People v. Segura.

2024 CO 70. No. 22SC816. Crim. P. 35—Postconviction Remedies—Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel—Procedures for Filing and Resolving Crim. P. 35(c) Motions—Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(IV)–(V)—Statutory Right to Postconviction Counsel—Silva v. People—CRS § 21-1-104.

November 4, 2024

The Supreme Court held that when, as here, a defendant files a pro se Crim. P. 35(c) motion that contains a request for counsel, the trial court has two, and only two, choices. First, it may conclude, based on its review of the motion, the record, and the file, that none of the claims has arguable merit, in which case it must deny the motion in its entirety without further action by entering written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Second, it may conclude, based on its review of the motion, the record, and the file, that at least one claim has arguable merit, in which case it must grant the request for postconviction counsel and forward a complete copy of the motion to the prosecution and the Office of the Public Defender (OPD). The OPD must then determine which claims (if any) lack arguable merit and should be abandoned, which arguably meritorious claims (if any) should be supplemented, and which new claims (if any) have arguable merit and should be added.

Thus, upon its initial review of a postconviction motion like the one filed by the defendant in this case, the court must either deny the motion and thus all of the claims, or not deny the motion and thus none of the claims—there is no betwixt and between option. And if the court denies none of the claims, it may not restrict the scope of postconviction counsel’s representation.

Because the division here was spot-on in ruling that the trial court violated Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(IV)–(V), and because the prosecution does not challenge the division’s conclusion that the error was not harmless, we affirm. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case with instructions to return it to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.