December 21, 2007 There will be no supreme court announcements next week. Have a happy and safe holiday. December 19, 2007 Since I will be out of the office tomorrow, I'm posting the link to tomorrow's court of appeals announcements in advance. You can find the announcements here, after 8 a.m. or so tomorrow morning. Here is the list of unpublished decisions the court will release: 02CA1831 People v. Larry G. Flippo December 17, 2007 Here are today's supreme court announcements. The court issued four decisions, summarized below. The court also granted cert. in two cases, and the issues in those appeals follow the summaries. In an original
proceeding under C.A.R. 21, the court concluded that personal jurisdiction
existed over the petitioner, an Australian company, because the jurisdictional
facts in the documentary evidence action supported a prima facie showing
of an agency theory of personal jurisdiction. Respondent alleged jurisdiction
under the long-arm statute, C.R.S. § 13-1-124, in her claim against
the company for the death of her husband, who was a passenger in a vehicle
driven by a company employee and who was killed when the employee drove
the vehicle off the road while intoxicated. In an interlocutory appeal by the People, the supreme court reversed the trial court’s holding that because officers were on someone else’s private property when they took action leading to the discovery of the weapon, the evidence must be suppressed. The court held that defendant lacked standing to argue that the evidence must be suppressed because he did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area that was allegedly invaded. In addition, the court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the police did not illegally seize defendant when they knocked on the door, announced their presence, and told him to open the door. The court rules that the record supported the trial court’s implicit finding that a reasonable person would not have believed that he had no choice but to open the door to the police. People v. Terrazas-Urquidi C.R.S. § 18-1-408(3) mandates the imposition of concurrent sentences irrespective of whether the defendant enters a guilty plea or proceeds to trial. The court held that the defendant’s convictions for first degree assault and vehicular assault were based on one distinct act rather than multiple acts separated by time or place and thus were supported by identical evidence. Under § 18-1-408(3), the trial court lacked the authority to impose consecutive sentences. Justice Coats dissented. While he agreed that the court of appeals went too far in declaring crimes with different elements incapable of proof by identical evidence, he would affirm because he believed the majority erred in treating guilty pleas as requiring evidentiary support at all, much less as being supported by evidence that is identical to evidence supporting other guilty pleas. Juhl v. People On review of a district court appeal from the county court, the supreme court reversed the district court's decision affirming the county court’s verdicts in favor of defendant on two claims of committing deceptive trade practices. The county court magistrate found that defendant did not violate the Colorado No-Call List Act because it fell within a defense for callers who have established procedures to prevent solicitations in violation of the Act. Although it affirmed, the district court held simply that by using his phone for business purposes, petitioner had removed himself from the protected class of residential subscribers and was therefore no longer entitled to the protections of the Act. The supreme court reversed, holding that the unambiguous language of the statute included petition within the class of residential subscribers protected by the no-call list. Therefore, the supreme court held that the district court erred and reversed its judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Justice Hobbs, joined by Chief Justice Mullarkey and Justice Rice, dissented.I would affirm the judgment of the district court, but on other grounds. In his view, the county court’s construction of the no-call statute and its judgment were correct on the facts of this case. Thus, Justice Hobbs concluded the district court should have affirmed the county court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law instead of introducing the unwarranted statutory theory that “by listing his telephone number both as a residential phone and as a business phone, Plaintiff has removed this telephone number from the definition of a residential subscriber and from the protection of the Colorado no-call list.” Holcomb v. Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems The court granted cert. in these two cases: Washington v. People, No. 07SC614, on this issue:
Whether the trial court and the court of appeals erred in declining to vacate Petitioner's convictions based upon the State's non-compliance with the "fair cross-section" requirement of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Sayles v. People, No. 07SC732, on this question: Whether the court erred in refusing to convene a new jury panel or to grant a new trial because of Arapahoe County’s systematic exclusion of African-Americans from the venire. December 14, 2007 The supreme court will issue these four decisions on Monday: No. 07SA167, In Re Goettman v. North Fork Valley Restaurant; No. 07SA177 People v. Terrazas-Urquidi; No. 06SC637 Juhl v. People; No. 07SC757 Holcomb v. Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems. Here are summaries of yesterday's published court of appeals opinions: While the selection
of a jury is a critical stage of the proceeding at which a defendant
or his counsel has a right to be present, replacing a juror with an
alternate is more in the nature of an administrative task. Therefore,
failure to afford the defendant the opportunity to be present and heard
before a juror was excused and replaced with an alternate was not ground
for reversal, where the defendant showed no prejudice. People
v. Anderson Defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation right was violated when an officer was allowed to testify to victim’s out-of-court statements that were made to police officers responding to a crime scene . (The victim had testified at the preliminary hearing but committed suicide before trial.) The court held such statements are testimonial and therefore defendant had the right to confront. The court based its conclusion on the fact that at the time the statements were made, there was no ongoing emergency or immediate threat to the victim, the defendant had left the scene, and the police had control of the situation. People v. Trevizo Plaintiff, an
assignee of businesses that had received unsolicited fax advertisements
sued the senders for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), 42 U.S.C. § 227, and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act
(CCPA), §§ 6-1-101 to -1120, C.R.S. 2007. The district court
dismissed for lack of standing. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding
that under Colorado law (which the TCPA specifies applies) TCPA claims
are not assignable, and therefore Plaintiff lacked standing. U.S.
Fax Law Center v. T2 Technologies, Inc. The court of
appeals rejected the Defendant's argument that the trial court erred
by failing to grant his motion to dismiss probation revocation proceedings.
