Robert D. Hawthorne

This case is a dependency and neglect proceeding in which the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services sought termination of parental rights after removing three children due to a domestic violence incident and prior referrals involving violence and suspected drug use. The parents' treatment plans required substance abuse and mental health evaluations, stable housing and employment, appropriate visitation, and domestic violence treatment for the mother; the trial court terminated the rights after finding the plans had not been successfully followed. The mother appealed on grounds that Indian Child Welfare Act notice requirements were unmet, but the court held there was no reason to know or believe the children were Indian children. The father appealed the sufficiency of evidence supporting his termination, but the court found the record supported the trial court's conclusions that he had not reasonably complied with the plan and could not become fit within a reasonable time. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the terminations.

family law

This case concerns whether non-attorney conservators and guardians appointed for an incapacitated spouse may file and pursue an appeal of permanent orders in a marriage dissolution proceeding on her behalf. The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the conservators, who are not licensed attorneys, may not represent the protected person in court proceedings. The court reasoned that appearing in a representative capacity to protect or enforce another's legal rights constitutes the unauthorized practice of law under Colorado statutes and precedent, and that neither the Protective Proceedings Act nor C.R.C.P. 17(c) creates an exception allowing unlicensed fiduciaries to litigate pro se for a ward. The appeal was stayed for sixty days to permit the conservators to retain counsel, with dismissal to follow if they do not.

family lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Lynn Marie Griffiths, who was convicted after a jury trial of distributing methamphetamine, unlawfully possessing alprazolam, and possessing drug paraphernalia; she appealed the convictions and the imposition of a statutory drug offender surcharge. The court affirmed the convictions, concluding that the informant's testimony and recovered evidence matching the sting operation funds were sufficient to support the verdict despite credibility challenges, and that testimony about signs of prior drug use and related items was admissible res gestae evidence. On the surcharge, the court upheld its imposition because the defendant did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that incarceration rendered her unable to pay, given the statutory framework allowing collection from inmate accounts.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Blackwell, defendant Lamar Atu Blackwell was convicted of first-degree murder after deliberation, vehicular eluding with injury, and two habitual offender counts based on evidence from a gang-related shooting and ensuing police chase. On appeal, he contended that the prosecutor improperly coerced a defense witness (a former cellmate of a co-participant) into invoking the Fifth Amendment by warning of potential perjury charges, and that the trial court erred by excluding certain hearsay evidence as irrelevant or unreliable. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, ruling that under the totality of the circumstances—including the manner, timing, and basis of the warnings communicated through independent counsel—the prosecutor did not substantially interfere with the witness's choice to testify. The court further held that the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence, which failed to qualify as res gestae, an excited utterance, or residual hearsay, and found no cumulative error.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative's challenge to rules adopted by the Colorado Board of Health in 2001 and 2008 that set maximum fees health care facilities may charge patients and third parties for copies of medical records. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Board, concluding that the fee rules were valid, did not violate HIPAA or state statutes requiring reasonable cost-based charges, and were within the Board's authority. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, reversed the grant of summary judgment to the Board, and remanded for further proceedings after determining that genuine issues existed regarding the rules' compliance with statutory requirements under the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Newflower Market, Inc. and Elizabeth Cook over whether Newflower's payments on promissory notes arising from a divorce-related settlement agreement satisfied its obligations to Cook, along with related issues of stock ownership and dilution. Newflower filed an interpleader action and deposited funds into the court registry, seeking declaratory relief that the payments fulfilled its debts and that Cook's retained stock was subject to standard dilution. The trial court granted summary judgment for Newflower, and the appellate court affirmed, concluding that the funds were properly interpleaded so contractual interest stopped accruing, the agreements' plain language showed the payments satisfied the notes, and Cook's stock rights matched those of other holders except for specific dilution protections in the contracts.

family lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this unemployment benefits case, claimant Alex Laszar appealed a decision by the Industrial Claim Appeals Office that denied him benefits for a period after he withdrew $10,000 from a retirement account into which he had rolled over distributions from his former employer's 401(k) and pension plans. The court affirmed the Panel's order, concluding that Laszar was precluded from receiving benefits because he did not reinvest the entire lump-sum amount in an IRA for at least one year as required by section 8-73-110(3), C.R.S. 2009. The core reasoning was that the statute plainly requires the total payment to be reinvested to avoid proration of benefits as wages and that the claimant's partial withdrawal failed to meet this condition, with the disqualification period calculated based on the full distribution amount.

