Peo v. Soghigian, 23CA1028

Ben Robert Soghigian pleaded guilty to several felony charges in four Colorado criminal cases, in exchange for dismissal of numerous other charges.
He was sentenced in November 2019 to an aggregate of sixteen years in Colorado prison, to run concurrently with an already-imposed eight-year Arizona sentence.
Soghigian is serving his sentence in Arizona, not Colorado.
In 2022, he filed a Crim. P. 35(c) postconviction motion seeking an order for the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) to review his Arizona records for earned time credit eligibility.
He argued that failing to review his earned time credits violated statutory provisions and his constitutional right to equal protection.
The postconviction court denied his motion, reasoning that such claims were not properly brought under Crim. P. 35(c).

Issue	Soghigian's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether DOC’s failure to review earned time while defendant is in out-of-state custody violates Crim. P. 35(c) or constitutional rights	DOC’s lack of review violates earned time statutes and equal protection	Such claims are not cognizable under Crim. P. 35(c)	Not proper under Crim. P. 35(c); must pursue civil action
Whether Soghigian is entitled to relief for alleged earned time credits	Requests order for DOC to comply with statutes	Not a sentencing or conviction challenge	No relief under current motion
Whether postconviction court properly denied motion	Claims DOC’s actions are unconstitutional	DOC decisions on earned time are discretionary	Denial affirmed; DOC is necessary party in separate suit
Applicability of prior postconviction earned time cases	Relies on Turman; asserts prior cases allowed Crim. P. 35(c) review	Said cases distinguishable and not controlling	Court agreed cases were distinguishable

Naranjo v. Johnson, 770 P.2d 784 (Colo. 1989) (Crim. P. 35(c) not available to challenge parole eligibility and parole statutes)
Renneke v. Kautzky, 782 P.2d 343 (Colo. 1989) (DOC discretion in granting earned time credits)