2020 COA 47
Colo. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1994 Wardell pled guilty to fraud by check and received an 18‑month sentence; the case generated multiple postconviction collateral filings and appeals over many years.
- Earlier appeals and remands required the trial court to hold an evidentiary Crim. P. 35(c) hearing on whether plea counsel threatened withdrawal and whether the plea was involuntary.
- At the scheduled evidentiary hearing Wardell was confined in federal prison in South Carolina and requested a writ to appear in person; the court denied the writ.
- Video conferencing was not available; Wardell waived objections and testified by telephone while represented in person by counsel.
- The postconviction court found Wardell not credible, denied relief on ineffective‑assistance and involuntariness claims, and Wardell appealed the denial of in‑person presence and the substantive rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant has a constitutional right to be physically present at a Crim. P. 35(c) evidentiary hearing | People: No; constitutional right to be present applies to critical trial stages, not postconviction collateral proceedings | Wardell: He had a right to appear in person at the 35(c) hearing | Court: No constitutional right; presence at 35(c) hearings is not required by rule either; it is discretionary |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying Wardell a writ to appear in person | People: Denial was reasonable given out‑of‑state confinement, expense/delay, and technological limits | Wardell: Denial prejudiced his ability to present credibility and demeanor evidence | Court: No abuse of discretion; attempted video, telephone testimony waived by Wardell, record supported adequate opportunity to testify |
| Whether plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance | People: Counsel’s performance was not deficient and the record refutes Wardell’s claims | Wardell: Counsel threatened to withdraw and coerced his plea, meeting Strickland prejudice and deficiency | Court: Denied relief — factual findings (counsel prepared, advised, and did not coerce) supported conclusion counsel was effective |
| Whether Wardell’s guilty plea was involuntary | People: Plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by plea colloquy and written questionnaire | Wardell: Plea was coerced and therefore involuntary | Court: Plea was voluntary; record (colloquy, signed questionnaire, sworn statements) rebutted coercion claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205 (1952) (postconviction collateral proceedings are distinct from trial; presence not automatically required)
- United States v. Bergman, 746 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 2014) (district court discretion over presence at collateral proceedings)
- Bucci v. United States, 662 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2011) (presence at collateral review hearings is discretionary)
- Zoll v. People, 2018 CO 70 (2018) (constitutional right to be present applies to critical stages of prosecution)
- Dunlap v. People, 173 P.3d 1054 (Colo. 2007) (standard for reviewing mixed questions in ineffective‑assistance claims)
- People v. Turman, 659 P.2d 1368 (Colo. 1983) (Crim. P. 35(c) proceedings governed by equitable principles; ABA guidance relevant)
- Hagos v. People, 2012 CO 63 (2012) (harmless‑error review for preserved nonconstitutional trial errors)