2018 COA 22
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Matthew Joslin pleaded guilty in two separate prosecutor-reduced plea bargains (2009 and 2013); the 2013 plea resulted in a DOC sentence and a restitution order of $1,520.
- When Joslin failed to pay restitution within a year, statutory interest was charged under § 18-1.3-603(4)(b).
- Joslin filed nearly identical Crim. P. 35(c) motions claiming he was not told (by the court or counsel) he would be required to pay interest and that he would not have pled guilty if he had known.
- The district court denied the motions without a hearing, finding the allegations insufficient to warrant relief.
- On appeal, the court considered whether interest on unpaid restitution is a direct consequence of a plea (imposing a duty to advise) or a collateral consequence (no such duty).
- The Court of Appeals concluded interest is a collateral consequence and that neither the court nor defense counsel had a duty to advise Joslin; the denial without a hearing was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Joslin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court must advise a defendant that unpaid restitution will accrue statutory interest | The court need not advise because interest is collateral | Court or counsel failed to inform Joslin that restitution would accrue interest; had he known he would not have pled | Interest on unpaid restitution is a collateral consequence; no duty for the court to advise; affirmed |
| Whether defense counsel had a duty to advise Joslin about interest on unpaid restitution | Counsel not required absent reason to know the consequence was highly significant to client | Counsel was ineffective for failing to advise about interest, warranting relief | Counsel had no reason to believe interest was highly significant here; no duty to advise |
| Whether Joslin’s allegations entitled him to a Crim. P. 35(c) hearing | Allegations, even if true, do not state a claim because duty did not exist | Allegations entitled him to a hearing because lack of advisement affected plea voluntariness | Allegations were insufficient; record refutes claim; summary denial proper |
| Nature of interest (direct vs. collateral consequence) | Interest is automatic and thus a direct consequence requiring advisal | Interest is not definite/immediate because it depends on future nonpayment; thus collateral | Interest is collateral—contingent on future payment behavior—so no court advisal duty |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Campbell, 174 P.3d 860 (Colo. App. 2007) (distinguishing direct and collateral consequences for plea advisals)
- People v. Birdsong, 958 P.2d 1124 (Colo. 1998) (discussing Crim. P. 11 advisal requirements)
- Ardolino v. People, 69 P.3d 73 (Colo. 2003) (standards for denying postconviction relief without a hearing)
- People v. Garcia, 815 P.2d 937 (Colo. 1991) (defense counsel may need to advise of collateral consequences when highly significant to client)
- White v. Denver Dist. Court, 766 P.2d 632 (Colo. 1988) (postconviction relief and pleading requirements)