Hoang v. People, 2014 CO 27

Background

Four-armed home-invasion; Ricky Hoang tried as alleged leader; convicted on multiple counts after an 11-day jury trial.
Hoang was restrained with leg shackles throughout trial over repeated objections alleging due process and undermining presumption of innocence.
The trial court took multiple steps to conceal the shackles (seating instructions, alternate entrances, keeping parties seated) but did not formally make a written, case-specific necessity finding.
Hoang appealed; preparation and transmission of the appellate record was delayed and incomplete due largely to the court reporter, producing a 3+ year delay before briefing could begin and ~5.5 years before the court of appeals decision.
Hoang argued (1) improper shackling without specific necessity finding and (2) deprivation of a meaningful and speedy appeal caused by record deficiencies and appellate delay.

Issues

Issue	Hoang's Argument	People/State's Argument	Held
Whether shackling without an individualized, case-specific finding violated due process	Shackles were visible/audible to jurors and court erred by not making explicit necessity findings; Deck requires reversal unless state proves harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Trial court reasonably deferred to deputies; record does not show any juror saw/heard the shackles	Court held Deck applies only if restraints were plainly visible or there is record support for a reasonable inference that jurors observed them; burden to show visibility is on defendant; Hoang failed to meet it, so Deck did not apply and conviction affirmed
Whether trial court abused discretion by ordering shackling	Shackling was unnecessary and punitive; no individualized assessment made	Trial court acted within discretion for courtroom security and took steps to conceal restraints	Abuse-of-discretion review: no reversible error because concealment measures succeeded and no showing that jurors observed restraints
Whether omissions in the appellate record denied a meaningful appeal	Missing bench conferences, testimony, exhibits impeded appellate review; incomplete record prevented meaningful review	Trial court reconstructed record, corrected omissions, and supplemented transcripts and exhibits; no specific prejudice shown	Defendant must show specific prejudice from record gaps; court found omissions remedied and no specific prejudice; meaningful appeal preserved
Whether the appellate delay violated a right to a speedy appeal (due process)	3+ year delay in producing the record prejudiced Hoang and deprived him of a speedy, meaningful appeal; government should bear burden once delay is lengthy	Delay largely caused by court reporter (governmental negligence); Barker factors should be applied and defendant must show prejudice; no specific prejudice shown	Court recognized no freestanding Sixth Amendment speedy-appeal right but applied Barker factors (adapted to due process). Length and reason favor Hoang, but he failed to show prejudice (impairment of the appeal or ability to defend on retrial). No deprivation found

Key Cases Cited

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (visible shackling absent specific justification requires state to prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor speedy-trial balancing test: length, reason, assertion, prejudice)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (extreme delay can create presumptive prejudice; context of indictment-to-arrest delay)
Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (state-created appellate process must comply with due process)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (establishing standard for constitutional harmless error review)
Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976) (forcing a defendant to stand trial in identifiable prison garb may violate due process)