Summaries of Published Opinions
| Publication year | 2022 |
| Pages | 84 |
August, 2022.
FROM THE COURTS COLORADO SUPREME COURT
June 6, 2022
2022 CO 24. No. 22SA6. People in the Interest of A.P. Right to Relief from Judgment—Nature and Scope of Remedy—Bias and Prejudice.
In this original proceeding, the Supreme Court reviewed the district court's order setting aside the adjudication and termination orders entered against A.P.'s parents, S.S. and D.P. (collectively, parents), under CRCP 60(b)(5). Because parents failed to show that former Judge Chase was actually biased in their case, and because Rule 60(b)(5) is reserved only for extraordinary circumstances not present here, the Court concluded that the district court misconstrued the law concerning impropriety and bias and misapplied the Rule 60(b)(5) standard. Therefore, it abused its discretion in setting aside the adjudication and termination orders entered against parents.
The rule was made absolute and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
2022 CO 25. No. 20SC928. Magana v. People. Arson—Unit of Prosecution—Sentencing.
The Supreme Court held that the unit of prosecution under the first, second, and fourth degree arson statutes is, respectively, each building or occupied structure damaged or destroyed, each person's property (other than a building or occupied structure) damaged or destroyed, and each person endangered. The Court further held that the legislature didn't intend for all first degree arsons by fire to be crimes of violence, and therefore fire alone is not a deadly weapon for the purpose of prosecuting first degree arson as a crime of violence.
The Court of Appeals' judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part.
2022 CO 26. No. 21SA265. Danks v. Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Public Utility Law—Administrative Law.
In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether a gas-gathering operation meets the statutory definition of a public utility such that it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The Court concluded that the PUC regularly pursued its authority in determining that (1) the gas-gathering operation is not a public utility over which the PUC has jurisdiction, (2) the PUC's decision was just and reasonable, and (3) the PUC's conclusions were in accordance with the evidence.
The district court's judgment upholding the PUC's ruling was affirmed.
2022 CO 27. No. 21SA383. In re People in the Interest of S.A. Children's Code—Dependency or Neglect Proceedings—Jurisdiction.
In this opinion, the Supreme Court reviewed whether a juvenile court had jurisdiction to enter an order requiring therapeutic visitation between the subject of a dependency or neglect proceeding and his two siblings, who were not adjudicated dependent or neglected. The Court held that no provision of the Colorado Children's Code, CRS §§ 19-3-100.5 to -905, or the Foster Youth Siblings Bill of Rights, CRS §§ 19-7-201 to -204, granted the juvenile court personal jurisdiction over the siblings. Additionally, the juvenile court's personal jurisdiction over the child's parents and subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding did not extend to allow the court to issue an order requiring the parents to bring the non dependent siblings to therapeutic visitation.
The Court made the rule to show cause absolute and vacated the juvenile court's order.
June 21, 2022
2022 CO 28. No. 20SC343. People v. Vialpando. Plain Error—Prosecutorial Misconduct—Cumulative Error.
Vialpando was accused of running from police in a stolen SUV, crashing into another vehicle, and running away from the scene on foot. At trial, the prosecutor focused on the theme of flight. He described how Vialpando fled in the SUV and ran away on foot, and he stated that Vialpando's "flight continues to this moment" and "has continued up and to this point." Ultimately, a jury convicted Vialpando. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Vialpando contended that the prosecutor's statements in closing argument about flight were an improper comment on her exercise of her Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and that the cumulative impact of numerous errors deprived her of a fair trial. A split division of the Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial