Peo v. Soghigian
23CA1028
| Colo. Ct. App. | Sep 12, 2024Background
- Ben Robert Soghigian pleaded guilty in Colorado to forgery, theft, identity theft, and aggravated motor vehicle theft across four cases, receiving an aggregate 16-year sentence to be served concurrently with an ongoing eight-year sentence in Arizona.
- In 2022, while still incarcerated in Arizona, Soghigian filed a pro se postconviction motion (Crim. P. 35(c)), later supplemented by counsel, challenging the Department of Corrections' (DOC) refusal to review his Arizona prison performance for Colorado earned time credits.
- Soghigian argued that the DOC’s failure to conduct this review was both a statutory violation and an as-applied equal protection violation.
- The postconviction court denied the motion, determining Soghigian’s claims related to DOC administration, not the unlawfulness of the sentence or the constitutionality of the statute itself, and thus were not cognizable under Crim. P. 35(c).
- The Colorado Court of Appeals reviewed this denial and affirmed the lower court's decision.
Issues
| Issue | Soghigian's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC’s failure to review out-of-state earned time credit eligibility is a proper claim under Crim. P. 35(c) | DOC must review out-of-state prison records for earned time eligibility under Colorado law; failure to do so is unconstitutional as-applied | Soghigian’s claim is not about the sentence or statute, but about DOC administration, which is not proper under Crim. P. 35(c) | Such claims must be brought in a civil action against DOC, not through postconviction relief |
| Does DOC’s administration of earned time credit implicate postconviction relief? | The DOC's refusal is a violation of statutory and constitutional rights, cognizable under Crim. P. 35(c) | Earned time review lies solely with DOC, not courts or prosecutors; Crim. P. 35(c) does not apply | DOC is the right party for such claims; postconviction relief is not the forum |
| Did Soghigian allege a right to release triggering Crim. P. 35(c) jurisdiction? | Initially claimed, but abandoned right to release argument in supplemental filings and on appeal | Soghigian’s only remaining issues are administrative, not a right to release | No right to release was pursued; Crim. P. 35(c) relief unavailable |
| Are prior cases allowing earned time claims under Crim. P. 35(c) controlling? | Relied on cases that permitted earned time review under Crim. P. 35(c) | Differentiated those cases as non-precedential on proper forum for such claims, and factually distinct | Prior cases do not control; current claims must be addressed in a civil action |
Key Cases Cited
- Verrier v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 77 P.3d 875 (Colo. App. 2003) (DOC has discretionary authority over earned time credit decisions)
- Renneke v. Kautzky, 782 P.2d 343 (Colo. 1989) (DOC’s discretion on earned time and court’s limited role)
- Naranjo v. Johnson, 770 P.2d 784 (Colo. 1989) (Crim. P. 35(c) is limited to claims for release or invalid conviction)
- People v. Carillo, 70 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2002) (Claims against DOC regarding sentence administration must be brought as civil actions)
- People v. Huerta, 87 P.3d 266 (Colo. App. 2004) (Challenging DOC administration requires civil action, not Crim. P. 35(c))
- People v. Shackelford, 729 P.2d 1016 (Colo. App. 1986) (Requests for recalculation of credit must ripen to a right to release claim before Crim. P. 35(c) applies)