labor & employment

This case involved the State of Colorado suing a Michigan-based company and its officers under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act for allegedly deceptive direct-mail solicitations offering workplace posters to employers, including inaccurate claims about legal posting requirements and penalties under state and federal laws. The trial court dismissed the subsection (1)(d) claim before trial for lack of notice in the complaint and, after a bench trial, entered judgment for the defendants on the other claims, finding the misrepresentations resulted from negligence rather than knowing conduct. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal because the claim had been included in the stipulated trial management order, providing adequate notice, but affirmed the judgment because the CCPA requires actual knowledge for liability under the relevant subsections and the trial court found only negligence, not knowing deception; the court also upheld the finding that the solicitations' disclaimers were not deceptive. The case was remanded to reinstate the (1)(d) claim for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the prosecution appealing the dismissal of a class six felony charge of driving after revocation prohibited against defendant Robert Pena, on grounds that he did not receive a timely preliminary hearing. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, holding that Pena was not entitled to a preliminary hearing because he was not in custody for the charged offense at the time of his request, as he was primarily serving a sentence in another county. The court reasoned that the statute requires custody for the specific offense to trigger the right to a preliminary hearing, and temporary or incidental custody does not suffice, especially when the purpose of such a hearing—to ensure swift release if no probable cause exists—would not apply here.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a First Amendment challenge by Mike Mahaney, owner of a shop in Englewood, Colorado, to the city's sign code after he was cited for painting murals on his building's exterior walls without obtaining permits or city manager approval under the code's special review procedures. Mahaney sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the code's requirements constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech and that the murals qualified as exempt works of art. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the sign code's special review procedure imposed an impermissible prior restraint on free speech in violation of the First Amendment and the Colorado Constitution. The court remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Mahaney and to address attorney fees. Because the code was found facially unconstitutional on prior restraint grounds, the court did not reach the works-of-art exemption issue.

free speechcivil rights

This case involved a dispute under Colorado's No-Fault Act over whether State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company properly determined the reasonable amount of medical expenses for an auto accident victim by using a third-party database to reprice bills below the charged amounts. Plaintiffs Pauline Reyher, the insured, and Dr. Wallace Brucker, her provider, sued individually and on behalf of similarly situated insureds and providers, alleging breach of contract, statutory violations, and other claims after State Farm paid reduced amounts on several bills. The trial court dismissed Reyher's claims for lack of standing due to later reimbursement of her out-of-pocket payments, denied class certification, and issued orders on discovery and spoliation. The Court of Appeals reversed the standing dismissal and remanded to assess Dr. Brucker's standing, while also reversing the class certification denial after finding that the requirements under C.R.C.P. 23 were satisfied and that the trial court applied incorrect legal standards. The court did not review the discovery or spoliation orders.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

This case concerns the proper classification of about 220 acres of land in Adams County for 2007 property tax purposes. The county assessor classified the parcels as vacant land, but the taxpayer appealed after leasing the property for cattle grazing starting in July 2005, which continued through 2007. The State Board of Assessment Appeals ordered reclassification as agricultural land, and the court affirmed. The court held that the statute requires only that the land was used as a farm or ranch in the previous two years and presently, without mandating continuous use from exactly two years before the assessment date or on January 1, and the grazing activities satisfied this requirement under the plain statutory language.

propertytaxes

The case involved Stacy Clendenin, who was charged with multiple marijuana-related offenses after police discovered dozens of plants and other evidence at her home. Clendenin sought to assert an affirmative defense under the Colorado Constitution's medical marijuana provision by claiming status as a primary caregiver to patients with debilitating conditions. The trial court limited her ability to present that defense, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the resulting convictions. The appellate court interpreted the constitutional definition of primary caregiver to require more than merely supplying marijuana; the person must have significant responsibility for managing the patient's overall well-being. Because Clendenin did not meet that standard, the affirmative defense was unavailable.

