9:00 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2012SC1027 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

The People of the State of Colorado,

v.

Respondent:

Derrick Demetrus Wilson.

For the Petitioner The People of the State of Colorado:Joseph G. Michaels, Assistant Attorney GeneralOffice of the Attorney General

For the Respondent Derrick Demetrus Wilson:Carolyn A Blanchard

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2010CA788Docketed: December 27, 2012At Issue: January 13, 2015

ISSUE(S):

[REFRAMED] Whether Batson violations are subject to harmless error analysis or constitute structural error.

Whether the court of appeals failed to give deference to the trial court's two independent reasons for determining that the trial prosecutor did not exercise a peremptory challenge on impermissible grounds.

[REFRAMED] Whether the court of appeals erred in applying Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), by concluding that because a prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for challenging a prospective juror were inconsistent with the record, the record necessarily established that those explanations were pretextual.

10:00 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2013SC115 (30 MINUTES)

Petitioner:

The People of the State of Colorado,

v.

Respondent:

Romielo Rodriguez.

For the Petitioner The People of the State of Colorado:Carmen Moraleda, Assistant Attorney GeneralJoseph G. Michaels, Assistant Attorney GeneralOffice of the Attorney General

For the Respondent Romielo Rodriguez:Dayna Vise, Deputy Public DefenderOffice of the Public Defender

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2009CA2404Docketed: February 20, 2013At Issue: January 13, 2013

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred by automatically reversing rather than remanding the case for further findings after it concluded that the trial court conducted an inadequate Batson analysis under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

10:30 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2014SC235 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

Joyce Reno in her official capacity as Chaffee County Clerk and Recorder,

v.

Respondent:

Marilyn Marks.

For the Petitioner Joyce Reno in her official capacity as Chaffee County Clerk and Recorder:Jennifer Ann Davis County AttorneyCHAFFEE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

For the Respondent Marilyn Marks:Jeffrey David BainesFSV PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC.andRobert Alexander McGuireROBERT MCGUIRE, LLC

For Amici Curiae Colorado Counties Inc., Colorado Association of School Boards, Colorado Municipal League, Colorado County Clerks Association, and Special District Association of Colorado: Thomas John LyonsStephanie A MontagueHALL & EVANS LLC For Amicus Curiae Colorado Ethics Watch:Luis Angel ToroMargaret G. PerlCOLORADO ETHICS WATCH For Amici Curiae Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, and Colorado Press Association:Thomas Buchan KelleySteven David ZansbergLEVINE SULLIVAN KOCH & SCHULZ, LLP

1:30 p.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2014SA179 (1 HOUR)

Concerning the Application for Water Rights of East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District and Colorado Water Network in Adams, Arapahoe, Denver, Douglas, Elbert, Larimer, Morgan, and Weld Counties

Applicant-Appellants/Cross-Appellees:

East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District and Colorado Water Network, Inc.,

v.

Opposers-Appellants:

Greeley Irrigation Company, City of Greeley, Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, Groundwater Management Subdistrict of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy, Well Augmentation Subdistrict of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, Cache la Poudre Water Users Association, Lower Latham Reservoir Company, and Ogilvy Irrigating and Land Company,

v.

Cross-Apellants:

Dick Wolfe, P.E., Colorado State Engineer; David L. Nettles, P. E., Division Engineer, Water Division 1; and City of Aurora;

Opposers-Appellees:

City of Englewood, Centennial Water and Sanitation District, City of Boulder, City of Thornton, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Equus Farms Inc., Irrigationists Association Water District, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and Public Service Company of Colorado.

For the Applicant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District:Brian M NazarenusWilliam B TourtillottSheela S StackSusan Michelle RyanRYLEY CARLOCK & APPLEWHITE

For the Applicant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Colorado Water Network, Inc.:Tod Jay SmithLAW OFFICE OF TOD J. SMITH, LLC

For the Opposer-Appellant Greeley Irrigation Company:Gabriella K.f. StockmayerStar Lee WaringDIETZE AND DAVIS, PC

For the Opposer-Appellant City of Greeley:Katie Laurette WiktorOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALandAndrew NicewiczGREELEY CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICEandJames Stow WitwerDouglas M SinorTROUT, RALEY, MONTANO, WITWER & FREEMAN

For the Opposers-Appellants Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, Groundwater Management Subdistrict of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy, and Well Augmentation Subdistrict of the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District:Bradley Charles GrasmickLAWRENCE JONES CUSTER GRASMICK LLP

1:30 p.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

For the Opposers-Appellants Cache la Poudre Water Users Association, Lower Latham Reservoir Company, and Ogilvy Irrigating and Land Company:Donald Everett FrickDaniel Kenneth BrownFISCHER, BROWN, BARTLETT & GUNN, P.

