March 23, 2006 Here are today's court of appeals announcements. The court issued 7 published decisions, summarized below. A convicted felon is not automatically disqualiifed from serving on a jury. The court held that C.R.S. § 13-71-105(2) does not include felony convictions as a ground for disqualifying a potential juror. Moreover, § 13-71-105(3), the only section of the juror qualification statute that addresses felony convictions, specifically states that only prospective grand jurors are subject to disqualification for prior felony convictions. In addition, the court held that the trial court did not err in seating the juror even though she was not on the county voter registration. People v. Ellis Nichols v. Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe Railway March 22, 2006 The court of appeals will release the following decisions tomorrow, including 7 published opinions: PUBLISHED OPINIONS No.: 02CA2320 People v. Mark Stephen Ellis UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS No.: 02CA0833 People v. Joe E. Vigil March 21, 2006 The supreme court's announcements for yesterday are here. The court issued one decision, summarized below. The court also granted cert. in two cases. The questions presented in those cases follow the case summary. Trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the circumstances of the defendant's arrest to show consciousness of guilt, where there was no evidence that defendant was in flight and avoiding arrest. But the court concluded that the erroneous admission of the evidence did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights and that the error was harmless. It therefore reinstated defendant's convictions. Justice Martinez, joined by Justice Bender, dissented in part. They concluded the evidentiary error was not harmless and would have affirmed the reversal of defendant's convictions. Justice Coats concurred in the judgment, concluding that the admission of the evidence was not error at all. Justice Eid did not participate. People v. Summit The court granted cert. in the following cases: Hoang v. Assurance
Co. of America, No. 05SC389, on this issue: Department of
Transportation of the State of Colorado v. Marilyn Hickey Ministries,
No. 05SC816, on this question: March 17, 2006 Happy St. Patrick's Day. The supreme court will issue one decision on Monday, People v. Summit, No. 04SC396. March 16, 2006 Today's court of appeals announcements are here. The court issued only unpublished decisions. March 15, 2006 The court of appeals will release the following unpublished decisions tomorrow: No.: 03CA1899 People v. Christopher Lee Cooke March 13, 2006 The court of appeals' oral argument calendar for May is here. The supreme court's announcements for today are here. The court issued no decisions and did not grant cert. in any cases. March 10, 2006 The supreme court will issue no new decisions on Monday. It will, however, have announcements on cert. petitions. If there are any grants, I will let you know. There are three new court of appeals' judgeships for which applications are being accepted. Here's the press release. Here are summaries of yesterday's court of appeals published decisions: A trial court
court may not enter default against a defendant who has answered and
actively litigated on the ground that her nonappearance at trial is
a failure to “otherwise defend” within the Where defendant exhibited common indicia of intoxication, and refused to take chemical blood alcohol and breath tests, evidence was sufficient for DUI conviction. People v. Mersman Where plaintiff’s
original basic PIP coverage could not have provided benefits exceeding
$200,000, which was clearly intended to be the maximum PIP coverage
available under the policy, plaintiff was not entitled to coverage in
excess of the $200,000 aggregate limit, and the trial court properly
entered summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff’s claims that
were premised on Because
the trial court adopted one party's proposed findings of fact and conclusions
of law Court rejects defendant's argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his deferred judgment because the prosecution’s second amended complaint was not filed until after his one-year deferred judgment term expired, and it was based on violations that occurred after expiration of the one-year term. The court noted that the district attorney initiated revocation proceedings within the original one-year deferred judgment period, and defendant had not paid restitution by the time that one-year period ended. People v. Nichols Because Aspen's
class action claims against Defendants (regulated public utilities that
collectively Trial courts have authority under C.R.S. § 14-10-119 to advance prospective fees and costs during the litigation of a dissolution of marriage action. In re Marriage of Rose Trial court’s determination that the question of vehicle ownership, which was falsely represented by insured, was not material in context because liability coverage would have been the same regardless. Therefore, the court upheld the entry of a declaratory judgment in favor of the insured. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Mrs. Condies Salad Company, Inc. By expediting dependency and neglect appeals, C.A.R. 3.4 does not interfere with rights of access to the judicial process or violate due process or equal protection. Many other issues were decide in this lengthy decision, the upshot of which was the affirmance of the termination of parental rights. People In the Interest of T.D. In another case involving a challenge to C.A.R. 3.4, the court affirmed, in a split decision, the termination of parental rights. Judge Roman, dissenting, concluded that as applied to the facts, C.A.R. 3.4 violated due process. I'd expect the supreme court to weigh in on Rule 3. 4 in one of these two cases decided today. People In the Interest of N.A.T. March 9, 2006 The court of appeals' announcements for today are here. The court issued 10 published decisions, which will be summarized eventually, but not today. Rombough v.
