Mandel attested to operating within an exemption.

This action was commenced by the Securities Commissioner of Colorado, Rome, against Mandel and WSR, alleging they had acted as unlicensed investment advisers or investment adviser representatives under the Colorado Securities Act (CSA). Defendants claimed that pursuant to the CRS § 11-51-201(9.5)(b)(III) “newsletter exclusion” they were exempt from licensure. The trial court granted summary judgment against defendants. It entered a permanent injunction and directed them to pay $80,000 in restitution ($1000 for each auto-trading subscriber).

On appeal, defendants argued that the trial court erroneously entered summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether they acted as investment advisers or investment adviser representatives. The Colorado Court of Appeals found that the Commissioner presented undisputed facts sufficient to resolve the case. It therefore turned to whether judgment was appropriate as a matter of law.

There was no dispute to the evidence presented by the Commissioner that defendants met the basic definition of investment adviser or investment adviser representative. To avoid the licensing requirement, defendants had to meet the “newsletter exclusion” from the definition of investment adviser, which required their services to qualify as bona fide publications or newsletters with a regular circulation. The court found that the lead trader services were not “publications” generally disseminated to subscribers. It rejected defendants’ argument that because they disseminated a newsletter, all of their other activities fell within the exclusion. Also, the lead trader service was not bona fide because it did not consist of disinterested commentary or analysis; instead, each follower’s investment decision was directly linked to Mandel’s investment account. Thus Mandel could personally benefit from the trades. Finally, the service was not “regular.” It did not follow a routine schedule but occurred when Mandel decided to make trades. Similarly, the crystal ball readings were not regular and addressed specific investment situations. Because defendants provided both services for compensation without a license they violated the CSA.

Defendants further argued that the summary judgment was inappropriate because the Commissioner failed to controvert their affirmative defense that the First Amendment of the federal constitution and Colorado Constitution art. II, § 10 barred the enforcement action. Because the services provided were sufficiently personal to treat defendants as investment advisors or investment representatives, requiring them to obtain a license as a condition of providing these services is constitutional.

Defendants also argued that the trial court erred in imposing restitution, contending that only damages could be awarded under the CSA. The court did not need to address this argument because it held that the record and the law support the award under a common law restitution theory.

Lastly, defendants challenged both parts of the permanent injunction. Defendants argued that the first part of the injunction improperly enjoins them from engaging in lawful activity. Defendants contended that the court abused its discretion and exceeded its statutory authority by enjoining them from “associating in any capacity” with securities professionals engaged in business in Colorado. The court found that the trial court had statutory authority to enjoin defendants from associating with securities professionals to ensure compliance with the CSA. However, the court found that the first part of the injunction was overly broad and subject to different interpretations.

Defendants argued that the second part of the injunction is simply an edict to obey the law and is thus overly broad and vague. The court agreed.

The summary judgment and restitution orders were affirmed. The injunction was vacated in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Trustee’s Loss in Recall Election Did Not Arise from Town’s Misconduct

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Jones v. Samora on Thursday, December 30, 2016.

Summary Judgment—Identity of Persons Casting Votes—Colo. Const. Art. VII, § 8—Standing—§ 1983 Claim—Law of the Case—Issue Preclusion.

Residents of the Town of Center (Town) organized a recall election to oust the trustees, including Jones, from their positions. Voters either turned in mail ballots or voted in person. All of the ballots had numbered stubs and, based on these stubs, the town clerk, Samora, had a list that showed which voter had received which ballot. He used the list to ensure that each voter had voted only once. To ensure voter secrecy, the stubs were removed before they were tallied. These procedures were used for all in-person ballots that were cast. But the procedures were not followed at all times for the mail-in ballots. At some point, the election judges realized that they had not removed the stubs from some ballots, but decided to continue tallying the ballots before removing the stubs. Because they could see the identifying numbers on the stubs when tallying the votes, the judges could have determined the identity of the voters by consulting the voter list.

Jones and Citizen Center, a nonprofit, filed this lawsuit including five state law claims and a § 1983 claim. The state law claims were severed from the § 1983 claim. A bench trial was held on the state law claims. The court found that the procedural errors were unintentional, that no voter identity had been disclosed when tallying the ballots, and that the election was fundamentally untainted by any substantive intentional error of procedure. However, the court concluded that tallying the mail-in ballots had violated Article VII, § 8 of the Colorado Constitution. Even though no voter identities had been revealed, the opportunity to discover them had been available and this violated Colorado’s constitutional and statutory guarantee of a secret ballot. The court voided the results of the recall election and ordered the Town to hold a new recall election within 30 to 90 days.

