v. People, 2021 CO 40

Background

DePriest pled guilty (June 2016) to attempted sexual assault (class 5 felony) and third-degree assault (misdemeanor); the court imposed a four-year deferred judgment and sentence (DJS) on the felony and concurrent probation on the misdemeanor, including SOISP conditions.
In Sept. 2017 a probation officer alleged violations; the trial court revoked the DJS, entered judgment on the felony, resentenced DePriest to five years of SOISP, and reinstated misdemeanor probation.
DePriest appealed the 2017 revocation of his DJS, arguing certain DJS conditions were unconstitutional.
While that appeal was pending, DePriest violated SOISP in 2019; the court revoked SOISP and sentenced him to three years in prison; DePriest did not appeal that revocation.
The People moved to dismiss DePriest’s pending appeal as moot, arguing the 2019 SOISP revocation superseded the 2017 DJS revocation; a divided Colorado Court of Appeals granted dismissal. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court held the appeal is not moot because a successful appeal would vacate the conviction, reinstate the DJS, and reverse sentences resulting from the improperly imposed conviction; it vacated the court of appeals’ dismissal and remanded for merits review.

Issues

Issue	DePriest's Argument	People’s Argument	Held
Whether DePriest’s appeal of the 2017 DJS revocation is moot after his subsequent 2019 SOISP revocation and prison sentence	The appeal is not moot because reversal would vacate the conviction, reinstate the DJS, and undo later sentences	Moot: the 2019 SOISP revocation and new sentence supersede the 2017 revocation, so reversal would have no practical effect	Not moot: reversal could vacate the conviction, reinstate DJS, and reverse later sentences; appeal must proceed
Whether DePriest forfeited the controversy by not appealing the 2019 SOISP revocation	He was not required to appeal the later sentence; incentives and remedies differ and the DJS appeal could erase the felony	He should have appealed the 2019 revocation to keep a live controversy	No forfeiture: failure to appeal the later sentence does not render the DJS appeal moot or forfeited
Whether subsequent, independent violations (basis for the 2019 revocation) eliminate appellate relief even if DJS revocation was improper	Even if later misconduct occurred, those violations flowed only because the DJS had been revoked; court cannot speculate about hypotheticals	Later misconduct means relief would be meaningless; the 2019 revocation stands independently	Not persuasive: subsequent violations do not strip appellate courts of power to grant relief that would vacate the conviction and related sentences
Whether collateral-consequences exception preserves the appeal despite sentence served or changed	Collateral legal consequences from a conviction (firearm prohibitions, employment limits, impeachment, habitual offender exposure) keep the controversy live	Collateral consequences are not sufficient because later lawful sentences supersede earlier judgments	Collateral-consequences exception applies: possibility of legal disabilities means appeal is not moot

Key Cases Cited

Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) (explains collateral-consequences exception to mootness)
Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (1968) (conviction’s collateral consequences preserve a defendant’s interest post‑sentence)
Knox v. Service Employees Int’l Union, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (a party with a concrete interest, however small, prevents mootness)
Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) (mootness requires impossibility of granting any effectual relief)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (retained records and collateral consequences can preclude mootness)
Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (1946) (conviction’s disabilities survive satisfaction of sentence)
Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (1895) (classic statement that mootness arises when no effectual relief can be granted)
Anzures v. People, 670 P.2d 1258 (Colo. App. 1983) (reinstatement of deferred judgment required when an appellate court reverses revocation)