People v. Wood
2016 COA 134
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 1986 Patrick K. Wood was convicted of first‑degree felony murder, second‑degree murder, aggravated robbery, and menacing; the court merged some convictions and imposed a life sentence.
- Wood pursued postconviction relief for years, including federal habeas litigation; the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the State forfeited a statute‑of‑limitations defense to his federal petition.
- The Tenth Circuit held the Double Jeopardy Clause barred two murder convictions for the same homicide and issued a conditional writ: the felony murder conviction would be vacated unless a Colorado state court vacated either murder conviction within a reasonable time.
- After the federal district court entered a conditional grant, the Colorado People filed a "motion for resentencing" in state court asking the court to vacate Wood’s second‑degree murder conviction (and notify the court of the federal conditional grant).
- The Adams County District Court vacated the second‑degree murder and aggravated robbery convictions; Wood appealed, arguing the People lacked authority to file the motion and the state court lacked authority to grant it.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals held the People had authority to file the motion and the state district court had subject‑matter jurisdiction, but the state court lacked authority (ancillary, inherent, and under Crim. P. 35(c)) to vacate the second‑degree murder conviction; the court vacated the state order and remanded with directions to vacate the felony murder conviction instead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Wood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Do the People have authority to file the motion to "resentence" / notify the state court of the federal conditional writ? | Under §20‑1‑102 the People have general authority to appear; no statute bars notifying the state court or moving to have a conviction vacated. | The People lacked authority to file the motion and could not use Crim. P. 35(c) to act for the defendant. | Held: People had authority to file the motion to notify and to request vacatur. |
| 2. Does the state district court have subject‑matter jurisdiction over the matter? | The court has general criminal jurisdiction under Colo. Const. art. VI and §13‑1‑115 supports courts' powers. | Court lacked jurisdiction because the federal writ and federal proceedings control. | Held: Court had subject‑matter jurisdiction. |
| 3. Did the state district court have authority (ancillary, inherent, or under Crim. P. 35) to vacate the second‑degree murder conviction? | Ancillary or inherent authority (or §13‑1‑115) allowed the court to correct the double‑jeopardy error and maximize verdicts. | Court lacked authority; Crim. P. 35(c) authorizes only defendant‑filed postconviction relief; federal conditional writ did not compel state action. | Held: Court lacked authority — no ancillary jurisdiction, no inherent authority, and Crim. P. 35(c) did not authorize the People to invoke it. |
| 4. Remedy: Which conviction should be vacated to remedy the federal double‑jeopardy ruling? | The People requested vacatur of the second‑degree murder conviction (as they did in state court). | Wood argued the felony murder conviction was the one he had challenged in federal court and thus should be vacated. | Held: Because state court lacked authority to vacate the second‑degree conviction, court vacated the state order and remanded with directions to vacate the felony murder conviction and correct the mittimus. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Spykstra, 234 P.3d 662 (Colo. 2010) (district attorney has general authority under §20‑1‑102 to appear in proceedings unless a statute or rule limits that authority)
- People in Interest of E.G., 368 P.3d 946 (Colo. 2016) (a court lacks authority to act absent express constitutional, statutory, or rule‑based authorization for the particular relief sought)
- Wood v. Milyard, 721 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir. 2013) (Double Jeopardy prohibits multiple convictions for single homicide; ordered conditional vacatur unless state court acted)
- Wood v. Milyard, 132 S. Ct. 1826 (U.S. 2012) (Supreme Court held the State forfeited its statute‑of‑limitations defense to Wood’s federal habeas petition)