Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01036/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01036-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED sTATEs couRT oF APPEALS r 1 L 

TENTH CIRCUIT United St!ltf§ ~m.-t uf Appeals 

MANUEL SESARIO DEPINEDA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

JUDGE TURSI, Colorado Appeals ) 

Judge; JUDGE HUME, Colorado Appeals) 

Judge; JUDGE ROTHENBERG, Colorado ) 

Appeals Judge; COLORADO COURT OF ) 

APPEALS, Division 2, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ien.th Circuit 

JU J 2 7 19~1 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-1036 

(D.C. No. 90-F-2227) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Manuel Sesario Depineda, in what purports to be a 

civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, sues three 

Colorado Court of Appeals judges. The exact basis of his claim is 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-1036 Document: 010110128250 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 1 
,./ -· 

I . 

not entirely clear. In his complaint, plaintiff seems to argue 

that the Colorado appellate judges acted in a total absence of 

jurisdiction when they reviewed and affirmed his conviction of 

first degree murder under Colorado law. According to plaintiff, 

his conviction, which was entered after a jury trial in 1988, was 

for an offense that occurred before 1972, and under Colorado law 

an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a sentence for any 

offense occurring before 1972. See People v. Silvola, 198 Colo. 

228, 597 P.2d 583, 584 (1979); People v. Knight, 185 Colo. 364, 

525 P.2d 425, 426 (1974). Arguing that the court's exercise of 

unauthorized jurisdiction over him violated his constitutional 

rights, he requests that his sentence be vacated and that he be 

awarded damages against the individual judges. 

Under this theory, plaintiff has not alleged any infringement 

on his constitutional rights. We do not believe the Colorado 

Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction, but even if it did, 

plaintiff was no worse off from the affirmance of his conviction 

than if he had no right to appeal. Moreover, plaintiff himself 

brought the appeal; he cannot argue now that it should not have 

been heard. 

On appeal to this court, however, plaintiff has focused his 

claim. When he was convicted of first degree murder, the jury 

apparently stated that "it was never proven the defendant fired 

the fatal shot." See Appellant's Opening Brief, Appendix, Ex. I. 

Plaintiff asserts that this amounted to a jury finding that he was 

an accessory during the fact, and because the crime was committed 

before October 1, 1972, he should only have been tried and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1036 Document: 010110128250 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 2 
" 

sentenced under the pre-1972 Colorado law. He contends that under 

the pre-1972 law an accessory during the fact is guilty of a 

misdemeanor and could be imprisoned only for a term not exceeding 

two years. Colo. Rev. Stat.§ 40-1-13 (1963). After 1972 an accessory was punished as a principal. See Colo. Rev. Stat.§ 18-1-

603. In considering plaintiff's state court appeal, the defendant 

judges found "contrary to defendant's assertion, we note that 

under the statute at issue, the crime of accessory is not separate 

and distinct from the offense of first degree murder. Defendant 

was therefore properly charged with the offense as defined at the 

time the murder was committed." Appellant's Opening Brief, Ex. A 

at 2 (citations omitted). 

Although we do not consider on appeal theories that were not 

raised before the district court, see Graham v. City of Oklahoma 

City, 859 F.2d 142, 146 n.6 (10th Cir. 1988); Lone Star Steel Co. 

v. United Mine Workers, 851 F.2d 1239, 1243 (10th Cir. 1988), we 

liberally construe a prose plaintiff's complaint, see Hall v. 

Bellmon, No. 90-6326, slip op. at 6 (10th Cir. June 3, 1991). And 

even if we were to construe plaintiff's complaint to include a 

challenge to the crime for which he was convicted, he does not 

state a cognizable claim. 

Judges have absolute immunity from§ 1983 claims unless they 

act in a complete absence of jurisdiction. See Stump v. Sparkman, 

435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 

1431, 1434-36 (10th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff's reliance on Colorado 

law that limits an appellate court's jurisdiction to review 

criminal sentences only to those offenses committed after 1972 is 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1036 Document: 010110128250 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 3 
misplaced. The defendant judges in the present case reviewed 

plaintiff's conviction, not his sentence, to determine if he was 

properly charged with first degree murder. In so acting the 

defendants were functioning in a judicial capacity on a matter 

within their jurisdiction, whether or not their interpretation of 

the law was correct. Thus, the rule of absolute immunity applies, 

and the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim for 

damages. 

Viewed as a petition for relief in the nature of habeas 

corpus under 28 u.s.c. § 2254--because plaintiff asks for vacation 

of his sentence--the case presents only an issue of interpretation 

of state law. As to this matter the state courts are the final 

arbiters. Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 691 (1975). The 

state court's determination that plaintiff, though he may not have 

been proven to have fired the fatal shot, was nevertheless guilty 

of murder as a principal under the statute as it existed at the 

time of the crime, subject to being punished accordingly, raises 

no issue of federal constitutional law. Therefore, plaintiff can 

make out no claim justifying a federal court vacation of his 

sentence. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-1036 Document: 010110128250 Date Filed: 06/27/1991 Page: 4