2013 COA 50
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Roberts was convicted on COCCA-related charges and multiple conspiracies involving computer crime, theft, forgery, and possession of forged instruments.
- He operated a scheme to pass counterfeit payroll checks by copying legitimate checks and distributing them to associates to cash at grocery stores.
- Police found hundreds of sheets, checks, and computer/forensic resources in his hotel room; evidence included materials to manufacture checks and lists of accomplices.
- Roberts was on parole at arrest; a 61-count indictment was returned on July 1, 2005, and parole was revoked; counsel was appointed on July 14, 2005.
- On August 29, 2005 Roberts filed a pro se document referencing a request for trial within the UMDDA period, though the court and prosecutor later lacked knowledge of it until November 10, 2005.
- A series of continuances—granted over Roberts’ objections but at counsel’s request—pushed trial from April 3, 2006 to November 27, 2006, with new counsel substituted mid-course.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Roberts invoke UMDDA protections and when? | Roberts invoked UMDDA protections via August 29, 2005 filing. | He contends UMDDA rights were triggered earlier and should have been timely recognized. | UMDDA rights were not perfected until November 10, 2005; 180-day period commenced then. |
| Was Roberts brought to trial within 180 days under UMDDA? | Prosecution needed to comply within 180 days of effective invocation. | Any delays were not properly accounted for under UMDDA. | No; trial occurred after November 10, 2005, beyond the 180-day window. |
| Were the UMDDA delays properly waived or extended for good cause? | Delays by court and prosecutors should toll the period. | No express waiver by Roberts; extensions must be supported by good cause. | Good causes existed for continuances to protect effective counsel; no improper waiver. |
| Did the trial court’s handling of counsel substitution implicate the Sixth Amendment? | Counsel withdrawal could threaten effective representation and integrity of proceedings. | Withdrawal was necessary to address conflicts of interest and ensure effective representation. | The record supported substitution; continuance to prepare new counsel was reasonable and not reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fleming v. People, 900 P.2d 19 (Colo. 1995) (extension for good cause may toll UMDDA period)
- Anderson v. People, 649 P.2d 720 (Colo. App. 1982) (continuances may extend speedy-trial periods)
- Monroe v. People, 907 P.2d 690 (Colo. App. 1995) (withdrawal of counsel may justify delay for substitution)
- Gallagher v. Dist. Court, 933 P.2d 583 (Colo. 1997) (delay may be necessary to protect right to effective counsel)
- Gess v. People, 250 P.3d 734 (Colo. App. 2010) (pro se filing directed to UMDDA must be properly served and addressed)
- Marez v. People, 916 P.2d 543 (Colo. App. 1995) (scheduling delays attributable to defense counsel can delay trial)