Peo v. Minton

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 13, 2025
• Docket: 23CA0786
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

23CA0786 Peo v Minton 02-13-2025

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 23CA0786 Adams County District Court No. 15CR1173 Honorable Priscilla J. Loew, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Spencer Jay Minton,

Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER VACATED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division VII Opinion by JUDGE LIPINSKY Johnson and Moultrie, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced February 13, 2025

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Patrick A. Withers, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lauretta A. Martin Neff, Alternate Defense Counsel, Montrose, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Spencer Jay Minton appeals the district court’s order denying

his Crim. P. 35(c) motion without a hearing. We vacate the order

and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

I. Background

¶2 A jury convicted Minton of several felonies stemming from his

involvement in a motor vehicle accident. The trial court sentenced

him to an aggregate term of twenty years in the custody of the

Department of Corrections.

¶3 After a division of this court affirmed Minton’s conviction, see

People v. Minton, (Colo. App. No. 16CA2044, Aug. 15, 2018) (not

published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)), Minton filed a pro se Crim. P.

35(c) motion. He did not initially request that counsel be appointed

for him. The court asked the prosecution to respond within thirty

days.

¶4 When the prosecution failed to respond as the deadline

approached, the court extended the deadline to rule on the motion.

See Crim P. 35(c)(3)(IV) (“The court shall complete its review” of a

Crim P. 35(c) motion “that substantially compl[ies] with Form 4”

within “63 days (9 weeks) of filing or set a new date for completing

1 its review and notify the parties of that date.”). In the meantime,

Minton amended his motion and requested that the court appoint

counsel for him. The court granted Minton’s request for counsel

and appointed the Public Defender’s Office. However, the record

does not contain an entry of appearance by a public defender, nor

does it show that Minton’s Crim. P. 35(c) motion was forwarded to

the Public Defender’s Office.

¶5 Two weeks later, the prosecution responded to Minton’s

motion. On January 12, 2023, the court denied the motion in a

written order.

¶6 Minton then asked for the appointment of counsel to assist

him in appealing the court’s order. A different judge granted the

request and noted that the Public Defender’s Office had been

appointed to represent Minton. The judge said it was not clear,

however, whether the Public Defender’s Office had been notified of

the appointment:

Having reviewed the Motion and the case file, the Court finds Defendant was previously deemed qualified for representation, and the Public Defender’s office was appointed on December 16, 2022. But it is not clear whether the Defendant filed his application with the Public Defender or provided the

2 Public Defender with the December 16 Order. In any event, the Public Defender did not enter an appearance, and the Order Denying Defendant’s Crim. P. 35(c) Petition was issued January 12, 2023.

Having considered the decision reached in the December 16 Order and the case file, the Court GRANTS the Motion, and directs the Division F clerk to promptly forward this Order to the Office of the Public Defender.

Within 21 days of this order, the Public Defender’s Officer will indicate whether it intends to represent the Defendant or whether a conflict exists. If a conflict exists, the court will appoint Alternative Defense Counsel to represent the Defendant.

¶7 In its response to this order, the Public Defender’s Office

indicated that an irreconcilable conflict prevented it from

representing Minton in his appeal. The court then appointed

alternate defense counsel, who filed the appeal.

II. Discussion

¶8 Minton contends, the People concede, and we agree that the

order denying Crim. P. 35(c) relief must be vacated because the

court failed to follow the procedural requirements of Crim. P.

35(c)(3)(V).

¶9 Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(IV) permits a district court to deny a

defendant’s Crim. P. 35(c) motion without a hearing if the motion,

3 the files, and the record clearly show that the defendant is not

entitled to relief. People v. Higgins, 2017 COA 57, ¶ 4, 413 P.3d

298, 299. Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(V) requires the court to take specific

actions if it does not summarily deny the motion but instead

requests a response from the prosecution. Id. at ¶ 5, 413 P.3d at

299. As pertinent here, when a court grants a pro se defendant’s

request for postconviction counsel, the court must forward a

complete copy of the defendant’s Crim. P. 35(c) motion to the

prosecution and the Public Defender. People v. Segura, 2024 CO

70, ¶ 7, 558 P.3d 234, 237; Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(V). The Public

Defender then determines (1) whether it can represent the

defendant and, (2) if so, “which claims (if any) lack arguable merit

and should be abandoned, which arguably meritorious claims (if

any) should be supplemented, and which new claims (if any) have

arguable merit and should be added.” Segura, ¶ 7, 558 P.3d at

237.

¶ 10 As the People concede, the court granted Minton’s request for

counsel to represent him on his Crim. P. 35(c) motion but did not

forward a copy of the motion to the Public Defender, as Crim. P.

35(c)(3)(V) requires. This procedural error requires us to “put the

4 train back on the tracks at the point it derailed.” People v. Nozolino,

2023 COA 39, ¶ 36, 533 P.3d 966, 970 (quoting People v.

Chalchi-Sevilla, 2019 COA 75, ¶ 23, 454 P.3d 359, 363). Thus, we

vacate the order denying Minton’s pro se Crim. P. 35(c) motion and

remand the case for the court to forward a complete copy of the

motion to the Public Defender’s Office. The Public Defender’s

Office’s irreconcilable conflict that precluded it from representing

Minton in this appeal may also affect its ability to represent Minton

on his Crim. P. 35(c) motion. The court should resolve this

question and proceed accordingly. Once it is determined who will

represent Minton, Minton’s counsel should be provided the

opportunity to consider and, if warranted, supplement the claims in

his motion.

¶ 11 In his opening brief, Minton also contends that the court erred

by denying his pro se Crim. P. 35(c) motion because he alleged facts

that, if true, provided a basis for relief. Given our disposition of this

appeal, we express no opinion on the merits of any of Minton’s pro

se claims.

5 III. Disposition

¶ 12 The order is vacated, and the case is remanded for further

proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.

JUDGE JOHNSON and JUDGE MOULTRIE concur.