People v. Roberts.

2026 CO 45. No. 25SA362. Postconviction Motions—Court-Appointed Counsel—Supplementation of Claims.

June 15, 2026

The supreme court considered whether, under Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(V), a defendant is entitled to have a public defender or court-appointed counsel potentially supplement the defendant’s Crim. P. 35(c) motion when the defendant’s private attorney filed the motion and subsequently withdrew from the case.

After a Crim. P. 35(c) motion passes summary review, Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(V) instructs the court to simultaneously (1) serve the motion on the public defender for potential supplementation, “[i]f the defendant has requested counsel,” and (2) “immediately” direct the prosecution to respond, “if the defendant already has counsel.” In this case, the court determined that Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(V) is ambiguous because it is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations and it directs a postconviction court to two conflicting, but reasonable, courses of action—appointing and serving the motion on the public defender while also immediately directing the prosecution to respond without appointing a public defender.

Considering the overall purpose of the criminal procedure rules under Crim. P. 2 and supreme court case law articulating Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(V)’s purpose, the court concluded that the drafters’ intent is that the defendant should have counsel’s help in filing and reviewing the motion. Thus, the court held that where a defendant’s private attorney filed a Crim. P. 35(c) motion, the defendant “already ha[d] counsel” under Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(V), meaning the defendant was not entitled to have the public defender or other court-appointed counsel supplement the motion. Accordingly, the court made its order to show cause absolute and remanded the case to the district court for an order directing the People to respond to Roberts’s motion.