Mitchell March 8, 2006 The court of appeals will release the following decisions tomorrow, including 10 published opinions: PUBLISHED OPINIONS No.: 03CA2457 Charles Rombough v. Susan L. Mitchell UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS No.: 03CA0310 Kenneth J. Schweizer, et al. v. Level 3 Communications,
Inc., et al. March 6, 2006 Here are today's supreme court announcements. The court issued two decisions, summarized below. The court did not grant cert. in any cases. The supreme court holds that the phrase “ordinary and necessary expenses” limits the damages a school district may recover from a teacher or administrator who resigns without proper notice to the actual expenditures incurred by the district in finding the employee’s replacement. Under C.R.S. § 22-63-202(2)(a), a school district is not entitled to recover damages for overhead expenses. Justice Martinez, joined by Justice Bender, dissented, concluding "I read the plain meaning of 'ordinary and necessary expenses' as the 'normal or usual' expenditure of resources including those costs typically incurred by the District when searching for a replacement teacher." Klinger v. Adams County School District No. 50 Where
the trial court found that defendant had willfully destroyed relevant
evidence, the trial court March 3, 2006 The supreme court will announce two decisions on Monday, No. 04SC320 Aloi v. Union Pacific, addressing spoliation of evidence, and 04SC724 Klinger v. Adams County School District, addressing a school's right to recover certain expenses for a replacement teacher. Both cases were argued in October. Justice Eid will be formally sworn in at ceremony on March 13 at 1:30 p.m. in the supreme court courtroom. Finally, here are the summaries for the court of appeals' decisions from Thursday, February 23. Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated when the trial court aggravated his burglary and kidnapping sentences based on its findings of fact regarding his parole or probationary status that were neither charged, found by the jury, nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of appeals noted that the trial court determined that defendant was subject to mandatory aggravation of his burglary and kidnapping convictions, after it found that defendant was on probation, on parole, or under supervision. The court trial court reviewed the aggravated sentencing ranges pertaining to defendant's burglary and kidnapping convictions with counsel, and defense counsel agreed with the ranges set forth by the court. Defense counsel indicated that she did not have any corrections or additions to the presentence report. The court of appeals concluded that the defendant conceded the contents of the presentence report and therefore conceded that he was under supervision at the time of his offenses. The court also concluded that the fact that defendant was on parole or probation is inextricably linked to his prior conviction and thus falls within the prior conviction exception of Apprendi and Blakely. People v. Montoya Although sentence violated Apprendi, defendant was not entitled to resentencing. The defendant did not properly preserve the Apprendi argument, so the court of appeals reviewed only for plain error. On the facts of the case, the court found no plain error. People v. Medina Court upholds dismissal of inmate's complaint seeking referral to community corrections. The trial court dismissed the complaint under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5). The inmate alleged that DOC officials exceeded their authority and abused their discretion by not referring him to a community corrections and by enacting administrative regulations that denied him that relief. The court of appeals rejected the inmate's argument that the trial court improperly made findings of fact when ruling on the 12(b)(5) motion. The court also rejected the inmate's argument that he was entitled to mandamus relief. The inmate contended that he had a clear right to be referred to community corrections and that the trial court incorrectly interpreted C.R.S. § 18-1.3-301(2)(b). The inmate argued that his active INS detainer was not a "felony warrant or detainer" within the meaning of the statute. The court concluded that the plain language of the statute is unclear whether the term "felony" modifies only the term "warrant." The court concluded that it did and that the INS detainer therefore made the inmate ineligible for community corrections. Rivera-Bottzeck v. Ortiz Court of appeals
upholds trial court's determination that C.R.S. § 38-1-101(3)(a)
precluded the amortization, under a municipal zoning ordinance, of the
sexually-oriented business operated by plaintiff. On cross-appeal, the
court upheld the trial court's determination that the judicial review
provisions of the municipal ordinance do not violate the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. JAM
Restaurant, Inc. v. City of Longmont Validity of contract for sale of home was not affected by the fact that sellers were not licensed real estate brokers. Therefore, arbitration provision in the contract was enforceable and trial court erred in denying motion to compel arbitration. Shotkoski v. Denver Investment Group Inc. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that each party had prevailed in part and thus should pay its own costs. Pastrana v. Hudock Summary judgment for defendant was appropriate on outrageous conduct claim against excavating company that hit natural gas line causing explosion that destroyed plaintiff's house. As a matter of law, defendants conduct did not rise to such an extreme level as to be considered outrageous. Green v. Qwest Services Corporation When a grievance is filed against a psychologist and the Board of Psychologist Examiners, in the interest of public health and safety, investigates the conduct of the psychologist, the prohibition against revealing confidential information absent consent established by C.R.S. § 12-43-218(1) is inapplicable. Therefore, Board could order disclosure of psychologist's patient records without consent of the patients. Colorado Board of Psychologist Examiners v. Dr. I.W., Psy.D. The term "benefit"
in C.R.S. § 10-16-704(3) refers to the amount an insurer pays for
a given treatment or service, whether it reimburses the insured or pays
the provider on behalf of the insured. Section 10-16-704(3) does not
differentiate between services provided by participating providers and
nonparticipating providers at in network facilities. To the contrary,
it states that, The consecutive sentencing provision of C.R.S. § 18-3-203(1)(f) does not apply to juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent and sentenced to the DHS. Therefore the trial court erred in concluding that it was statutorily-required to impose consecutive sentences. People In the Interest of D.S.L. Court of appeals
permits late-filed appeal (of termination of parental rights) under
the "unique circumstances exception," which applies “if
a party reasonably relies and acts upon an erroneous or misleading statement
or ruling by the trial court.” On the merits, however, the court
upheld the termination of appellant's parental rights. March 2, 2006 The court of appeals' announcements for today are here. The court issued only unpublished decisions. And in the midst of the usual daily chaos of my house, I again forgot to send the summaries of last week's court of appeals' published decisions to my office. So you'll have to wait until tomorrow for those. I apologize, again, for the delay. March 1, 2006 The Colorado Senate approved a bill today to add a new panel of judges to the court of appeals, increasing the size of the court from 16 judges to 19. The House has already approved it, so it's now just awaiting the Governor's signature. The appropriation for the new panel will be in FY 2006-07, so I'd expect the appointments to be made within a few months of July 1. I'll keep you posted. The court of appeals will release the following unpublished decision tomorrow: No.: 03CA1710 Mary Brodeur, individually and as Personal Representative
of the Estate of Dennis Brodeur, deceased v. American Home Assurance
Company et al.,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||