People v. Duran
2015 COA 141
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Jaime Nolan Duran was convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault, menacing, stalking, and violating a protective order and sentenced to life; his direct appeal and earlier postconviction appeals were unsuccessful.
- Duran filed a Crim. P. 35(c) postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; the trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, issuing a detailed written order stating it had reviewed the record.
- On appeal from the denial, Duran (through counsel) omitted trial transcripts from the appellate record and stated none were necessary because no evidentiary hearing had been held.
- Duran argued the court should remand for a hearing on his ineffective-assistance claims and that the trial court was limited to the facts alleged in his motion; he also asserted the People had stipulated to certain facts.
- The People argued, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that because Duran failed to include trial transcripts, the appellate record is incomplete and the court must presume omitted material supports the trial court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial transcripts were required in the appellate record when challenging summary denial of a Crim. P. 35(c) motion | People: appellant must designate the record, and absent transcripts we presume omitted material supports the judgment | Duran: no transcripts required because no evidentiary hearing was held and the motion’s allegations alone create the record for review | Held: Appellant must include trial transcripts when necessary; omission requires presuming the record supports the trial court, so affirmance is required |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance claims | People: denial proper where motion, files, and record show no entitlement to relief | Duran: he should have received a hearing to present evidence not contained in the record | Held: Denial proper; court may summarily deny under Crim. P. 35(c) when record refutes claims or allegations are conclusory |
| Whether the trial court improperly relied on the record when Duran did not supply trial citations | People: court may take judicial notice of its file and review entire record | Duran: court was limited to the facts alleged in his motion and any stipulation | Held: Trial court properly reviewed the record; stipulation did not preclude review and parties did not stipulate to record contents for appeal |
| Whether specific ineffective-assistance allegations (e.g., failure to present gunshot-residue evidence; waiver of presence) required reversal | People: those claims rely on trial evidence; without transcripts the appellate court must presume the trial court’s findings are correct | Duran: trial testimony would show error and prejudice | Held: Claims fail on appeal because the necessary trial transcripts were omitted; affirmance required |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Davis v. People, 871 P.2d 769 (Colo. 1994) (applying Strickland in Colorado)
- Ardolino v. People, 69 P.3d 73 (Colo. 2003) (Crim. P. 35(c) may be summarily denied when motion, files, and record show no entitlement to relief)
- People v. Venzor, 121 P.3d 260 (Colo. App. 2005) (circumstances under which summary denial of Crim. P. 35(c) is appropriate)
- People v. Wells, 776 P.2d 386 (Colo. 1989) (presumption that omitted portions of the record support the judgment)
- People v. Durapau, 280 P.3d 42 (Colo. App. 2011) (appellate briefing must contain record citations; failure may warrant sanctions)