Menu icon Access the Business Officer Magazine menu by clicking or touching here.
Colorado Lawyer Magazine logo, click or touch this logo to return to the homepage Click or touch the Colorado Lawyer Magazine logo to return to the homepage. Search

People v. Valles.

2025 COA 67. No. 24CA0164. Crim. P. 43(e)(4)—Defendant’s Presence at Sentencing Hearing—Interactive Audiovisual or Audio Device—Advisements—Right to Appear in Person.

July 17, 2025


A jury found Valles guilty of menacing, violating a protection order, and theft. Before the sentencing hearing, Valles had a serious medical event that required him to receive long-term care in a facility, so the court postponed sentencing several times. Ultimately, Valles and defense counsel appeared for sentencing via Webex from Valles’s medical facility, and neither objected to the court imposing sentence over Webex. The prosecutor and defense counsel told the court that the parties had reached an agreement on a stipulated sentence of credit for time served with no restitution or probation. The court imposed a sentence consistent with the parties’ stipulation.

On appeal, Valles argued for the first time that the district court violated Crim. P. 43(e) and infringed on his constitutional right to be present by conducting his sentencing hearing via Webex without first providing him with the rule’s required advisements. Rule 43(e) allows trial courts to conduct certain nonjury proceedings via interactive audiovisual or interactive audio devices. But before proceeding with virtual hearings, courts must advise defendants of their rights under Rule 43(e)(4). These rights include the right to be physically present at sentencing . Here, though Valles knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his constitutional right to appear in person at sentencing, the district court didn’t give him any of the required Rule 43(e)(4) advisements before imposing his sentence over Webex. Accordingly, the district court erred. But the error was not plain because (1) Valles received a stipulated sentence to time served with no probation, restitution, or other sanction, so his physical presence at sentencing wouldn’t have resulted in a better outcome; and (2) Valles waived his constitutional right to be physically present.

The sentence was affirmed.

 

Official Colorado Court of Appeals proceedings can be found at the Colorado Court of Appeals website.

Back to the From the Courts Page