June 17, 2019

Archives for October 28, 2013

JDF Forms Amended in Probate, Domestic, and Other Categories

The Colorado State Judicial Branch has released amended JDF forms in several categories, including appeals, domestic, criminal, probate, evictions, garnishments, and money cases. These amended forms have September and October 2013 revision dates.

Forms are available for download here in PDF format by clicking the links below. State Judicial’s forms page has forms in PDF, Word, and Word template.

APPEALS

  • JDF 126 – “Instructions for Filing a County Court Civil or Small Claims Appeal” (R10/13)

CRIMINAL

  • JDF 475 – “Order to Discontinue Sex Offender Registration” (R09/13)

DOMESTIC

  • JDF 98 – “Affidavit of Service” (R10/13)
  • JDF 1316 – “Order” (R09/13)
  • JDF 1701 – “Verified Pleading Affidavit for Grandparent Visitation” (R10/13)
  • JDF 1820M – “Worksheet A – Child Support Obligation: Sole Physical Care” (R09/13)
  • JDF 1821M – “Worksheet B – Child Support Obligation: Shared Physical Care” (R09/13)

EVICTIONS & FORECLOSURES

  • JDF 104 – “Motion for Entry of Judgment” (R10/13)

GARNISHMENTS & JUDGMENTS

  • JDF 138 – “Judgment Creditor Affidavit in Support of Foreign Judgment” (R10/13)

MONEY CASES

  • JDF 91 – “Motion for Entry of Judgment on Stipulation” (R10/13)
  • JDF 98 – “Affidavit of Service” (R10/13)
  • JDF 104 – “Motion for Entry of Judgment” (R10/13)
  • JDF 110 – “Instructions for County Court Civil Cases (Money Demand)” (R10/13)
  • JDF 600 – “District Court Civil Summons” (R10/13)
  • JDF 601 – “District Court Civil Cover Sheet” (R10/13)

PROBATE

  • JDF 731 – “Receipt and Release” (R09/13)
  • JDF 810 – “Court Visitor’s Report” (R09/13)

PROTECTION ORDERS

  • JDF 399 – “Permanent Civil Protection Order Issued Pursuant to § 13-14-106, C.R.S.” (R09/13)
  • JDF 440 – “Mandatory Protection Order” (R09/13)

Click here for all of State Judicial’s JDF forms.

Appointees to Nineteenth Judicial District Nominating Commission Announced

On Friday, October 25, 2013, Governor Hickenlooper announced appointments to several boards and commissions, including two appointees to the nominating commission for the Nineteenth Judicial District.

Each judicial district nominating commission consists of seven members, no more than four of whom can be from the same political party. In judicial districts with a population greater than 35,000 people, three of the members of the nominating commission must be admitted to practice law in Colorado.

Sylvia Martinez of Greeley was appointed to serve as a non-attorney and a Democrat. She will replace Joe Tennessen of Greeley, who resigned. Alberto Dominguez of Windsor was appointed as an attorney and a Republican. He will replace Henry Frey of Greeley.

For the full list of Governor Hickenlooper’s appointments, click here. For more information on judicial nominating commissions, click here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Moot Issue Not Capable of Repetition Yet Evading Review as Disability Finding is Fact-Specific

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of Vivekanathan on Thursday, October 24, 2013.

Involuntary Commitment—Gravely Disabled—Certification—Moot.

Respondent appealed the district court’s order upholding his certification, pursuant to CRS § 27-65-107, for involuntary commitment and treatment at the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo (CMHIP). The appeal was dismissed.

Respondent, a 25-year-old man, has suffered from schizophrenia since he was approximately 16 years old. A Centennial Peaks psychiatrist filed with the Larimer County District Court a “Notice of Certification and Certification for Short-Term Treatment,” which certified respondent for involuntary commitment to CMHIP based on the psychiatrist’s finding that respondent was “gravely disabled” as a result of his mental illness. Respondent objected. The district court upheld the certification, concluding that respondent is mentally ill and, as a result of that illness, is gravely disabled and a danger to himself. Respondent appealed the order upholding his certification. However, after this appeal was lodged and before the Larimer County Attorney’s Office filed a response, respondent’s civil commitment was terminated early by a different physician.

Respondent argued that the appeal was not moot because the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review. Whether respondent is gravely disabled is a fact-specific determination, and it depends on his condition at the time the finding is made. Thus, even if the district court erred in making the finding in the July 2013 order, this finding does not determine whether at some point in the future respondent may be found to be gravely disabled. Therefore, the particular issue of whether the July 2013 finding of “gravely disabled” was erroneous is moot, and the appeal was dismissed.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Three Counts of Perjury Arose from Essentially Identical Statements During Same Interrogation So Double Jeopardy Applied

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Zadra on Thursday, October 24, 2013.

Perjury—False Reporting—Official Misconduct—Discovery Violations—Motion to Suppress Statements—Verdict Forms—Multiplicitous—Double Jeopardy.

Defendant appealed the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding her guilty of three counts of official misconduct, one count of false reporting, and seven counts of perjury. She also appealed her sentence. The judgment and sentence were affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part.

There were ten contentions before the Court of Appeals. The Court affirmed on all counts except counts 9 and 10, which were merged into the conviction of count 6.

