People v. Ray
2012 COA 32
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Ray was sentenced five years earlier for attempted murder, first degree assault, and accessory to murder and appealed but never filed an opening brief.
- He obtained eight extensions to file the appellate record and then moved to supplement it five times; all those motions were granted, delaying briefing.
- In 2011 Ray obtained a limited remand to settle and supplement the record; the trial court conducted the remand, received evidence, and issued written findings.
- Ray then moved for clarification in this court; after briefing, we directed oral argument and prepared to rule on the remand proceedings.
- This opinion provides guidance on CAR 10 procedures, determines which requested items belong in the record, and concludes the limited remand is discharged and the appeal recertified.
- The opinion also notes related sentencing in a separate death-penalty case and cites related compliance principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAR 10 allows supplementation without a further remand | Ray seeks supplementation under CAR 10(e)/(c) | People contend only certain items are within CAR 10 scope | Partial supplementation allowed; remand discharged; record to be corrected using CAR 10 procedures. |
| Whether October 13, 2006 proceedings transcript and 10(c) statement should be added | Ray contends these items are material and omitted | The items are within scope and properly certified | Granted; trial court to certify partial transcript and to settle Ray's 10(c) statement. |
| Whether other proposed items fall within CAR 10 and should be added | Ray seeks bench-conference reconstructions, photos, juror interactions, sealed documents, etc. | These items are outside CAR 10 scope or not properly preserved | Denied; items outside scope or not properly preserved cannot be added. |
| Whether late correction of the record requires a limited remand or further procedures | Ray urges continued correction | Procedural mechanisms already exist; no further remand needed | Remand discharged; corrective actions to proceed under CAR 10 as directed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Molitor v. Anderson, 795 P.2d 266 (Colo.1990) (trial courts aid perfection of the appellate record)
- United States v. Mori, 444 F.2d 240 (5th Cir.1971) (deference to trial court on corrected records absent intentional falsification)
- United States v. Kelly, 535 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir.2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial-court determinations)
- People v. Wolfe, 9 P.3d 1137 (Colo.App.1999) (late correction of the record possible in exceptional cases)
- People v. Saathoff, 837 P.2d 239 (Colo.App.1992) (late-filed corrections typically denied unless justified)
- Inland Bulk Transfer Co. v. Cummins Engine Co., 332 F.3d 1007 (6th Cir.2003) (denying supplementation of items never before presented to trial court)
- Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir.2000) (inherent authority not assumed absent special circumstances)
- Keskey, 863 F.2d 474 (7th Cir.1988) (review of trial court findings on settled matters)