Attorney Esteban A Martinez's Legal Cases

Appeals

People v. Scott

Dec 27, 2007

OUTCOME: Trial court order reversed, case remanded

Defendant appealed the trial court's order directing him to reimburse the State for the cost of court-appointed counsel who represented him in connection with his guilty plea to theft. The appellat ... e court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, stating that the trial court set the amount of reimbursement based, in part, on factors other than the amount of time that the deputy public defenders had devoted to the case. That was a violation of Colo. Chief Just. Directive 04-04. Therefore, the appellate court remanded to the trial court for recalculation in accordance with Colo. Chief Just. Directive 04-04.

Appeals

People v. Montour

Apr 23, 2007

OUTCOME: Death sentence reversed, case remanded

Prior to entering his guilty plea, defendant repeatedly stated that he understood that by pleading guilty he was waiving his right to have a jury determine his sentence under 18-1.3-1201(1)(a). The cou ... rt held that because under Colorado law defendant was not eligible for the death penalty until all aggravating factors were weighed against all mitigating factors, the presence of one Blakely-exempt aggravating factor standing alone did not make defendant eligible for the death penalty. The court also held that Â§ 18-1.3-1201(1)(a) violated the Sixth Amendment because it mandated that the court sentence defendant who had pled guilty to a class 1 felony. Under the terms of the statute, the court did not need to procure an additional knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of this Sixth Amendment right as was constitutionally required, but instead had to inform the defendant that by pleading guilty he automatically waived his right to a jury trial on sentencing facts. The court found that defendant's waiver could not have been knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because it was infected by the same constitutional infirmity as the statute--it was inextricably linked to his plea.

Appeals

People v. Kelling

Nov 30, 2006

OUTCOME: The trial court erred, case remanded

Before trial, defendant argued that his public defender was ineffective and filed a pro se motion to dismiss counsel and request for new counsel. Defendant argued that counsel failed to interview w ... itnesses, explain potential defenses, or meet with him except for one time to get him to take a plea. Defendant contended that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated at trial and at the habitual criminal hearing when the trial court failed to inquire into his pro se complaints about counsel. The appellate court determined that remand was necessary because defendant's complaints about counsel's lack of communication and nearly complete failure to investigate potential defenses raised a colorable claim of a complete breakdown in communication with counsel, an irreconcilable conflict with counsel, or a near complete lack of representation by counsel, which triggered a duty of inquiry on the part of the trial court. The trial court's error in failing to inquire was subject to harmless error review.

Appeals

People v. White

Mar 28, 2002

OUTCOME: State prevails, judgment affirmed

The defendant argued, inter alia, that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to elicit testimony establishing that a fully loaded revolver had been seized from the defendant's home after th ... e shooting. The court of appeals disagreed. In opening statement, defense counsel erroneously referred to the weapon used in the incident as a "revolver." Thus, evidence establishing that the revolver discovered near the scene was fully loaded and of a caliber different than the semi-automatic handgun used to shoot the car was relevant to establish that a revolver was not used in the shooting. That evidence of a second handgun was not particularly prejudicial to the defendant because, at trial, he did not dispute that he had used a handgun to fire a shot into the hood of the car. Moreover, the revolver was discovered in a house that the defendant shared with other persons and no evidence directly connected him to the weapon. Also, the trial court did not allow the prosecution to admit the revolver into evidence as an exhibit. Therefore, the trial court did not err.

Appeals

People ex rel. J.M.N.

Dec 06, 2001

OUTCOME: State prevails, judgment affirmed

At a hearing on State's motion to join the adjudicatory trial with those of two other juveniles, defendant informed the trial court that he would not waive his statutory right to have his trial commenc ... ed within 60 days of the date entered on his plea. State erroneously told the court that the 60-day speedy trial period would not expire until October 22, and defendant did not correct State's misstatement. The trial court scheduled the trial for October 18, which was 10 days after the 60-day speedy trial period. When defendant appeared for trial on October 18, he did not move for dismissal of the delinquency petition based on the violation of his speedy trial rights. The appellate court held the following: (1) because defendant failed to move for dismissal before the adjudicatory trial began, he waived his speedy trial rights under the 60-day rule; (2) the trial court ruled within its discretion concerning several discovery violations; and (3) there was no error in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, when ample evidence established that he used a liquid depilatory to emblazon a swastika upon a horse, on the alleged date.

Appeals

People v. Sherman

Oct 11, 2001

OUTCOME: Judgment Affirmed

The defendant argued that the trial court erred by: (1) granting the prosecution's challenge for cause to a potential juror; (2) impermissibly elaborating on the model jury instruction regarding reason ... able doubt, thereby violating her right to due process; and (3) denying her motion for a new trial because of juror misconduct. The court of appeals held that the trial court had not erred because: (1) the trial court had the benefit of viewing the juror and assessing her demeanor under all the circumstances and the juror was unwilling or unable to follow the court's reasonable doubt instruction; (2) although the instruction was erroneous in that it advised the jury that a reasonable doubt was a doubt for which one could give a reason, when the objectionable language in the trial court's oral instruction was considered in the context of the entire charge it did not lower the reasonable doubt standard; and (3) the record indicated the trial court was aware that a juror waived and smiled at a court observer, the observer called the defendant a crook when it denied the defendant's motion, and the trial court was in the best position to evaluate the degree of prejudice to defendant.

Appeals

People v. O'Dell

Sep 27, 2001

OUTCOME: Judgment Affirmed

The trial court sentenced defendant to six years on the criminal trespass conviction, and six years on each of the three menacing convictions, the latter sentences to run concurrently with one another ... but consecutive to the criminal trespass sentence. Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum aggravated sentence on each count and ordering one sentence to run consecutive to the other three. The appellate court held that the trial court's findings were sufficient to explain its sentencing decision and were supported by the record because: (1) in imposing the sentence, the trial court stated at the outset that it was considering defendant's prior record, the circumstances of the crime, the interests and safety of the community, defendant's need for rehabilitation and correction, and the deterrence of crime; (2) the trial court noted that, at the time defendant committed the crimes, he was under a deferred judgment from another state for a violent crime and that, according to the presentence report, he appeared to be at high risk of reoffending; and (3) the trial court heard evidence regarding defendant's past pattern of abusive conduct.

Esteban A Martinez's Legal Cases (7)

People v. Scott

People v. Montour

People v. Kelling

People v. White

People ex rel. J.M.N.

People v. Sherman

People v. O'Dell