criminal lawhealthcare

In this condemnation action, Sinclair Transportation Company (STC), a Wyoming pipeline corporation, sought to amend an existing 1968 easement on properties owned by the Sandbergs and Larsons in Weld County, Colorado, to install an additional ten-inch pipeline alongside an existing six-inch line for transporting refined petroleum products. After failed negotiations, STC initiated proceedings for immediate possession and just compensation under Colorado statutes. The trial court granted immediate possession and awarded compensation in the amounts estimated by STC's appraiser ($9,620 to the Sandbergs and $16,197 to the Larsons). On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that STC qualifies as a pipeline company authorized to exercise eminent domain under section 38-5-105, C.R.S. 2009, that the statutory requirements were met, and that the valuation was supported by the record without violation of constitutional or evidentiary standards.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant William Destro's appeal from his convictions for violating the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act, conspiracy, theft, and securities fraud arising from two transactions: a real estate investment program called WIIN in which buyers were not informed of the principals' prior failed ventures, leading to foreclosures, and a separate home purchase from the Hones where Destro sold securing bonds and failed to repay notes. The trial court convicted him after a jury trial and imposed concurrent sentences totaling twenty years. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the jury instructions correctly required willful conduct without needing proof of awareness that the investments were securities, that sufficient evidence supported the theft conviction based on Destro's conduct and failure to repay despite assurances, and that the sentencing court properly considered all relevant factors without undue emphasis on punishment.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Sheffield Services Company purchasing residential lots from two LLCs managed by Trowbridge and Mason, where the LLCs had breached a prior subdivision agreement with the city requiring infrastructure improvements; Sheffield alleged the managers failed to disclose a city letter threatening to withhold permits and sought to hold Trowbridge personally liable via piercing the corporate veil, wrongful asset depletion, and negligent misrepresentation claims after the LLCs defaulted on contract obligations. The trial court dismissed the personal liability claims and the misrepresentation claim against the managers while entering judgment against the LLCs for breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the negligent misrepresentation claim on grounds that Sheffield had a reasonable opportunity to investigate the permit issues before closing and thus could not rely on any nondisclosure. It vacated dismissal of the veil-piercing and asset depletion claims against Trowbridge, remanding for findings on whether he was a member or manager of one LLC, whether veil piercing was equitable, and whether he breached duties to creditors by distributing assets when the LLCs were insolvent.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In People v. Keene, the prosecution appealed a trial court's order at a preliminary hearing that reduced two class three felony sexual assault charges to class four felonies and dismissed five other sexual assault charges against the defendant based on insufficient evidence of physical force or violence and lack of evidence of sexual penetration. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the reductions and dismissals related to one victim (D.M.) but reversed those related to another victim (J.W.) and reinstated the dismissed charges involving a third victim (B.I.), finding sufficient probable cause in those instances. The court reasoned that at a preliminary hearing, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and it applied legal standards to determine whether the prosecution established probable cause for the aggravating factors and the underlying offenses.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Rogers, the defendant was convicted by a jury of unlawful sexual contact, second degree assault, first degree aggravated motor vehicle theft, theft, and second degree kidnapping after attacking a victim and stealing her truck. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court retained jurisdiction over the original charges after the defendant withdrew his guilty plea to added charges in a vacated plea agreement, because the dismissal of original charges was conditional on completing the plea. The court also upheld the trial court's supplemental jury instruction regarding the lesser included offense of unlawful sexual contact when the jury was deadlocked on the degree of guilt for the sexual assault count. Finally, the case was remanded to correct errors in the mittimus regarding the defendant's plea and a heat of passion finding.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Beck, the prosecution appealed a trial court's dismissal at the preliminary hearing of charges for attempting to influence a public servant and identity theft against defendant Derek Dee Beck, who had provided false identifying information to a police officer during a traffic stop. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the attempt to influence charge, holding that the statute prohibits using deceit with intent to alter a public servant's official actions and that the evidence supported probable cause for that offense. It affirmed the dismissal of the identity theft charge, concluding that the statute's reference to obtaining a 'thing of value' is limited to items with financial or economic value and does not encompass nonpecuniary benefits like misleading a police officer. The court remanded for reinstatement of the attempt charge only.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned an insurer's denial of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under an automobile policy after a 2002 accident, where the insurer claimed the policy had been canceled for nonpayment of premiums. The plaintiffs sued for the benefits plus statutory treble damages for willful and wanton conduct under the former Colorado No-Fault Act, as well as claims for common-law willful breach of contract and bad-faith breach of insurance contract. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer on all claims, but the court of appeals reversed, holding that the insurer's failure to mail cancellation notice to the husband (a required policy term) rendered the cancellation ineffective, so the benefits were due when first claimed and the denial constituted willful and wanton conduct. The court therefore directed entry of judgment for the plaintiffs on liability for the three substantive claims and remanded for determination of damages, including exemplary damages.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure