Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2017/02/23/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:14:02+00:00

Document:
CJD 16-02, “Court Appointments Through the Office of Respondent Parents’ Counsel,” Attachment B amended.
CJD 14-01, “Appointment of State-Funded Counsel in Juvenile Delinquency Cases,” Attachment B amended.
CJD 04-06, “Court Appointments Through the Office of the Child’s Representative,” Attachment A amended.
CJD 04-05, “Appointment and Payment Procedures for Court-appointed Counsel, Guardians ad litem, Child and Family Investigators, and Court Visitors paid by the Judicial Department in proceedings under Titles 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 (special respondents in dependency and neglect only), 22, 25.5, and 27, C.R.S.,” Attachment A amended.
CJD 04-04, “Appointment of State-Funded Counsel in Criminal Cases and For Contempt of Court,” Attachment B amended.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Youngquist v. Miner on Tuesday, February 21, 2017.
In this case, the Colorado Supreme Court considered whether Colorado has jurisdiction to award benefits for out-of-state work-related injuries and impose a statutory penalty on an employer under C.R.S. § 8-41-204 when the employer is not a citizen of Colorado and has no offices or operations in Colorado but hired a Colorado citizen within the state. The court concluded that under the facts of this case, Colorado lacks personal jurisdiction over the employer and therefore the employer cannot be subject to the Workers’ Compensation Act of Colorado, C.R.S. §§ 8-40-101 to 8-47-209. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Nagi v. People on Tuesday, February 21, 2017.
Defendant sought review of the Colorado Court of Appeals’ judgment affirming his conviction and sentence for sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust. See People v. Nagi, 2014 COA 12. In addition to rejecting his challenge to the legality of his sentence, the court of appeals rejected defendant’s assertion that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial, as prescribed by C.R.S. § 18-1-405. Defendant had argued that the district court lacked sufficient grounds to justify ordering a competency evaluation, and that the period during which defendant was under observation or examination was therefore not properly excluded from the calculation of the time within which trial was statutorily required. With one member of the panel dissenting, the appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the evaluation, notwithstanding its reference to defendant’s choice to proceed pro se as at least one of the reasons for questioning his competency, and that the evaluation period was therefore properly excluded and defendant’s statutory speedy trial right was not violated.
On Thursday, February 23, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued 10 published opinions and 19 unpublished opinions.
People in Interest of D.Z.B.
Francis v. Aspen Mountain Condominium Association, Inc.
Nibert v. Geico Casualty Co.
Munoz v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
The bill adds to the current descriptions of forcible detainer the act of a person preventing an owner from access to or possession of property by locking or changing the lock on the property.
The bill creates a procedure for the plaintiff to seek a temporary, mandatory injunction giving the plaintiff possession of the property if a complaint for forcible entry or detainer is filed. The procedure requires the plaintiff to store any personal property found on the property but allows the plaintiff to recover the costs of the storage.
The bill establishes as new crimes related to forcible entry and detainer the crimes of unlawful occupancy and unlawful reentry.
The bill was introduced into the House and assigned to the Judiciary and Appropriations committees.
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and three unpublished opinions.

References: v. 
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 § 18
 v. 
 v. 
 v.