Daniel Marc Taubman

In this dependency and neglect case, the El Paso County Department of Human Services sought to terminate the parental rights of K.L. (mother) and A.J.D. (father) after their children were removed from an unlivable home and the parents failed to comply with a court-approved treatment plan. The Colorado Court of Appeals vacated the termination of father's parental rights, holding that the trial court violated his statutory right to counsel under C.R.S. § 19-3-202(1) by ending his attorney's participation after finding him in default, later allowing counsel to withdraw, and requiring him to proceed pro se without adequate representation at critical stages of the hearing. The court concluded that this statutory violation was structural error not subject to harmless-error review and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the termination of mother's parental rights, finding that clear and convincing evidence established the treatment plan's failure, her unfitness as a parent, and the unlikelihood of change within a reasonable time under C.R.S. § 19-3-604(1)(c).

family lawprocedure

This case involved an international child custody dispute between a mother residing in Colorado and a father in Canada over their two children, after the mother removed the children to Colorado without notice in 2007; the father obtained a Canadian custody order and filed a Hague Convention petition in Colorado seeking their return. The Colorado trial court held that Canada had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to determine parental responsibilities, while exercising temporary emergency jurisdiction to allow the children to remain with the mother in Colorado pending further Canadian proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the appeal was not moot despite the Canadian court's subsequent October 2011 custody order (which awarded sole custody to the father after a hearing), because the question of subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA remained unresolved. The court reasoned that Canada was the proper forum under the UCCJEA given the children's lifelong residence there and the first custody proceeding having been initiated there, that the mother had fully participated with counsel in the Canadian proceedings (precluding due-process claims), and that no exception applied based on alleged violations of fundamental human rights or spousal abuse findings.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Sheep Mountain Alliance's challenge to the Montrose County Board of County Commissioners' decision granting Energy Fuels a special use permit to build and operate a uranium and vanadium mill and tailings facility in the Paradox Valley, with conditions including limits on processing rates and water use safeguards. SMA sought review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), claiming the Board abused its discretion by failing to properly record certain hearings, violating due process, and adopting an annual averaging scheme for the 500-ton-per-day processing limit without adequate evidence on water supply impacts. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's resolution, holding that the record showed substantial compliance with zoning hearing and notice requirements, with any procedural issues causing no prejudice. It further concluded that competent evidence, including an independent consultant's updated opinion and multiple permit conditions on water monitoring and compliance, reasonably supported the Board's findings on water availability and operational limits.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a post-divorce dispute over allocation of parental responsibilities for minor child E.S., whose parents are Auriel Lauzon and Timothy Smith. Nonparent Laura Silvernail, who had taken E.S. into her home under a temporary guardianship agreement initiated by Smith, intervened and sought primary parenting time after the parents also requested it. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed that Silvernail had standing under C.R.S. § 14-10-123(1)(b) because E.S. was not in the physical care of either parent at the time and the arrangement was voluntary. However, the court vacated the trial court's order allocating primary residential custody to Silvernail and remanded for further findings, holding that the court failed to apply the required clear-and-convincing-evidence standard and consider special factors to justify overriding a fit parent's rights under Troxel v. Granville. The case was remanded with current orders to remain in effect pending new proceedings.

family law

In People v. Montoya, the defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated driving after revocation prohibited in exchange for probation and dismissal of other charges, but the trial court imposed two years of probation with ten months in the Pueblo County Jail work release program plus 10,000 hours of useful public service. Montoya sought to avoid the jail condition due to his seizure disorder and submitted physician notes stating he was medically unable to work. The appellate court concluded that Colorado law limits jail time as a probation condition to no more than ninety days unless it is part of a work release program, and the trial court's finding that Montoya could perform work was clearly erroneous in light of the medical evidence. The court therefore vacated the sentence and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the statutory requirements.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Blue, the prosecution charged defendant Tony Blue with attempt to influence a public servant, a felony, after he gave a false name to police officers during an encounter outside a library to avoid an outstanding arrest warrant. The trial court granted Blue's motion to reduce the charge to false reporting to authorities, a misdemeanor, finding that the specific statute controlled over the general one and that prosecuting under the general statute would violate equal protection. On interlocutory appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals first held the appeal timely because the prosecution's motion for reconsideration suspended the appeal deadline until denial of that motion. The court then reversed on the merits, ruling that the two statutes address distinct conduct and mental states—attempt to influence requires specific intent to alter an official's action while false reporting requires only knowing provision of false information—so both may be charged and equal protection is not violated. The case was remanded for reinstatement of the original charge.