The Town appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and reinstated the recall election results, concluding that the stubs were on the ballots because a statute required them to be there; there was no violation of the Colorado Constitution; and the trial court erred in concluding that the election had been void.

The § 1983 claim was still at issue. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, both sides moved for summary judgment. The court granted the Town’s motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion.

On appeal, the Town asserted that plaintiffs did not have standing to file the case. As to the trustee, the Colorado Court of Appeals held that because the loss of the trustee’s position did not arise from the Town’s conduct, the trustee could not satisfy the injury requirement. In addition, because the trustee suffered no injury, he did not have third-party standing, and because he failed to allege his tax dollars were used in an unconstitutional manner, he did not have taxpayer standing.

Although the trustee lacked standing, the court found that Citizen Center had organizational standing because one or more of its members had voted in the recall election by mail-in ballot, and therefore their right to cast a secret ballot had allegedly been violated; the interests Citizen Center sought to protect were germane to its purpose; and the claim asserted and relief requested did not require that individual members of the organization participate in the case.

Regarding its summary judgment motion, the Town asserted that the law of the case barred Citizen Center’s claim. Here, the state law claims proceeding and the § 1983 proceeding were severed and were not the same case. In addition, the law of the case doctrine applies only to a court’s decisions of law, not to its resolution of factual questions. Whether the Town actually violated voter secrecy rights is a question of fact. Thus the law of the case doctrine does not apply.

The Town also asserted that issue preclusion barred Citizen Center’s claim. Issue preclusion bars relitigating factual matters that a court has previously litigated and decided. Here, the factual issue in the state proceeding was identical to the § 1983 factual issue: whether the mail-in voters’ secrecy rights were actually violated. Citizen Center was involved in the state claims case and that case ended in a final judgment. Citizen Center also had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the factual issue of whether the mail-in voters’ secrecy rights were violated. Therefore, issue preclusion barred Citizen Center from relitigating whether the mail-in voters’ secrecy rights were violated.

On the § 1983 claim, the court concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the trial court properly granted the Town’s motion for summary judgment. Further, applying the issue preclusion doctrine, the election judges did not infringe on Citizen Center’s members rights, and the Town did not deprive those members of their constitutional rights.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: District Court Did Not Err in Summarily Denying Defendant’s Petition for Postconviction Relief

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Phipps on Thursday, December 30, 2016.

Sexual Assault on a Child—Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

Police discovered child pornography on Phipps’s computer by using LimeWire, a peer-to-peer file sharing application. Phipps pleaded guilty to sexual assault on a child and was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 17 years to life. He sought postconviction relief under Crim. P. 35(c), claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion without a hearing.

On appeal, Phipps asserted that the district court was required to hold a hearing on his motion and erred in rejecting his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. A district court may deny a post-conviction motion without a hearing where allegations are bare and conclusory, directly refuted by the record, or, even if proven true, would fail to establish one of the prongs of the Strickland test to determine whether there has been ineffective assistance of counsel. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must establish that (1) counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient and (2) the deficient performance resulted in prejudice to the defendant. To satisfy the prejudice prong, a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that “but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”

Phipps argued that his counsel should have challenged the validity of the initial, remote search of his computer. Phipps claimed that he did not know that the files stored on his computer were publicly accessible through LimeWire. Consistent with other courts that have considered the matter, the Colorado Court of Appeals held that Phipps had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the files he made available for public viewing through LimeWire. Thus his counsel’s failure to challenge the search on Fourth Amendment grounds, even if deficient, could not have constituted Strickland prejudice.

Phipps also argued that his counsel was ineffective when he waived the preliminary hearing. This decision was a matter of strategy. In addition, the evidence of Phipps’s guilt was overwhelming. The waiver of the preliminary hearing could not have constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

Phipps further argued that his counsel failed to investigate several aspects of his case. Even if this claim were true, it fails the prejudice test. Phipps admitted to possessing child pornography on his computer and he produced a video of him sexually assaulting his underage stepdaughter.

Phipps next contended that his counsel misadvised or failed to advise him of the consequences of his guilty plea. The court carefully examined each of Phipps’s contentions in this regard and found them all without merit.

