Opinion ID: 2613147
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Murder Case

Text: The information charging Michael McCormick with the kidnapping and murder of Donoho was filed on July 9, 1986. [5] On July 14, 1986, Michael McCormick filed a motion to disqualify the District Attorney's Office for the First Judicial District from the murder case and to appoint a Special Prosecutor. On August 8, 1986, Judge Wolvington granted the motion and disqualified the District Attorney's Office for the First Judicial District from the murder case. Unlike Judge Polidori, who did not disqualify Oldham from later acting as a Special Prosecutor in the theft case, Judge Wolvington disqualified Oldham from participating in any capacity in the murder case. Judge Wolvington, with the agreement of defense counsel for Michael McCormick, set the next court date for August 25, 1986, for the appearance of a Special Prosecutor and for the setting of further hearing dates. On August 25, Judge Wolvington appointed William Buckley, a Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Second Judicial District, as the Special Prosecutor for the murder case. On September 16, 1986, Michael McCormick filed a motion to dismiss the murder case, raising for the first time a claim that the murder trial was barred by the compulsory joinder provisions of section 18-1-408(2), 8B C.R.S. (1986). [6] Judge Wolvington denied the motion because when jeopardy attached in the theft case on August 12, 1986, there was no prosecutor in the murder case that had authority to join the two cases. [7] We denied Michael McCormick's original proceeding seeking mandamus to require Judge Wolvington to show cause why the action should not be dismissed based on the alleged failure to comply with section 18-1-408(2). In June 1987, a jury convicted Michael McCormick in the murder case. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and four years for kidnapping, with both sentences to run consecutively to those imposed in the theft case.
The court of appeals consolidated the theft case and the murder case on appeal. A divided panel of the court of appeals reversed the judgments of conviction in the murder case, finding that the prosecution of the murder and kidnapping charges was barred by the compulsory joinder provisions of section 18-1-408(2). McCormick, 839 P.2d at 477-78. The court of appeals also remanded the case for further proceedings based on its determination that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard in determining whether the defendant breached the plea agreement. Id. at 478-79. The court of appeals, however, did not address all of the issues raised by Michael McCormick. We granted certiorari to address whether the court of appeals erred in finding that the subsequent prosecution of the murder case was barred by section 18-1-408(2) and to determine the appropriate standard to be applied in evaluating whether a defendant has breached a plea agreement. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand with directions to reinstate the judgments of conviction and sentences entered against Michael McCormick for murder and kidnapping.