Chapter 5 - § 5.4 • ORDERS IN CRIMINAL CASES

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 5.4 • ORDERS IN CRIMINAL CASES

Except as provided by statute or rule, appellate review of orders in criminal cases is governed by the final judgment rule. Paul v. People, 105 P.3d 628, 631 (Colo. 2005). Thus, the denial of pretrial or trial motions — "even those asserting constitutional or jurisdictional grounds for dismissal" — ordinarily are not immediately appealable as of right, but are immediately reviewable only by way of an original proceeding in the supreme court pursuant to C.A.R. 21. Id. at 632; see People v. Weston, 869 P.2d 1293, 1297 (Colo. 1994) (if a defendant's motion to suppress is denied, the defendant may not appeal directly but must wait until after final judgment is entered before commencing the appellate process); Wood v. People, 255 P.3d 1136, 1141 (Colo. 2011) (a defendant may not appeal a pretrial order denying a motion to dismiss under Colorado's make-my-day statute, C.R.S. § 18-1-704.5(3)), aff'g People v. Wood, 230 P.3d 1223 (Colo. App. 2009); see also Chapter 18, "Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court."

Criminal defendants may appeal from a judgment of conviction. The judgment consists of a recital of the plea or verdict, the sentence, a statement as to pre-sentence confinement, and the costs, if any, assessed against the defendant. The judgment is not final until a sentence has been imposed by the judge, Hellman v. Rhodes, 741 P.2d 1258, 1260 (Colo. 1987); People v. Rosales, 134 P.3d 429, 431-32 (Colo. App. 2005) (judgment was not final until trial court ordered specific amount of restitution), and entered in the register of actions. Crim. P. 55; C.A.R. 4(b)(1) ("judgment or order is entered . . . when it is entered in the criminal docket.").

Even if appealing nothing else, the defendant may appeal the propriety of the sentence imposed for a felony conviction (C.A.R. 4(c) and (d)), unless that sentence was within the range agreed upon by the parties in a plea bargain. C.R.S. § 18-1-409(1); see People v. Garcia, 382 P.3d 1258, 1262 (Colo. App. 2016) (considering challenge to presentence confinement credit because plea agreement did not speak to credit); People v. Dobler, 369 P.3d 686, 692 (Colo. App. 2015); People v. Prophet, 42 P.3d 61, 62 (Colo. App. 2001).

However, the Prophet holding and meaning of C.R.S. § 18-1-409(1) were affected by People v. Misenhelter, 121 P.3d 230 (Colo. App. 2004). In Misenhelter, a division of the court of appeals held that C.R.S. § 18-1-409(1) does not bar appeals contesting "some...