criminal lawprocedure

In Medina v. Sonic-Denver T, Inc., former employees of a car dealership challenged an arbitration agreement they signed upon hiring, which included a waiver of class actions and class arbitrations, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to allow class claims for unpaid commissions. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Stolt-Nielsen, courts cannot impose class arbitration absent an agreement to it, and even if the waiver were unconscionable, the agreement would still lack consent to class proceedings. The court reasoned that the employees' arguments regarding unconscionability or conflict with the Colorado Wage Claim Act did not overcome the absence of consent to class arbitration, nor did they warrant voiding the entire agreement to allow court litigation.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In People v. Roy, the defendant appealed the denial of his third postconviction motion seeking additional presentence confinement credit in three drug-related cases after his probation was revoked and he received consecutive DOC sentences. The court affirmed the district court's order denying the motion. It held that Roy could not obtain review of an earlier 2005 denial because he failed to timely appeal it, and that even if reviewed, he was not entitled to the additional 267 days of credit because it would result in duplicative credit given the consecutive nature of his sentences. The decision rests on the statutory rules for presentence credit under section 18-1.3-405 and principles against awarding overlapping credit across consecutive terms.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Richard Strock's appeal of his convictions for vehicular homicide while driving under the influence, driving under the influence, and driving under the influence per se, stemming from a 2005 car accident on Interstate 70 that killed his wife, as well as his 48-year sentence as a habitual criminal based on prior felony convictions. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence. It held that the prosecutor's closing argument statements, including references to a witness potentially lying on a slab and the defendant being a loaded gun, were reasonable inferences from the evidence or permissible rhetorical devices and did not constitute misconduct. The court further concluded that an abbreviated proportionality review was sufficient and that Strock's triggering and predicate offenses, considered together, were grave and serious, rendering the sentence not grossly disproportionate.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Robert Shane Butler's appeal of his jury convictions for two counts of attempting to disarm a police officer, stemming from an incident during the execution of a search warrant related to an alleged assault. Butler challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence based on an alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment knock-and-announce rule and also contested a jury instruction amendment. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that Butler's separate guilty plea to first-degree assault waived nonjurisdictional challenges to that conviction, that Hudson v. Michigan precluded suppression of evidence as a remedy for any knock-and-announce violation, and that the invited error doctrine barred review of the jury instruction because defense counsel had acquiesced to the change at trial.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In People v. Gallegos, a former sheriff was convicted by a jury of embezzlement of public property and criminal extortion based on allegations that he used county jail inmates to perform unpaid construction and firewood work for his personal benefit and threatened to transfer inmates who refused. The court affirmed the embezzlement conviction, holding that the indictment sufficiently alleged the essential facts regarding the misuse of public property and inmate labor to provide adequate notice, even though a bill of particulars supplied additional details. It vacated the extortion conviction, concluding that the indictment failed to allege the charge with the required factual particularity under Colorado law, which could not be cured by later filings. The court reviewed the sufficiency of the indictment de novo and emphasized that it must answer who, what, where, and when while protecting against double jeopardy.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Wilson, the defendant appealed a trial court order requiring her to pay $47,086 in restitution for overpaid public assistance benefits after pleading guilty to theft of such benefits over a limited period. The court affirmed the order, holding that the statute of limitations did not bar restitution for earlier periods because an exception applies to charges brought to facilitate case disposition, and that the evidence supported the restitution amount by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision rested on statutory interpretation of the limitations period and review of the trial court's factual findings regarding the defendant's cohabitation and unreported income.

criminal law

The case involved a dispute between the Towns of Erie and Frederick over Frederick's annexation of the Yardley Wetlands through a series of flagpole annexations using a county road for contiguity. Erie challenged the annexations primarily on grounds that Frederick failed to provide the required 90-day written notice to abutting landowners under the Municipal Annexation Act. The trial court upheld the annexations, finding the notice deficiency inadvertent, and the appellate court affirmed, concluding that the statutory exception for inadvertent failures applied and did not invalidate the proceedings. The court also granted Frederick reasonable appellate attorney fees and costs under the Act.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a father's appeal of a trial court's summary judgment terminating his parental rights to his two children, T.M. (age 3) and J.M. (age 8), after they were adjudicated dependent and neglected. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the termination as to T.M. but reversed as to J.M. and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that under C.R.S. § 19-3-604(1)(b)(III), the department established by clear and convincing evidence that no treatment plan could be devised due to the father's long-term incarceration exceeding the 36-month parole eligibility threshold applicable to children under six, but it did not present sufficient evidence of the father's actual parole eligibility date to meet the six-year threshold for the older child. The decision turned on strict application of the statute's distinct timing requirements based on the child's age at the time the petition was filed.