He contended the trial court lost jurisdiction over his case because
it did not enter the order extending his probation until one day after
his probation term had ended. The court of appeals concluded, however,
that the procedures to extend defendant’s probationary period were
initiated before his probationary term ended because a motion satisfying
the requirements of C.R.S. § 18-1.3-204(4) was filed with the court
while he was still on probation. People
v. Romero Attorney fees were not part of the substance of homeowner’s breach of contract action against tenants, nor were they sought as a legitimate consequence of that breach of contract. Hence, they could not be damages and were not recoverable absent a contractual, statutory, or rule authorizing such an award. The court of appeals held that a provision of the lease did authorize and attorney fee award. The provision read, "If any default is made in the payment of rent . . . or if any default is made in the performance of or compliance with any other term or condition hereof, the lease, at the option of the [homeowner], shall terminate and be forfeited . . . . [Tenants] shall be given written notice of any default or breach . . . . [Tenants] will reimburse [homeowner] for reasonable attorney fees if legal action is required due to [tenants’] actions." The court held this language to authorize an award of fees to homeowner. Butler v. Lembeck Where decedent's
will was ambiguous, court adoped the interpretation that did not render
superfluous language of the will.
In
the Matter of the Estate of Hope Plaintiff personal representative contended transfers made by decedent to defendant should be rescinded. Defendant contended they were gifts, and prevailed at trial. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that the transfers were presumed to be (1) the product of undue influence because defendant and decedent shared a fiduciary or confidential relationship, and defendant actively participated in the creation of the documents under which the transfers were made; and (2) unfair, unjust, and unreasonable because of the confidential relationship between decedent and defendant. The court rejected that argument, concluding that the presumptions disappear when rebutting evidence is presented. Krueger v. Ary December 13, 2007 Here are today's court of appeals announcements. The court issued the following decisions, including 7 published opinions. I hope to get the summaries of the published opinions posted later today or tomorrow. Published Opinions 05CA0426 People
v. Michael Jerome Anderson, Unpublished Opinions 04CA1429 People v. Eugene A. Mason December 10, 2007 The supreme court had no case announcements today, most likely because the court was busy hearing arguments last week. December 6, 2007 Here are today's court of appeals announcements. The court issued unpublished opinions only. December 5, 2007 The court of appeals will release the following unpublished decisions tomorrow: 05CA0128 People v. John J. Villarreal December 3, 2007 The supreme court will hold arguments at North High School on Thursday, December 6, as part of the Colorado Judicial Branch’s Courts in the Community program. The court will hear arguments in two cases: No. 06SC385, Lavonne Robinson v. Colorado State Lottery Division: Ms. Robinson, as a member of a group of lottery ticket buyers who filed a lawsuit as a class action, sought review of the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the case based on the Governmental Immunity Act. The lawsuit alleged that the Lottery continued to promote and sell scratch game tickets for games in which the grand prize had already been awarded.
No. 05SC597, Janine Bloom v. People of the State of Colorado: Ms. Bloom, who was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of her six-month-old son, sought review of actions in the trial court, including a ruling that she was competent to stand trial without having a meaningful competency evaluation.
The arguments will begin at 8:25 a.m. in the North High School auditorium. A question-and-answer session will follow. Here are today's supreme court announcements. The court issued two opinions, summarized below. The court did not grant cert. in any cases. But so you won't be left empty-handed, the court has recently granted review in an original proceeding. The description of that appeal follows the summaries. The supreme court held that the district court rightly determined that it lacked the authority to order the specific performance of a contractual obligation to exercise the core governmental power of eminent domain, and that the Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority could not be estopped from abandoning its petitions in condemnation, under the circumstances of this case. But since the contract was not rendered void under the reserved powers doctrine simply because the Renewal Authority agreed to acquire specific properties, by condemnation if necessary, the supreme court remanded the case with directions to return it to the district court for consideration of Cornerstone’s remaining claims, including its claims for breach of contract. Justice Eid concurred in part and concurred in the judgment only in part. She concluded that it was not necessary to decide the issue of the validity of the contract to arrive at the result the court reached. Thus, she would assume, without deciding, that the agreement is valid, and hold that specific performance is not available as a remedy. Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority v. The Cornerstone Group XXII, LLC In a case involving the guardianship of a minor child, the supreme court held that in evaluating the child’s best interests, the probate court did not exceed its jurisdiction by directing the guardian ad litem to find a permanent guardian for the child or by considering the potential for an eventual adoption. Those actions did not constitute a de facto adoption proceeding, an area within the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The court also concluded that the appointment of the guardian ad litem as temporary guardian for the minor child, when no other guardianship placement was available, did not divest the probate court of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the court reversed the court of appeals’ decision and ordered the reinstatement of the probate court's decision. In re the Matter of J.C.T. The court recently granted review in No. 07SA346, In re People v. Lee: An El Paso County District judge granted a defense motion to videotape the examination of evidence and testing procedures conducted by the Colorado Bureau of Investigations without allowing representatives from the Colorado Bureau of Investigations to testify about the feasibility of complying with the order. The procedure in question was the CBI’s removal of bullet fragments from the black leather jacket that the defendant was wearing when the crime charged occurred. On November 15, 2007 the Court issued an order to show cause why this order should not be reversed. The respondents Mr. Lee and the Honorable G. David Miller are directed to file a written answer on or before December 17, 2007 and the Petitioner has thirty days from the receipt of the answer within which to reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||