Pueblo judge vacates sentences of three men wrongfully imprisoned for missing court dates

A judge in Pueblo on Nov. 1 vacated prison sentences for three men after finding that the city had wrongfully imprisoned them on contempt of court charges without proper charging documents or jurisdiction.

District Court Judge Michelle Chostner’s decision prompted the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado to open Pueblo Municipal Court. unlawfully imprisoning people Those who miss court dates.

ACLU filed habeas corpus petition on October 2 We demand the release of Dean LopezHe was serving a 575-day prison sentence (more than a year and a half in prison) for 31 convictions for contempt of court, all for missed court dates.

That petition was granted on October 4, with Chostner ordering Lopez’s immediate temporary release and scheduling a hearing for Lopez and Pueblo city attorneys on November 1 to discuss the legality of the case.

The contempt of court convictions of Lopez, Lyrcis Martinez, and Michael Tafoya were vacated by Chostner’s decision, and a fourth person, Christia Thorpe, who was the subject of another petition filed this week by the ACLU, was also ordered released from prison.

Thorpe’s case, along with others, was not decided Friday. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for December 5 before Chostner.

ACLU lawyer says Pueblo failed to provide due process

At the hearing Friday, the ACLU’s Emma McLean-Riggs noted that under the leadership of then-Chief Municipal Judge Carla Sikes, who is now Pueblo’s city attorney, the city made contempt of court a Class 1 municipal crime and prosecuted it without charges. document.

A. Class 1 municipal crime It carries a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 364 days.

McLean-Riggs argued that as a Class 1 misdemeanor, the three inmates should be entitled to all constitutional due process protections available to them, including receiving charging papers detailing the nature of the crime committed and the location and time of the crime. Details of what law was violated.

McLean-Riggs argued that contempt of court charges are also universally used oppressively in plea bargaining, with defendants facing years in prison for contempt charges in addition to the underlying crime charged.

The official argued that without filing a charging document, the municipality failed to establish specific jurisdiction over the crime charged, and therefore the defendant’s convictions for contempt were null and void.

City argues charging documents not required

Eric Ziporin, an attorney representing the city of Pueblo, argued that the charging documents were not necessary because the city was using its “inherent powers” to prosecute contempt of court. Ziporin also argued that contempt is not a crime, even though it was codified as a Class 1 municipal crime in Pueblo Municipal Court.

“Insulting is not automatically a crime because there is a penalty attached to it,” he said. “That’s just lazy analysis.”

Ziporin also argued that a defendant’s arrest warrant can be used as a charging document “to the extent necessary” and that defendants have been informed of the charges against them several times.

Pueblo judge rules in favor of ACLU

Ziporin argued that all of the defendants had “sufficiently” gone through the constitutional due process, were appointed as lawyers, were informed of the charges against them, and were given the opportunity to prepare a defense. But he said all three admitted to contempt of court charges, as well as various crimes, in their plea agreements with the court.

Chostner disagreed with this assessment.

At one point, he asked Ziporin how a crime used to impose longer consecutive sentences than some low-level felonies could not constitute a crime. Ziporin said the length of the sentences is not a problem.

Chostner also said the city, in hundreds of pages of evidentiary documents and several hours of audio recording, did not provide any of the three defendants with anything resembling a proper charging document detailing the crimes with which they were charged. Instead, inmates were assumed to know the details of the charges, he said.

Although it states that the municipality certainly has the authority to issue arrest warrants for failure to appear, Colorado Municipal Court rules state that defendants must appear before a judge, be served a copy of the criminal complaint, and be notified of the charges against them.

Chostner stated that in his understanding, most of the defamation offenses stemmed from Sikes’ handwritten notes, which could lead to criminal charges. He said there is no exception under Colorado Municipal Court rules that a hand-written note is enough to establish a charge.

Finally, Chostner expressed concern that there could be a potential conflict of interest if either defendant decides to fight the charges against them rather than accept a plea bargain, as the same judge who initiated the contempt trial will likely judge their trial. .

Chostner said none of the three defendants had still been sentenced to prison on the underlying charges, so he decided to vacate the sentences of all three defendants and issued a writ of habeas corpus.

While Chostner only made a verbal decision on Friday, he said a written decision would come in the coming weeks.

Pueblo mayor criticizes decision, calls ACLU ‘complicit’

Pueblo Mayor Heather Graham declined to be interviewed by officials Head Following Friday’s hearing, city officials later sent a written statement in which the mayor criticized the decision and defended the city’s use of contempt of court charges.

“The Mayor is saddened that a criminal who has broken the law in his city more than 20 times receives more empathy than the law-abiding citizens of Pueblo who grapple daily with criminal activity throughout our community. These criminal acts include trespassing, theft, loitering, unwanted parties and more, but instead of accepting the reckless behavior that affects every part of Pueblo, criminals receive more compliments and help from anti-prison advocates.” The statement was included.

Chostner’s decision “technically” allowed the offenders to be released because they “presumably” did not receive a proper citation or notice of contempt of court charges “on a piece of paper,” the statement said.

“However, these individuals bypassed court and did not appear in court for years, wasting the city’s time, taxes and resources,” the statement said. “When they eventually came forward after being arrested again, they were given verbal advice, given copies of arrest warrants, and represented by attorneys. They then waived their right to a trial and voluntarily entered a plea to the charges. None of that matters (sic) but they didn’t receive a piece of paper.” for.”

The city’s statement accused the ACLU of being “complicit in criminal conduct.”

“Now the ACLU has come to the defense of the criminals plaguing this city and expects to receive support for its advocacy,” Graham said.

“Instead, Puebloans should ask why the ACLU might be complicit in criminal behavior? Why shouldn’t criminals be held accountable and be able to continue to re-offend in our city? Doesn’t the ACLU realize that homelessness does not equal despair? Now a large portion of the Pueblo community has views similar to those given today and is helpless in the face of decisions.”

The ACLU’s McLean-Riggs did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Head.

More local news: Pueblo sheriff’s appeal of unfair labor practice finding denied

Questions, comments or story tips? Contact Justin at [email protected]. Follow him at @jayreutter1 on X, formally known as Twitter. Support local news, subscribe to Pueblo Chieftain at subscribe.chieftain.com.

This article was first published on The Pueblo Chieftain: Pueblo judge cancels sentences of 3 people jailed for contempt of court