Lastly, Phipps argued that the district court “redacted” his Crim. P. 35(c) motion and the transcript of his sentencing hearing was falsified. The court found no evidence to support these arguments.

The order was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Exculpatory Clauses in Fitness Agreement Did Not Bar PLA Claim

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Stone v. Life Time Fitness, Inc. on Thursday, December 30, 2016.

Summary Judgment—Negligence—Premises Liability Act—Liability Release—Assumption of Risk.

Stone was a member of a fitness club owned by defendants (collectively, Life Time). She fell and fractured her ankle in the club’s women’s locker room after a workout. Stone asserted a general negligence claim and a claim under Colorado’s Premises Liability Act (PLA), alleging that Life Time allowed a trip hazard and dangerous condition to exist and thus failed to exercise reasonable care.

Life Time moved for summary judgment, relying on assumption of risk and liability release language contained in the agreement Stone signed when she joined the club. The district court granted the motion, without distinguishing between the negligence and PLA claims, finding that the agreement was valid and enforceable and that Stone had released Life Time from all the claims asserted in the complaint.

On appeal, Stone contended that the district court erred in entering summary judgment and dismissing her action. As to the negligence claim, the Court of Appeals determined that the PLA provides the sole remedy for injuries against landowners on their property and abrogates common law negligence claims against landowners. Thus Stone could not bring a common law negligence claim against Life Time.

Stone also argued that the exculpatory clauses in the agreement, while applying to the workout areas, did not clearly and unambiguously apply to injuries incurred in the women’s locker room. Exculpatory agreements are generally disfavored. A court must consider four factors to determine whether an exculpatory agreement is valid: (1) the existence of a duty to the public; (2) the nature of the service performed; (3) whether the contract was fairly entered into; and (4) whether the intention of the parties was expressed in clear and unambiguous language. As to the first factor, the Colorado Supreme Court has specified that no public duty is implicated if a business provides recreational services. On the second factor, courts have consistently held that recreational services are neither essential nor a matter of practical necessity. With respect to the third factor, recreational service contracts of this type are generally considered to be fairly entered into. These three factors weighed in favor of the enforceability of the agreement. On the fourth prong, however, in waiving future negligence claims, the intention of the parties must be expressed in clear and unambiguous language. After scrutinizing the exculpatory clauses, the court of appeals concluded that the agreement used excessive legal jargon, was unnecessarily complex, and created a likelihood of confusion. Thus, the agreement did not bar Stone’s PLA claim.

The judgment on the negligence claim was affirmed, the judgment on the PLA claim was reversed, and the case was remanded.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Statements in Police Interviews Were Not Voluntary and Should Not Have Been Admitted

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Springsted on Thursday, December 30, 2016.

Statements—Police Interviews—Involuntary.

In this murder case, the prosecution presented evidence that the victim was shot by two people. The primary issue at trial was the identity of the second shooter. The shooting occurred inside the home of codefendant Malory (Popeye), who was the first shooter. Springsted was present during the incident. Within an hour of the shooting, Springsted was interviewed by police in a police interview room. Over the next four days, the police interviewed Springsted five more times over the course of more than 11 hours. While some evidence implicated Springsted as the second shooter, the serological evidence implicated only Popeye as a shooter. Springsted was convicted of one count of first degree murder, one count of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, and two counts of violent crime.

On appeal, Springsted challenged the court’s admission of his statements from the police interviews, alleging that they were obtained involuntarily. When a defendant seeks to suppress statements as involuntary, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the statements resulted from the maker’s free and unconstrained choice. After a careful review of the totality of the circumstances of the more than 11 hours of videotape, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that the statements from the first two interviews were voluntary and admissible. However, Springsted’s statements in the remaining interviews were involuntary and should have been suppressed. Because there was a reasonable possibility that the statements from these interviews contributed to Springsted’s convictions, the error was not harmless.

The judgments were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 1/5/2017

On Thursday, January 5, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and three 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: List of Examples for Notice in Statute Not Exclusive

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Patton on Thursday, December 30, 2016.

Unauthorized Use of a Financial Instrument—Notice—Theft—Consecutive Sentence—Concurrent Sentence—–Statutory Amendment.

