Peo v. King
24CA0228
Colo. Ct. App.Mar 20, 2025Background
- In 2006, Jeffery David King was convicted by a jury of false imprisonment, sexual assault on a child (as a crime of violence), and indecent exposure.
- King was originally sentenced to forty-five years to life on the sexual assault count, but after an appeal, this sentence was vacated as illegal and he was resentenced in 2010 to twelve years to life.
- King filed several Crim. P. 35(c) postconviction motions raising constitutional claims including unlawful search/seizure, improper sexually violent predator (SVP) designation, and issues with his parole revocation procedure.
- Many of King’s successive motions were dismissed as either untimely or because the claims had been or could have been raised in earlier proceedings; some claims were not pursued by counsel and deemed abandoned.
- The current appeal concerns the denial, without a hearing, of King's 2023 Crim. P. 35(c) motion, which raised ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and challenged the constitutionality of his parole structure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of 2023 35(c) motion | Motion is time-barred under § 16-5-402 | Entitled to a hearing on constitutional claims | Motion is time-barred; no justifiable excuse |
| Successiveness of ineffective assistance claim | Claim was not raised earlier | Ineffective assistance should excuse prior omission | Claim is successive; should have been raised |
| Unconstitutional parole structure claim | Claim was already abandoned | Claim was unresolved and not successive | Claim abandoned; order affirmed |
| Denial of evidentiary hearing | No hearing required; conclusory/untimely | Allegations warrant a hearing if true | No hearing required; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Denver Dist. Court, 766 P.2d 632 (Colo. 1988) (standard for requiring an evidentiary hearing on postconviction motions)
- People v. Venzor, 121 P.3d 260 (Colo. App. 2005) (grounds for denying 35(c) motion without a hearing)
- People v. Clouse, 74 P.3d 336 (Colo. App. 2002) (requirements for alleging justifiable excuse or excusable neglect)
- People v. Wiedemer, 852 P.2d 424 (Colo. 1993) (standard for evaluating justifiable excuse/excusable neglect for late filings)