Peo v. Soghigian
23CA1029
| Colo. Ct. App. | Sep 12, 2024Background
- Ben Robert Soghigian pleaded guilty to multiple crimes in four consolidated Colorado cases, receiving a total of 16 years in Colorado to run concurrently with an 8-year Arizona sentence.
- The plea resolution led to the dismissal of various other charges and cases in Colorado.
- Soghigian is currently imprisoned in Arizona.
- He filed a Crim. P. 35(c) postconviction motion, claiming the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) failed to review his Arizona performance for earned time credit eligibility, allegedly violating his statutory and constitutional rights.
- The postconviction court summarily denied the motion, concluding the claims should be brought in a civil action against the DOC, not under Crim. P. 35(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument (Soghigian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is DOC’s failure to review out-of-state earned time credits a proper Crim. P. 35(c) claim? | DOC review is discretionary and outside scope of 35(c) | DOC’s inaction violates statutory/constitutional rights | Not cognizable under Crim. P. 35(c), must file civil action |
| Does the claim constitute a challenge to the sentence imposed or merely its administration? | Sentence itself not challenged, only DOC actions | DOC's administration impacts sentence legality | Not about sentence imposed, only DOC acts; not for 35(c) |
| Is the DOC a necessary party for this type of relief? | Relief must be directed at DOC, which isn't a party | Relief should be available through postconviction | DOC is necessary; must proceed as civil action |
| Does Soghigian state a constitutional violation claim under Crim. P. 35(c)? | No, as claim relates to administration, not sentencing | Equal protection violated by application | No constitutional claim under 35(c); must seek other remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Turman, 659 P.2d 1368 (Colo. 1983) (postconviction court can consider constitutional rights violations by earned time statutes under pre-1979 law)
- Renneke v. Kautzky, 782 P.2d 343 (Colo. 1989) (earned time credits are in DOC discretion)
- Verrier v. Colo. Dep't of Corr., 77 P.3d 875 (Colo. App. 2003) (DOC has discretion over earned time credits)
- People v. Carillo, 70 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2002) (actions against DOC for its acts/omissions must be civil, not under Crim. P. 35(c))