Peo v. Soghigian
23CA1028
| Colo. Ct. App. | Sep 12, 2024Background
- Ben Robert Soghigian pleaded guilty to multiple charges in four Colorado criminal cases as part of a global disposition, receiving an aggregate 16-year sentence to the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC).
- The Colorado sentence was ordered to run concurrently with an 8-year sentence he was already serving in Arizona.
- Soghigian remains incarcerated in Arizona and sought postconviction relief under Crim. P. 35(c), arguing the DOC had not reviewed his Arizona prison performance for earned time credits as required by statute.
- He also raised an equal protection claim, asserting the DOC's failure to review his earned time eligibility violated his constitutional rights.
- The postconviction court denied his motion, finding that his claims challenged DOC administrative decisions rather than the lawfulness or constitutionality of his sentence.
- Soghigian appealed, but also abandoned any claim that he had already served the entirety of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crim. P. 35(c) is the proper avenue to challenge the DOC's earned time procedures | Soghigian claims the DOC must review his eligibility for earned time credit under Colorado law, and that postconviction proceedings are appropriate. | State argues Crim. P. 35(c) only permits challenges to the lawfulness of the sentence, not DOC actions. | Crim. P. 35(c) relief is unavailable for DOC administrative practices; proper action is civil claim against DOC. |
| Whether Soghigian's constitutional equal protection rights were violated by DOC's alleged inaction | Soghigian claims failing to review his Arizona record for earned time is unconstitutional as applied. | State maintains administrative implementation of earned time statutes does not raise a sentencing constitutional issue. | No cognizable constitutional violation since claim concerns DOC conduct, not sentence imposed by court. |
| Whether Soghigian has a cognizable right to earned time review while serving an out-of-state sentence | Soghigian contends Colorado statutes require such a review. | State notes earned time credit is at DOC discretion and not part of court's sentence. | DOC has discretion, and proper forum for challenge is direct action against the DOC. |
| Whether the postconviction court erred in denying an order against the DOC under Crim. P. 35(c) | Soghigian seeks court order compelling DOC to act. | State argues the DOC is not a party to postconviction proceedings and courts cannot compel DOC under 35(c). | No error; DOC must be sued directly for such administrative challenges. |
Key Cases Cited
- Verrier v. Colo. Dep't of Corr., 77 P.3d 875 (Colo. App. 2003) (earned time credits are within DOC's discretion, not subject to judicial review in postconviction)
- Renneke v. Kautzky, 782 P.2d 343 (Colo. 1989) (clarifies DOC's discretion over earned time decisions)
- Naranjo v. Johnson, 770 P.2d 784 (Colo. 1989) (Crim. P. 35(c) limited to claims for release or conviction set-aside)
- People v. Carillo, 70 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2002) (DOC administrative actions are not proper for postconviction relief)
- People v. Huerta, 87 P.3d 266 (Colo. App. 2004) (challenges to DOC parole application must be civil, not postconviction)
- People v. Shackelford, 729 P.2d 1016 (Colo. App. 1986) (recalculation of credits is not ripe until release is at issue)