Defendant first contended that the district court erred by denying her counsel’s motions to dismiss the case as a sanction for the prosecution’s discovery violations. Because there was no evidence that the prosecution’s conduct was willful and a continuance was granted to allow defendant sufficient time to review the late discovery, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the case.

Defendant contended that the district court erred by denying her motion to suppress statements she made in two interrogations. Defendant voluntarily came to the police station unescorted, signed a written consent for the polygraph examination, and was free to leave at any time. Therefore, the interrogation was not custodial and her statements were voluntary.

Defendant contended that there was insufficient evidence to support her convictions. Defendant argued that the wording of the verdict forms assumed that she had committed the alleged acts giving rise to the charges, constituting plain error. In light of the other instructions and the overwhelming evidence, the presumed errors did not so undermine the fundamental fairness of the trial as to cast serious doubt on the reliability of the judgment of conviction.

Defendant argued that her seven perjury convictions and one of her convictions for official misconduct are multiplicitous and therefore violate constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy. Because counts 6, 9, and 10 were established by identical proof, these counts were multiplicitous and the convictions on and sentences for all three counts were reversed.

Summary and full case available here.

Tenth Circuit: Board of Immigration Appeals’ Order was Final Order of Removal Because Its Remand Order Had No Potential for Relief From Removal

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in Batubara v. Holder on Monday, October 28, 2013.

Petitioners, wife and husband, Imelda Rosalyna Purba and Aram Batubara, who are citizens of Indonesia, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing their appeal from the denial of their applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioners legally entered the United States but remained after their authorized stay expired. They conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in 2004.

On May 4, 2011, after various proceedings, the BIA upheld the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT and dismissed petitioner’s appeal. The BIA remanded for the IJ to provide all advisals that were required when he granted voluntary departure. On remand, petitioners withdrew their requests for voluntary departure. The IJ issued an order on March 28, 2012, denying voluntary departure and ordering petitioners removed to Indonesia. Only then, on April 23, 2012, did petitioners file this petition seeking review of the BIA’s May 4, 2011, ruling.

A petition for review must “be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.” The Tenth Circuit disagreed with both parties that the BIA’s May 11 order was not a final order and agreed with its “sister circuits, which have uniformly held that a BIA order denying relief from removal but remanding for proceedings having no potential for future relief from removal, such as consideration of voluntary departure, is a final order of removal.”

Because the petition for review was untimely, the court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 10/25/13

On Friday, October 25, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and three unpublished opinions.

Frazier v. Werholtz

United States v. Madrigal-Espino

Cook v. Aagard

No case summaries are provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Judge William Hood Appointed to Colorado Supreme Court

HoodOn Friday, October 25, 2013, Governor Hickenlooper announced his appointment of William Hood, III, to the Colorado Supreme Court. His appointment will be effective in January 2014, upon the retirement of Chief Justice Michael Bender.

Judge Hood has been a Denver District Court judge since 2007. He was the 2011 recipient of the Denver Bar Association’s Judicial Excellence Award and currently serves as the presiding judge for Denver’s domestic relations courts. Before moving to the bench, Judge Hood was a shareholder at Isaacson Rosenbaum P.C., where he did both civil and criminal trial work. He also worked as a prosecutor for ten years in Arapahoe County, serving as a chief trial deputy and, separately, as the chief appellate deputy.

Judge Hood has written for The Colorado Lawyer and the Virginia Law Review, and teaches trial practice at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. He is a frequent presenter at CLE programs also, including CLE’s 2013 Annual Family Law Institute.

He will serve a provisional two-year term and will face retention. If retained, Justice Hood will then serve a ten year term.

Judge Russell Carparelli to Retire from Colorado Court of Appeals

On Friday, October 25, 2013, the Colorado State Judicial Branch announced the retirement of Judge Russell E. Carparelli of the Colorado Court of Appeals, effective December 15, 2013.

Judge Carparelli has been on the Colorado Court of Appeals bench since 2003. He is committed to promoting professionalism in the practice of law, and is a frequent presenter at CLE programs on topics of professionalism and civility. Most recently, he spoke at CLE’s “Ethics of Rhetoric” program on October 24, 2013. He has received many awards, including the DBA Judicial Excellence Award, the ABA Alternative Dispute Resolution Section’s Civility and Law Award, and the University of Virginia School of Law’s Honorable William J. Brennan, Jr., Award.

Eligible applicants for the vacancy on the court of appeals must be qualified electors in the State of Colorado and must have been admitted to practice law in Colorado for five years. Application forms are available from the ex officio chair of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, Chief Justice Michael Bender, and on the State Judicial website. A PDF of the application form must be filed with the ex officio chair no later than 4 p.m. on November 12, 2013.

For more information about application criteria, and for contact information for members of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission, click here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Announcement Sheet, 10/28/13

On Monday, October 28, 2013, the Colorado Supreme Court issued one published opinion.

A.S. v. People

The summary for this case is forthcoming, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

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, 10/24/13

On Thursday, October 24, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and two unpublished opinions.

Frazier v. Werholtz

United States v. Madrigal-Espino

No case summaries are provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.