People v. Hunt, 412 P.3d 838

Robert Hunt pleaded guilty to an added count of second-degree murder and one sentencing-enhancement (crime of violence) count pursuant to a stipulated 30–40 year sentence; other counts were dismissed.
At the providency hearing, the factual basis described Hunt arranging with a shooter to find and kill a person involved in a prior home invasion; the shooter instead killed a different person Hunt did not intend to be killed. The court advised Hunt about complicity and that second-degree murder requires knowing causation of death. Hunt acknowledged discussion with counsel.
After plea and before sentencing Hunt sought to withdraw his plea, alleging counsel misadvised him that mere presence could support complicity liability for murder; plea counsel filed a Crim. P. 32(d) motion but the court proceeded to sentence Hunt to 40 years.
Hunt filed pro se and counseled Crim. P. 35(c) postconviction motions alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel for (1) incorrect pre-plea advice about complicity/intent elements and (2) failure to advise or consult about appealing denial of the motion to withdraw plea.
The trial court summarily denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding (a) counsel’s advice was consistent with the law (relying on People v. Candelaria and transferred intent) and (b) even if counsel failed to advise about appeal, Hunt identified no plausible appellate challenge and thus suffered no prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hunt was entitled to a hearing on his claim that plea counsel misadvised him about the mens rea/complicity elements of the murder plea	The People argued the record and Candelaria/transferred-intent principles support counsel’s advice and show no deficient performance	Hunt argued counsel told him mere presence could establish complicity liability for murder and failed to explain the dual intent/knowledge elements, so his plea was not knowing and intelligent	Reversed and remanded: taking the providency facts as true, transferred-intent and complicity may not support culpability here; counsel could have been deficient, so an evidentiary hearing is required
Whether Hunt was entitled to a hearing on his claim that plea counsel failed to advise/consult about an appeal of the denial of his motion to withdraw plea	The People argued the record showed no ruling to appeal and that Hunt identified no plausible appellate issue, so no prejudice from any failure to advise	Hunt pointed to repeated letters/motions and a pro se filing showing he wanted to challenge the plea; counsel failed to consult about appeal, so he lost the opportunity to timely appeal	Reversed and remanded: the record shows reason to think Hunt would want to appeal (Flores-Ortega); prejudice is whether he likely would have timely appealed, so an evidentiary hearing is required

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard requires deficient performance and prejudice)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (duty to consult about appeals when defendant likely would want to appeal)
People v. Candelaria, 107 P.3d 1080 (Colo. App. 2004) (transferred intent discussion applied to accomplice liability in first-degree murder context)
Marcy v. People, 628 P.2d 69 (Colo. 1981) (transferred intent applies to second-degree murder as general intent offense)
Bogdanov v. People, 941 P.2d 247 (Colo. 1997) (Colorado limits accomplice liability to crimes the accomplice intended to promote or facilitate)