family lawcriminal law

In this post-dissolution of marriage case, the father appealed a trial court order restricting his parenting time with his minor child due to his medical marijuana use and failure to comply with urinalysis testing required under the parties' original parenting plan. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the father's motion to waive the testing requirements but vacated the trial court's added restrictions that imposed supervised parenting time until the father proved by clear and convincing evidence that his marijuana use was not detrimental to the child. The court reasoned that under Colorado statutes, parenting time may be modified in the child's best interests but can only be restricted upon a specific finding that unrestricted time would endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair emotional development, a finding not made here, leaving the original plan in effect pending further proceedings.

family law

The case involved the Cody Park Property Owners' Association challenging an easement granted by the Harders to the Heitsmans for a driveway accessing Cody Park Road, alleging violation of subdivision covenants and claiming third-party beneficiary status in an agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the Harders had the right to grant the easement under the covenants, issued a preliminary injunction preventing interference with access, and awarded attorney fees to the Heitsmans. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the covenants did not prohibit the easement, the documents were properly considered, and the Heitsmans qualified for attorney fees as prevailing parties under the relevant statute. The core reasoning centered on the plain language of the covenants and agreements not restricting the easement grant, and statutory provisions allowing fee awards to non-unit owners in certain contexts.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a defendant who pleaded guilty to sexual assault on a child and appealed the trial court's order requiring him to pay restitution for the victim's counseling expenses while denying his request for access to or review of the victim's medical records. The court affirmed the restitution order, holding that counseling expenses qualify as medical expenses proximately caused by the defendant's criminal conduct under the restitution statute. The reasoning emphasized the broad discretion of trial courts in restitution matters, the goal of making victims whole, and the defendant's failure to provide a non-speculative basis for needing the confidential records to challenge proximate cause.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a dental assistant who was terminated shortly after her employer received notice that the office's policy denying meal and rest breaks violated Colorado wage laws. The trial court found the termination wrongful in violation of public policy, awarded limited back pay damages without offsetting later business earnings, and denied exemplary damages despite finding the employer's later conduct retaliatory. On appeal, the court affirmed the wrongful termination ruling, reversed the back pay award for improper calculation, and remanded for clarification on exemplary damages due to inconsistency between the finding of vindictive conduct and the denial of punitive damages. The reasoning focused on public policy protections against retaliation for reporting wage violations under state law and the statutory requirements for proving malice or willful conduct to support exemplary damages.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Michael Sean Edmond, a prisoner, suing the City of Colorado Springs, its police department employees, county officials, and unnamed defendants over lost or destroyed property seized during a 1999 arrest and search, along with related claims of negligence, conversion, illegal search and seizure, civil conspiracy, and other torts stemming from alleged false statements in warrant applications and hearings. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to complete service of process after multiple orders and denied Edmond's motion to recuse the judge who had presided over a prior criminal matter involving him. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal, holding that the descriptions of the unnamed defendants were sufficient to allow them to be sued pending discovery of their identities, so service was not required beforehand, and that the trial court had improperly imposed service obligations on an in forma pauperis plaintiff without adequate accommodation. The court affirmed the denial of the recusal motion. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

civil rightsprocedurepropertytorts & liability

In People v. Nance, the defendant, who had two prior felony convictions, pleaded guilty to felony menacing under a plea agreement in which the prosecutor recommended waiving Colorado's two-felony rule to permit a probation sentence. After Nance violated probation by leaving the state and missing appointments, the trial court revoked probation but later reinstated it with added jail time, ruling that the original waiver recommendation remained effective. The People appealed, contending that the waiver did not survive revocation and that a new prosecutorial recommendation was required. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the statutory exception allowing probation upon the district attorney's recommendation is triggered by the initial application for probation following conviction and is not negated by a subsequent revocation, as probation revocation proceedings reassess the original sentence without requiring a fresh waiver. The decision rested on statutory interpretation of section 18-1.3-201 and principles that probation revocation does not automatically unwind all plea components.

criminal lawprocedure