Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/appeals/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:07:18+00:00

Document:
On Friday, January 19, 2018, the Colorado Supreme Court amended Chief Justice Directive 05-03, “Management Plan for Court Reporting and Recording Services.” This CJD was amended to reflect recent changes to C.A.R. 10 and 11, effective for appeals filed on or after January 1, 2018. The full text of the CJD is available here. For all of the Colorado Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Directives, click here.
The Colorado State Judicial Branch continues to revise its JDF forms. In February and March 2014, forms were revised in the Adoption, Appeals, Domestic, Garnishment & Judgment, Probate, and Seal My Case categories, and the filing fees were also amended. Additionally, forms were added to the Seal My Case category regarding juvenile contacts with law enforcement that do not result in referrals to other agencies.
Forms are available here for download in PDF format. Forms are available as Word documents from the State Judicial website.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Farmer v. Raemisch, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections on Thursday, January 2, 2014.
Inmate’s Civil Complaint—CRS § 13-17.5-102.7—Ineligibility to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fee—Denial of Access to Courts.
Plaintiff D. Thomas Farmer, a state inmate, filed a complaint alleging that unnamed prison employees had used excessive force against him, causing him various physical and psychological injuries. Farmer requested to proceed in forma pauperis—without prepaying the filing fee applicable to civil cases. The court determined that on three occasions, civil complaints filed by Farmer had been dismissed as frivolous, groundless, or malicious, or for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, or because they sought monetary relief from persons immune from such liability. The district court denied Farmer’s request and dismissed his complaint for failing to pay a filing fee.
On appeal, Farmer argued that CRS § 13-17.5-102.7 violates his right to access to the courts as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Court of Appeals disagreed. Because each of Farmer’s previous complaints was dismissed for at least one reason expressly identified by § 13-17.5-102.7, each qualifies as a dismissal. The trial court therefore did not err in denying Farmer’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. The order was affirmed.
The Colorado State Judicial Branch revised several JDF instructions in July across several categories. Additionally, the Affidavit of Service form (JDF 98) was revised, which affects many categories.
NOTE: Forms in the Domestic Relations and Probate categories will be addressed separately.
Click the links below to download the forms, or visit the Colorado State Judicial Branch website.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dooly v. People on Monday, June 10, 2013.
Post-conviction Relief—Crim.P. 35(c)—Crim.P. 12(a)—Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.
Defendant Joshua Dooly sought review of the court of appeals’ judgment in People v. Dooly (No. 10CA1751), which affirmed the district court’s dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief pursuant to Crim.P. 35(c). The district court denied Dooly’s request for new counsel and instead granted his existing counsel’s motion to dismiss his application altogether, on the ground that the issues it raised failed to state a claim and therefore were without arguable merit. The court of appeals upheld the district court’s order of dismissal, reasoning that Crim.P. 12(a) provides for a motion to dismiss an application for post-conviction relief, and that the public defender, as Dooly’s counsel of record, could file motions on behalf of his client, including a motion to dismiss his client’s application for relief from his convictions despite being in clear contravention of his client’s wishes.
Every person convicted of a crime is provided a statutory right to make application for post-conviction relief and is entitled to a prompt review and ruling on any motion substantially complying with Form 4 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss against defendant’s wishes. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed with instructions to order that defendant’s application for post-conviction relief be reinstated.
The Tenth Circuit published its opinion in United States v. Holyfield on Tuesday, January 8, 2013.
In 2002, Christopher Holyfield was convicted of drug charges, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and sentenced to a mandatory term of life in prison because he had two prior felony convictions. Holyfield filed a § 2255 motion asserting his appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to argue his 1998 California conviction was not final at the time Holyfield committed the instant violation of § 841(a)(1). The district court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for relief from judgment.
Holyfield was given probation when convicted of the 1998 charge. Under California law, an order granting probation is considered a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Holyfield failed to appeal that conviction within 60 days so when Holyfield violated § 841 after that time period, the 1998 conviction was no longer subject to examination on direct appeal. Thus, Holyfield committed a violation of § 841 after his 1998 conviction became final. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of Holyfield’s § 2255 motion.
The Colorado State Judicial Branch released several revised forms in the categories of Appeals, Miscellaneous, and Seal My Case in late December and early January. Many of the forms pertained to juvenile proceedings, including dependency & neglect appeals and sealing underage convictions.
Most forms are available in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) and Microsoft Word formats; many are also available as Word and Excel templates. Download the new form from State Judicial’s individual forms pages, or below.
All of State Judicial’s forms may be found here.
The Tenth Circuit issued its opinion in Woodman v. Concept Construction on Thursday, October 25, 2012.
Mr. and Mrs. Woodman filed for bankruptcy in 2008. On December 1, 2009, the bankruptcy court ruled that Peter Woodman owed Concept Construction, his former employer, over $600,000, a debt not dischargeable in bankruptcy since it was obtained through embezzlement. Mr. Woodman filed two timely notices of appeal from this decision by the bankruptcy court. One appeal was heard by the bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP), which dismissed the appeal a month later for failure to prosecute. The other appeal was heard by the district court, which decided to consider the matter despite the prior BAP ruling, but ruled against Mr. Woodman on the merits. Mr. Woodman appealed from the judgment of the district court.
Bankruptcy appellate panels were designed to provide an alternative, not a supplement, to an appeal to the district court. Nothing in the statutory language creating the panels suggests that Congress would tolerate the confusion and waste of resources that would result from simultaneous appeals of the same bankruptcy court decision to both the district court and a panel. To the contrary, the statute authorizing appeals from the bankruptcy court speaks in terms of alternatives, giving a party a choice—an election—between the two appellate forums.
Accordingly, The Tenth Circuit concluded that Mr. Woodman’s second notice of appeal to the district court was a nullity. He could not have filed a second appeal to the district court so long as he had a pending appeal before the BAP. His “Notice Voluntary Withdrawal of Appeal” did not comply with the bankruptcy rules.
Therefore, the district court did not have jurisdiction to review the decision of the bankruptcy court. The district court’s judgment is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to that court for dismissal of the appeal from the bankruptcy court.
The Colorado State Judicial Branch revised several forms in October in the appellate, garnishment, and family law categories. The appellate forms relate to an attorney’s limited appearance pursuant to the revisions to C.A.R. 5.

References: v. 
 § 13
 § 13
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 841
 § 2255
 § 841
 § 2255
 § 841
 § 841
 § 2255
 v.