Patton purchased over $8,000 worth of consumer electronics from Ultimate Electronics using a Wells Fargo debit card that was issued to him. The card was declined during the transaction, and Patton used a false override authorization code to force the sale. Ultimate Electronics then received a “charge-back” from Wells Fargo, meaning it was not paid for the purchase. At trial, a Wells Fargo representative testified that the card had been cancelled before the transaction when Patton called the bank and reported that he had neither received it nor made purchases on it. The representative also testified that the bank employee would have told Patton that the card was cancelled and the bank would not have given an override code for the card. Patton was convicted of unauthorized use of a financial instrument and theft. He received a sentence of six years for theft and a consecutive sentence of three years for unauthorized use of a financial instrument.

On appeal, Patton argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal after the prosecution failed to prove that he received notice in person or in writing that the debit card had expired or had been revoked or cancelled. The unauthorized use of a financial instrument statute does not require notice only in person or in writing. There was sufficient evidence to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that Patton received notice by telephone that his card was cancelled, revoked, or expired.

Patton also contended that the court committed plain error by imposing consecutive sentences because his crimes were based on identical evidence. When a defendant is convicted of multiple crimes based on the same act or series of acts in the same criminal episode and the evidence supporting each conviction is identical, the sentence must be concurrent. Here, the use of the cancelled debit card for the purchases without payment was part of the theft. Because the convictions were supported by identical evidence, the statute required the trial court to impose concurrent rather than consecutive sentences.

Patton further argued that his sentence should be reduced based on a change in the theft statute. At the time of his offenses in 2009, the value of the items Patton stole constituted a class 4 felony. In 2013, the statute was amended to reduce the offense to a class 5 felony. Because Patton was sentenced in 2014, he was entitled to the benefit of the amended statute.

Patton finally contended that the court improperly entered a conviction for a class 4 felony against him without a finding of actual value by the jury, and that instead he should only be convicted of a class 1 misdemeanor. There was evidence at trial that Patton had stolen items exceeding $8,000 in value, and Patton did not contest the value. Therefore, the record supports the conviction.

The judgment of conviction was affirmed, the consecutive sentences were vacated, the felony theft sentence was vacated, and the case was remanded for resentencing.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: High School Student’s Tweets Did Not Constitute True Threats or Fighting Words

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of R.D. on Thursday, December 30, 2016.

Social Media—Juvenile Delinquent—Harassment—First Amendment—Right to Free Speech—True Threats—Fighting Words.

R.D., a high school student, argued with a student from a different high school through tweets on the social networking website Twitter. The People filed a petition in delinquency against R.D., and the district court adjudicated R.D. a juvenile delinquent based on conduct that would constitute harassment if committed by an adult.

On appeal, R.D. argued that C.R.S. § 18-9-111(1)(e) as applied to his conduct violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The People responded that R.D.’s statements were not protected by the First Amendment because they were true threats and fighting words. While the language of R.D.’s tweets was violent and explicit, R.D.’s tweets did not constitute true threats because they were not “a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” Fighting words can occur only when the speaker is in close physical proximity to the recipient. R.D. was not in close physical proximity to A.C. at the time of the incident. Because R.D.’s statements were neither true threats nor fighting words, the statute as applied violated his First Amendment rights.

The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with directions to vacate the adjudication of juvenile delinquency and dismiss the proceeding.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: “Wobbler” Statute Contemplates Vacation of Conviction Only, Not Sentence

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. DeBorde on Thursday, December 30, 2016.

Possession of a Controlled Substance“Wobbler” StatuteSurchargeSentenceFelonyMisdemeanorInability to Pay.

DeBorde pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance, a level 4 drug felony. The court imposed a mandatory $1,500 felony drug offender surcharge as part of his sentence. When DeBorde completed his community corrections sentence, the court vacated his felony conviction and entered a conviction for a class 1 misdemeanor.

On appeal, DeBorde contended that once his conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor, the court should have likewise reduced his drug offender surcharge to the misdemeanor amount of $1,000. CRS § 18-1.3-103.5(2)(a), the “wobbler” statute, contemplates vacation of only the felony conviction, not the sentence. Accordingly, the amount of the drug offender surcharge was properly determined by the initial conviction.

DeBorde also argued that the district court should have waived all or part of the felony drug offender surcharge based on a finding that DeBorde was unable to pay it. While evidence in the presentence report may have supported a finding of DeBorde’s present inability to pay, there was no evidence in the record of DeBorde’s future inability to pay the surcharge. Further, DeBorde had an opportunity to supplement the record with additional evidence of his inability to pay, but he declined the district court’s invitation to do so.