For the Cross-Apellants Dick Wolfe, P.E., Colorado State Engineer, and David L. Nettles, P. E., Division Engineer, Water Division 1:Chad Matthew Wallace Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LAW

For the Cross-Apellant City of Aurora:Dulcinea Zdunska HanuschakJohn A HelfrichSteven Owen SimsBROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LL

For the Opposer-Appellee City of Englewood:David Gower HillBERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP

For the Opposer-Appellee Centennial Water and Sanitation District:Veronica A SperlingBUCHANAN AND SPERLING, P.C

For the Opposer-Appellee City of Boulder:Jessica Lynn Pault-AtiaseGREELEY CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICEandCarolyn F BurrJames Merle NobleWELBORN SULLIVAN MECK & TOOLEY, PC

For the Opposer-Appellee City of Thornton:Joanne HerlihyCITY OF THORNTON

For the Opposer-Appellee Colorado Division of Wildlife:Chad Matthew Wallace, Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralCOLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LAW

1:30 p.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

For the Opposer-Appellee Equus Farms Inc.:Michael BrowningPORZAK BROWNING & BUSHONG LLP

For the Opposer-Appellee Irrigationists Association Water District:Karl David OhlsenMary Mead HammondCARLSON HAMMOND & PADDOCK, LLC

For the Opposer-Appellee Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District:Bennett William RaleyDouglas M SinorTROUT, RALEY, MONTANO, WITWER & FREEMAN

For the Opposer-Appellee Public Service Company of Colorado:Carolyn F BurrJames Merle NobleWELBORN SULLIVAN MECK & TOOLEY, PC

For Amicus Curiae City of LovelandSusan Michelle RyanBrian M NazarenusRYLEY CARLOCK & APPLEWHITE For Amicus Curiae The City of ThorntonJoanne HerlihyMargaret Ann EmerichCITY OF THORNTON

Appeal from the District Court, , 2006CW40Docketed: May 28, 2014At Issue: January 5, 2015

 

ISSUE(S): Whether the water court erred by limiting the preclusive effect of the Poudre Prairie decree to the period prior to the entry of the decree. Whether Williams v. Midway Ranches Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 938 P.2d 515 (Colo. 1997) created a rebuttable presumption that ditch-wide historical consumptive use quantifications are binding in future change cases involving the same ditch. Whether the water court erred in holding that the Applicants have the initial burden of showing that no events have occurred since the Poudre Prairie decree was entered that would result in injury to other water users if the court were to apply the historical consumptive figures established in the Poudre Prairie decree. Whether the water court erred in holding that volumetric limits may be relitigated for Greeley Irrigation Company’s Fossil Creek Reservoir storage rights even though the Poudre Prairie Decree did not impose volumetric limits on the storage rights. Whether the trial court erred by entering a final order under C.R.C.P. 54(b).

9:00 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2011SC554 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

Douglas Eugene Wilson,

v.

Respondent:

The People of the State of Colorado.

For the Petitioner Douglas Eugene Wilson:Alison Lee RuttenbergALISON RUTTENBERG

For the Respondent The People of the State of Colorado:Patricia Rae Van Horn, Assistant Attorney GeneralOffice of the Attorney General

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2009CA1073Docketed: August 5, 2011At Issue: January 13, 2015

ISSUE(S):

Whether, pursuant to Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), this court should adopt a standard of competency for pro se representation different than that established in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).

10:00 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2012SC236 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner/Cross-Respondent:

The People of the State of Colorado,

v.

Respondent/Cross-Petitioner:

Rashaim Malique Davis.

For the Petitioner/Cross-Respondent The People of the State of Colorado:Matthew Shone Holman, First Assistant Attorney GeneralOffice of the Attorney General

For the Respondent/Cross-Petitioner Rashaim Malique Davis:Lynn M. Noesner, Deputy Public DefenderOffice of the Public Defender

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2007CA1955Docketed: April 4, 2012At Issue: January 13, 2015

ISSUE(S):

Whether, pursuant to Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), this court should adopt a standard of competency for pro se representation different than that established in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).

Where the prosecution relied on the same quantum of drugs to support two convictions for distribution and possession, do double jeopardy and merger principles require that the possession conviction be vacated?

Whether the defendant has a fundamental and personal constitutional right to seek to withdraw his guilty plea.

1:30 p.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2011SC868 (44 MINUTES)

Petitioner:

William Beaty,

v.

Respondent:

The People of the State of Colorado.

For the Petitioner William Beaty:Seth Jeremy Benezra, Court Appointed CounselBENEZRA & CULVER, P.C.

For the Respondent The People of the State of Colorado:Ryan A. Crane, Assistant Attorney GeneralOffice of the Attorney General

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2010CA742Docketed: November 23, 2011At Issue: January 13, 2015

ISSUE(S):

Whether, pursuant to Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), this court should adopt a standard of competency for pro se representation different than that established in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).

