St. George v. Office of the State Public Defender.
2026 COA 28. No. 25CA0380. Office of the State Public Defender—Records Request—Criminal Justice Records Act—Criminal Justice Agency—Waiver of Personal Jurisdiction Defense.
April 9, 2026
St. George sent letters to the Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD) requesting that OSPD produce its official discovery policy. An OSPD employee responded and explained that he was unable to determine which documents St. George had requested. St. George sent a letter clarifying his request but received no further response. St. George then applied to the district court for an order to show cause why OSPD should not permit him to access the discovery policy under the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act (CCJRA) and requested statutory penalties for improper denial of the record. The district court entered the order to show cause and ordered OSPD to appear at a hearing. OSPD didn’t appear at the hearing. The district court concluded that OSPD had been properly served and ordered it to produce the discovery policy. OSPD subsequently failed to meet the court’s production deadline and did not respond to motions St. George filed. Several months later, OSPD responded to the court’s original show cause order, stating it had no record of service and had only recently become aware of the proceedings. OSPD’s response included an excerpt of its discovery policy, and it requested that the court discharge the order to show cause and vacate a second scheduled hearing. The court denied OSPD’s request, held the hearing, and concluded that OSPD is a criminal justice agency and the discovery policy is a criminal justice record. The court found that OSPD’s letter to St. George denying understanding of the requested documents was not proper, and it concluded that OSPD’s failure to provide the discovery policy was arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court awarded St. George statutory penalties of $13,650.
On appeal, OSPD argued that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over it because OSPD wasn’t properly served with St. George’s application for the order to show cause. A defendant waives a personal jurisdiction defense by not asserting it in the first responsive pleading. And even if such defense is initially asserted, a defendant’s active defense of a case subjects them to the court’s personal jurisdiction. Here, OSPD’s first filing in the case was its response to the order to show cause in which it stated that it had no record of service and requested that the district court vacate the show cause hearing. But OSPD didn’t ask the court to dismiss the case or for any other relief related to the purportedly defective service. And even if OSPD’s response was sufficient to initially assert a personal jurisdiction defense, OSPD waived its argument by then defending the case on the merits without reasserting the issue or asking for any relief related to it.
OSPD also contended that the district court erred by concluding that it is a “criminal justice agency” under the CCJRA. The court of appeals determined that the CCJRA’s definition of criminal justice agency shows an intent to exclude agencies such as the OSPD whose function is to defend criminal defendants. The court thus concluded that the OSPD is not a “criminal justice agency” within the meaning of the CCJRA. Accordingly, the district court erred by ruling that OSPD is a criminal justice agency under the CCJRA and imposing statutory penalties.
The judgment was reversed.