2015 COA 142
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Michael Chipman was convicted of multiple felonies stemming from two incidents at his ex-wife's marital home.
- The first incident (October 2000) involved a drunken entry with a pistol; he was charged with trespass, carrying a concealed weapon, and prohibited use of a weapon.
- The second incident (September 2001) involved forcible entry, a gun, an injury to the victim, and related charges, including attempted murder and burglary.
- Direct appeal reversed most convictions from the second incident and remanded for new trial; some convictions remained for bail-bond and restraining-order violations.
- On postconviction review, three ineffective-assistance claims and an incompetence claim were raised; the postconviction court denied relief and ordered a retroactive competency evaluation.
- The Court of Appeals held one issue moot (first-trial ineffectiveness) and affirmed the denial of the remaining claims, with the mootness determining the scope of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of first-trial ineffective-assistance claim | People argued relief on direct appeal wiped slate clean | Chipman contends not moot; relief could be broader | Moot; appeal on this issue dismissed |
| Mootness/consideration of blood-testing claim from first trial | Blood-test evidence would show own blood, aiding suicide defense | No explicit link to bail/ restraining convictions; merits not reached | Moot to consider for first trial; second-trial blood claim denied on merits (no hearing) |
| Miranda-related suppression of statements at second trial | Suppression issue meritorious; trial counsel ineffective for not objecting | Statements not product of custodial interrogation; no prejudice shown | Not meritorious; denial of suppression claim without hearing affirmed |
| Impeachment of the victim with prescription-drug evidence | Impeachment would attack credibility of victim | Impeachment theory unsupported by evidence and conclusory | Claim speculative; denial without hearing affirmed |
| Defendant’s competence at the first trial; second retroactive competency evaluation | Court should reassess competency; possible incompetence | Second evaluation unnecessary; insufficient good cause | Court did not abuse discretion; findings adequate; no second evaluation required |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Ardolino v. People, 69 P.3d 73 (Colo. 2003) (defines reasonable assistance and prejudice standards)
- People v. Osorio, 170 P.3d 796 (Colo. App. 2007) (summary denial; de novo review of postconviction rulings)
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969) (clean slate doctrine; retrial as remedy for reversal of conviction)
- Williams v. State, 574 So. 2d 876 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990) (recognizes mootness of ineffective-assistance claim after retrial)