Phillips v. People.

2026 CO 21. No. 25SC12. Phillips v. People. Right to a Speedy Trial—CRS § 18-1-405(6)(b)—Interlocutory Appeal—Crim. P. 37.1(a)—C.A.R. 4.1(a)—People v. Gallegos—”Good Faith” Test—Arguable Merit.

April 6, 2026

In this case, the district court held that the People’s pretrial appeal of a county court’s evidentiary ruling—excluding evidence under CRE 401, 402, and 403—constituted a proper “interlocutory appeal” under the speedy trial statute and therefore tolled Phillips’s speedy trial deadline. The supreme court has defined an “interlocutory appeal” for purposes of the speedy trial statute as one taken “in good faith” before the sentence is imposed. As relevant here, the supreme court’s jurisprudence makes clear that a pretrial appeal is taken in good faith when the prosecuting attorney’s assertion that the appeal is legally authorized has arguable merit.

In arguing that their assertion that their appeal was legally authorized had arguable merit, the People relied on Crim. P. 37.1(a), which authorizes an interlocutory appeal from a ruling by the county court granting a “motion to suppress evidence.” However, the People’s appeal concerned an evidentiary ruling, not a suppression ruling. In criminal motions practice, the word “suppress” operates as a term of art—denoting the exclusion from trial of any evidence procured illegally, typically in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights or protections. This stands in stark contrast to a ruling precluding evidence based on the rules of evidence.

The court therefore concluded that the People’s assertion that their pretrial appeal was authorized lacked arguable merit. Accordingly, the appeal did not toll the speedy trial deadline, and Phillips’s statutory right to a speedy trial was violated.

The district court’s judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the district court with instructions to return it to the county court so the county court may vacate Phillips’s judgment of conviction and dismiss the case with prejudice.