People v. Cali
2020 CO 20
Colo.2020Background
- Osmundo Cali was convicted of theft/theft by receiving for stealing metal grates worth about $2,616 and adjudicated a habitual criminal; sentenced to 18 years.
- Court of appeals vacated the theft conviction (duplicative) but affirmed the receiving conviction, habitual findings, and sentence; mandate issued May 11, 2015.
- While Cali’s direct appeal was pending (June 5, 2013), the General Assembly amended the theft statute, reclassifying offenses and reducing the presumptive range; under the amendment Cali’s conduct would be a class six felony.
- Cali did not raise the amendatory statute on direct appeal. After his conviction became final he filed a pro se Crim. P. 35(c) motion claiming a substantial change in law and seeking resentencing under the new statute; the trial court denied relief.
- A divided Colorado Court of Appeals reversed based on People v. Boyd; the People sought certiorari.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted review and held Cali was not entitled to the benefit of the amendatory legislation because he first sought relief after his conviction became final; his ineffective-assistance claim was not properly before the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Cali) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant may obtain benefit of amendatory legislation that took effect while direct appeal was pending when the defendant first seeks relief after conviction is final | Amendatory changes cannot be applied once conviction is final; § 18-1-410(1)(f) bars relief after judgment is affirmed or appeal not timely | Cali: amendment took effect before finality of appeal; he is entitled to benefit despite filing post-finality | Held: No. Under § 18-1-410(1)(f) and precedent (Arellano/Herrera), relief is unavailable if first sought after conviction is final. |
| Whether § 18-1-410(1)(g) (catchall collateral-attack provision) allows bypassing the pre-finality bar in (1)(f) | (People) (1)(g) cannot be used to evade the pre-finality limit in (1)(f); that would nullify the statute’s rule | Cali: (1)(g) permits collateral attack to restore rights (and ineffective assistance claim could allow relief) | Held: (1)(g) does not swallow (1)(f); allowing that would render (1)(f) meaningless. |
| Whether People v. Boyd controls and requires relief | People: Boyd is distinguishable and limited to nonfinal convictions and to constitutional amendment that removed prosecutorial authority | Cali: Boyd requires applying the later-enacted law because it went into effect before his conviction became final | Held: Boyd is distinguishable — Boyd involved legalization that nullified prosecution authority and relief was sought before finality. |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the amendatory statute (raised first in SCOT) | People: Ineffective-assistance claim not presented in the district court; cannot be considered now | Cali: appellate counsel should have raised the change on direct appeal; this omission is constitutionally deficient | Held: Claim not properly before the Court. Pro se filings are construed liberally but the court will not consider new issues not raised below. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Boyd, 387 P.3d 755 (Colo. 2017) (held Amendment 64 nullified the State’s authority to prosecute certain nonfinal marijuana-possession convictions)
- People v. Stellabotte, 421 P.3d 174 (Colo. 2018) (interpreted § 18-1-410(1)(f) to permit amendatory legislation to benefit defendants when relief is sought before conviction becomes final)
- People v. Arellano, 524 P.2d 305 (Colo. 1974) (refused post-finality application of amendatory legislation that reduced penalties)
- People v. Herrera, 516 P.2d 626 (Colo. 1973) (explained separation-of-powers limit: after final conviction only executive clemency can reduce sentence)
- DePineda v. Price, 915 P.2d 1278 (Colo. 1996) (issues not raised in the district court generally will not be considered on appeal)