People v. Pendleton
2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 1616
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2004 Pendleton gave birth in a public restroom and discarded the newborn, who was later found dead; she was charged with first-degree murder and child abuse resulting in death.
- Pendleton pleaded guilty to child abuse resulting in death under a plea agreement dismissing the murder charge and capping sentence exposure at 16–40 years; the trial court sentenced her to 40 years.
- Nearly three years later she moved for postconviction relief under Crim. P. 35(c) seeking to withdraw her plea, alleging incompetence at the time of plea, a nonknowing/invalid plea, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- After a 10-day evidentiary hearing the postconviction court denied relief; Pendleton appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed (de novo legal issues; deferential review to factual findings and credibility) and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retrospective competency determination | State: court may evaluate competency retrospectively if sufficient contemporaneous evidence exists | Pendleton: postconviction court wrongly found her competent at plea time | Affirmed — court had sufficient contemporaneous evaluations, transcripts, and witness testimony to make a retrospective competency finding and did not abuse discretion |
| Knowing, voluntary, intelligent plea | State: plea was valid because defendant was competent and understood proceedings | Pendleton: plea was not knowing/voluntary because she was incompetent when she pleaded | Affirmed — competency finding supported; therefore plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to obtain pre-plea competency hearing | State: even if counsel erred, no prejudice because retrospective finding was competence | Pendleton: counsel ineffective for not pursuing competency hearing | Affirmed — no prejudice shown; record indicates competency so a hearing would not likely change outcome |
| Ineffective assistance — other allegations (abandoning insanity defense, failures to investigate/advise/present mitigation/consult re appeal) | State: counsel's strategic decisions were reasonable; investigations were based on available evidence; no reasonable probability of different outcome | Pendleton: counsel abandoned defenses, failed investigations, inadequately advised, failed to present mitigation, and failed to discuss appeal | Affirmed — court found counsel's performance within wide range of reasonable assistance and no prejudice demonstrated |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Simpson, 69 P.3d 79 (Colo. 2003) (conviction presumed valid; defendant bears burden in postconviction relief)
- People v. Ardolino, 69 P.3d 73 (Colo. 2003) (Strickland standards applied in Colorado)
- Blehm v. People, 817 P.2d 988 (Colo. 1991) (defense counsel’s first-hand competency evaluation is significant)
- People v. Chambers, 900 P.2d 1249 (Colo. App. 1994) (failure to investigate is prejudicial only if additional investigation would likely produce substantial evidence altering outcome)
- Naranjo v. People, 840 P.2d 319 (Colo. 1992) (discusses prejudice standard under Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice in plea context requires reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (counsel’s duty to consult about appeal and prejudice standard for lost appeals)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (wide range of reasonable professional assistance; deference to counsel’s strategic choices)
- Maynard v. Boone, 468 F.3d 665 (10th Cir. 2006) (retrospective competency determination upheld after substantial lapse of time)
- Clayton v. Gibson, 199 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 1999) (passage of time not insurmountable if contemporaneous evidence exists)