Lastly, DeBorde contended that under the wobbler statute, the court erred by placing the burden on him to show his entitlement to the misdemeanor conviction in place of the felony conviction. The Court concluded this claim was moot because DeBorde was already granted relief on his motion to apply the wobbler statute.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Retrial Following Hung Jury Does Not Violate Double Jeopardy Clause

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Beller on Thursday, December 30, 2016.

Peter Wilson Sund Beller arranged to buy two ounces of marijuana from a man named Justin Singleton. Singleton testified that Beller attempted to steal marijuana from him and his dad, and during the ensuing shooting Singleton’s dad was fatally shot and Beller was shot in the chest. Beller was charged with felony murder, two counts of aggravated robbery, and lesser non-included offenses of attempted aggravated robbery, robbery, and attempted robbery. The jury acquitted Beller of aggravated robbery but was hung on the felony murder count. He was retried for felony murder.

Before the second trial, Beller moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the Double Jeopardy clause precluded retrial on that count. During the second trial, the court identified robbery and attempted robbery as the predicate offenses for felony murder, but they were not charged separately. Beller was convicted of felony murder.

On appeal, Beller argued his second trial and conviction violated the Double Jeopardy clause, and the court’s admission of certain statements violated hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause. The court of appeals addressed his Double Jeopardy claims first.

Beller argued that the felony murder charge and all four robbery charges were the same offense for Double Jeopardy purposes. The court agreed. However, the court noted that the Double Jeopardy clause only applies where there has been an event, such as an acquittal, that terminates the original jeopardy, and noted that a hung jury is not such an event. Beller argued that the first jury’s not guilty verdicts on the robbery offenses precluded the second trial on the greater offense of felony murder. He also argued that the acquittals precluded the use of the robbery charges in the second trial as predicate offenses. The court of appeals disagreed with both arguments. The court found that the fact that Beller was charged in the same information in the same case was fatal to his arguments. After a detailed analysis of other Double Jeopardy cases, the court of appeals noted that Double Jeopardy only applied where the offenses were charged separately. The court concluded that jeopardy did not terminate on the felony murder charge after Beller’s first trial.

The court also disagreed with Beller that his acquittals on the aggravated robbery charges precluded the use of robbery as a predicate offense for the felony murder charge. The court noted that there were several possible reasons for the jury’s acquittal, such as finding that Beller did not actually steal anything of value from the Singleton residence, or that he repeatedly asserted he did not remember firing his weapon. The court noted that the acquittal on the aggravated robbery charge did not necessarily decide whether he committed the lesser offense of simple robbery. The court found that Beller’s retrial was not barred by Double Jeopardy or issue preclusion.

Beller also argued that the trial court erred in allowing hearsay statements from the girlfriend of his accomplice, Shaffer, and from his girlfriend. The statements in question were made by Shaffer to the two women regarding the crime and Beller’s admission to the hospital. The court of appeals found no error in their admission. The court found the statements admissible under the statement against interest exception to the hearsay rule, CRE 804(3). The key issue was whether the statements were independently trustworthy. The court concluded that they were, finding that because they were made shortly after the crime and at the home of his girlfriend and Beller’s girlfriend, they were sufficiently trustworthy.

The court of appeals affirmed Beller’s conviction.

Hon. Craig Welling Appointed to Colorado Court of Appeals

On Friday, December 30, 2016, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the governor’s appointment of Hon. Craig Welling to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Judge Welling will fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Hon. Gale Miller, effective January 16, 2017.

Judge Welling is currently a district court judge in the Seventeenth Judicial District, where he presides over a criminal docket. He has also presided over domestic relations, juvenile, civil and appellate (municipal court and county court appeal) cases since his appointment in 2010. Prior to his appointment to the Seventeenth Judicial District, Welling was chief legal counsel to Governor Bill Ritter’s administration. He was in private practice before working for Governor Ritter. Judge Welling received his undergraduate degree from Colorado State University, his master’s degree from Penn State University, and his law degree from the University of Colorado.

For more information about the appointment, click here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 12/29/2016

On Thursday, December 29, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued 10 published opinions and 19 unpublished opinions.

People v. Beller

People v. DeBorde

People in Interest of R.D.

People v. Patton

People v. Springsted

Stone v. Life Time Fitness, Inc.

People v. Phipps

Jones v. Samora

Rome v. Mandel

In re Marriage of Finn

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.