Whether the trial court also failed to substantially comply with this court's ruling in People v. Arguello, 772 P.2d 87 (Colo. 1989), where the petitioner evidenced significant mental illness, a lack of understanding of the nature of his defenses (including possible affirmative defenses) and a lack of understanding of the significance of instructions on defenses/affirmative defenses.

2:30 p.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2011SC819 (44 MINUTES)

Petitioner:

Jennifer Diane Harris,

v.

Respondent:

The People of the State of Colorado.

For the Petitioner Jennifer Diane Harris:Andres Rene Guevara, Court Appointed CounselLAW OFFICES OF ANDRES R. GUEVARA

For the Respondent The People of the State of Colorado:Rebecca Adams JonesOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2009CA242Docketed: November 10, 2011At Issue: January 13, 2015

ISSUE(S):

Whether, pursuant to Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), this court should adopt a standard of competency for pro se representation different than that established in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).

9:00 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Thursday, March 5, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2014SC152 (1 HOUR)

In re the Marriage of

Petitioner:

Kendrik Jon de Koning,

and

Respondent:

Melissa Christie de Koning.

For the Petitioner Kendrik Jon de Koning:Robert E LanhamROBERT E LANHAM PC

For the Respondent Melissa Christie de Koning:James Stuart BaileySENN VISCIANO CANGES, PC

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2012CA2334Docketed: January 15, 2014At Issue: January 13, 2015

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred when it reversed the trial court and held that when a dissolution-of-marriage permanent orders hearing is held, and the issue of an award of attorney's fees pursuant to section 14-10-119, C.R.S. (2013), is not heard until a later date, the court must consider the parties' financial circumstances as they exist at the date of the later attorney's fees hearing, and not the date of the permanent orders hearing.

10:00 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Thursday, March 5, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2014SC50 (30 MINUTES)

Petitioner:

Gary S. Roup,

v.

Respondent:

Commercial Research LLC.

For the Petitioner Gary S. Roup:Gary S. RoupPro Se

For the Respondent Commercial Research LLC:James Richard WolfSTOKES & WOLF, PC

For Amici Curiae Associated Collection Agencies Colorado Wyoming and Colorado Creditors Bar Association:Alan GreenbergGREENBERG & SADA, PCandKimberly L. MartinezWEINSTEIN & RILEY, P.S. For Amicus Curiae Public Employees Retirement Association of ColoradAdam Laurence FranklinPERA

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2012CA453Docketed: January 15, 2014At Issue: January 13, 2015

ISSUE(S):

[REFRAMED] Whether a health savings account that meets the requirements of 26 U.S.C. section 223 (2006) qualifies as a 'retirement plan' for purposes of section 13 54-102, C.R.S. (2013), which exempts certain property from garnishment.

10:30 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Thursday, March 5, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2013SC339 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

Laura A. Newman, LLC d/b/a Herb's and d/b/a Herb's Jazz & Blues,

v.

Respondent:

T. Lawton Roberts.

For the Petitioner Laura A. Newman, LLC d/b/a Herb's and d/b/a Herb's Jazz & Blues:John Joseph CoatesKevin Michael CoatesDILL DILL CARR STONBRAKER & HUTCHINandBenjamin E TracyNATHAN BREMER DUMM & MYERS, PC

For the Respondent T. Lawton Roberts:T Thomas MetierMETIER LAW FIRM, LLCandDamian Spencer StoneTHE LAW OFFICE OF DAMIAN STONE, P.C

For Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers AssociationAdrienne Martha TranelBACHUS & SCHANKER, LLCandJason Bryan WesokyDARLING MILLIGAN SMITH & LESCH, P.C

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2011CA1851Docketed: May 15, 2013At Issue: January 13, 2015

ISSUE(S):

[REFRAMED ISSUE] Whether the automatic reversal rule in civil jury trials announced in Blades v. DaFoe, 704 P.2d 317 (Colo. 1985) should be overruled.

1:30 p.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Thursday, March 5, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2014SC495 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

The People of the State of Colorado,

v.

Respondent:

Frank Vigil, JR.

For the Petitioner The People of the State of Colorado:Donna Skinner Reed1ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY

For the Respondent Frank Vigil:Stacie Louise Nelson CollingCOLORADO ALTERNATE DEFENSE COUNSELandKathleen Anne LordLORD LAW FIRM, LLC

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2013CA2046Docketed: June 27, 2014At Issue: December 1, 2014

ISSUE(S):

Whether Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct 2455 (2012), is to be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review.

If Miller v. Alabama is retroactive, whether the trial court properly ordered a new sentencing hearing.