People v. Hicks
262 P.3d 916
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- A.B. was assaulted in August 1992; DNA from preserved samples matched Hicks.
- Case lay dormant until a 2004 cold-case review led to DNA testing; match confirmed by a saliva sample in 2005.
- People charged Hicks with aggravated first-degree sexual assault in 2006; defense moved to dismiss as time-barred, and for due process/ex post facto grounds in 2007.
- District court did not rule on the motion to dismiss; an amended complaint added a second sexual assault count related to the same 1992 attack in 2007.
- Hicks pled guilty to both counts in December 2007 in exchange for concurrent 25-year sentences; Hicks then pro se moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in 2008, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §16-5-401(8)(a.5) applies to this case | People contends indefinite prosecution is authorized under (a.5). | Hicks argues no applicability because the offense timing/identity criteria are not met. | Indefinite statute applies; no time limit. |
| Whether retroactive application violates ex post facto | People asserts extension is permissible for not yet time-barred prosecutions. | Hicks contends retroactivity penalizes him. | No ex post facto violation; extension applies to not-yet-time-barred charges. |
| Whether due process independently invalidates application | People relies on retroactivity being constitutionally permissible. | Hicks claims due process concerns separate from ex post facto. | Court declines to address independently; no separate due process error found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Romero v. People, 179 P.3d 984 (Colo.2007) (statutory plain-language interpretation governs when unambiguous)
- Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (U.S. 2003) (ex post facto concerns guard revive-time-barred prosecutions)
- People v. Whitesell, 729 P.2d 985 (Colo.1986) (extension for not yet time-barred prosecutions permissible)
- People v. Midgley, 714 P.2d 902 (Colo.1986) (legislative extension without ex post facto if not time-barred)
- People v. Zapotocky, 869 P.2d 1234 (Colo.1994) (ex post facto framework in Colorado)
- United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399 (10th Cir.1992) (federal analogue on retroactivity timing)