Mark A. STREPKA v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado ( 2021 )

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-06-04">
<div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc">
<link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link>
<div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div href="/vid/886627012" data-vids="886627012" class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">489 P.3d 1227</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Mark A. STREPKA</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span>,</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">v.</b><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">Supreme Court <span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 20SC401</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 21, 2021</b></span></p></div><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="161" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="161" data-sentence-id="161" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span>: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Megan A. Ring</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Public Defender</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Mark Evans</span>, Deputy <span class="ldml-entity">Public Defender</span> Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="269" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="269" data-sentence-id="269" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>: <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Philip J. Weiser</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Brock J. Swanson</span>, Senior Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span> Denver, Colorado</span></p></div><h2 class="ldml-opinionheading"><span data-paragraph-id="398" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-judgepanel"><span data-paragraph-id="398" data-sentence-id="398" class="ldml-sentence">En Banc</span></span></span></h2><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="405" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (BERKENKOTTER)"><span data-paragraph-id="405" data-sentence-id="405" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">BERKENKOTTER</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="461" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="461" data-sentence-id="461" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_461"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span> When <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span> determines that the police unlawfully seized <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s property and then grants <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span>'s <span class="ldml-entity">request to dismiss all charges</span> against <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>, does <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> retain jurisdiction to rule on <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s subsequent motion for return of that property?</span> <span data-paragraph-id="461" data-sentence-id="754" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> answer this question in connection with our review of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span>' unanimous <span class="ldml-entity">decision in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_754" data-refglobal="case:peoplevstrepka,no16ca0348,2020wl1651362apr4,2020"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Strepka</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 16CA0348</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2020 WL 1651362</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">Apr. 4, 2020</span>)</span></a></span></span>, vacating <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s order denying <span class="ldml-entity">Mark A. Strepka</span>'s motion for return of property for lack of jurisdiction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="461" data-sentence-id="1035" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> hold that <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span> retains jurisdiction to rule on a motion for return of unlawfully obtained property after <span class="ldml-entity">a case</span> is dismissed so long as the motion is filed before the appeal deadline expires.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="461" data-sentence-id="1239" class="ldml-sentence">Because Strepka's motion was timely filed, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reverse the division's judgment and remand <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> to proceed with the appeal on the merits.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-confidences="very_high" data-ordinal_start="1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-types="background" data-id="heading_1402" data-specifier="I" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="1" id="heading_1402" data-content-heading-label="I. Facts and Procedural History"><span data-paragraph-id="1402" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="1402" data-sentence-id="1402" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1402" data-sentence-id="1405" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="1433" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1433" data-sentence-id="1433" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1433"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span> Following a traffic stop, police officers detained and questioned Strepka about the presence of drugs and weapons in his vehicle.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1433" data-sentence-id="1566" class="ldml-sentence">The officers then searched Strepka's car and seized methamphetamine, two firearms, a firearm case, and ammunition that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> found in the vehicle.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1433" data-sentence-id="1712" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The prosecution</span> charged Strepka with possession of a controlled substance and, because Strepka had at least four prior felony convictions, possession of a weapon by a previous offender.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1897" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1897" data-sentence-id="1897" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1897"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span> Before trial, Strepka moved to suppress the drug and firearm evidence.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1897" data-sentence-id="1971" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> held an evidentiary hearing and, on <span class="ldml-entity">October 22, 2015</span>, granted Strepka's motion, concluding that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to expand the traffic stop beyond its initial purpose.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2178" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2178" data-sentence-id="2178" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2178"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The prosecution</span> subsequently moved to dismiss the charges against Strepka, and on <span class="ldml-entity">November 10, 2015</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> granted <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span>'s motion.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2331" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2331" data-sentence-id="2331" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2331"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span> On <span class="ldml-entity">December 1, 2015</span>–twenty-one days after the charges were dismissed–Strepka filed a motion seeking the return of the firearms, firearm case, and ammunition pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2331"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 41<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(e)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2331" data-sentence-id="2519" class="ldml-sentence">The next day, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> issued an order directing <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> to respond to the motion within twenty-one days.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2331" data-sentence-id="2640" class="ldml-sentence">On <span class="ldml-entity">December 17, 2015</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> filed a response objecting to the return of the property, asserting that it should not be returned because Strepka, as a convicted felon, could not lawfully possess the firearms.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2331" data-sentence-id="2857" class="ldml-sentence">Strepka filed a reply on <span class="ldml-entity">January 6, 2016</span>, arguing that notwithstanding his felony convictions, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had a constitutional right <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to keep and bear arms"</span> in self-defense and, in the alternative, that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> would be willing to designate a suitable person to whom <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> could release the firearms.<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_3148" data-val="1230" data-vol="489" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3148" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="3148" data-sentence-id="3149" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3149"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6</span></a></span> One week later, on <span class="ldml-entity">January 13, 2016</span>–sixty-four days after it dismissed the charges–the <span class="ldml-entity">trial court</span> granted Strepka's motion in part, ordering the return of the firearm case and ammunition.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3148" data-sentence-id="3341" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> denied Strepka's motion regarding the firearms, concluding that, because <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was previously convicted of a felony, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> would be in violation of <span class="ldml-entity">section</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">18-12-108<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>, if the firearms were returned to him.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3148" data-sentence-id="3577" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> also rejected Strepka's alternative argument, reasoning that returning the firearms to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"any other person with whom <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> associates"</span> would not eliminate the possibility that Strepka would possess the weapons, thus substantially subverting the goal of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3577"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-12-108</span></a></span>, which is to prevent a felon from maintaining control over firearms.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3148" data-sentence-id="3922" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895211722" data-vids="895211722" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_3987,sentence_3577"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Gallegos</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">193 Colo. 108</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">563 P.2d 937, 939</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1977</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he purpose of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_4192,sentence_3577"><span class="ldml-cite">section 18-12-108</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[is to]</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">‘limit the possession of firearms by those who, by their past conduct, have demonstrated an unfitness to be entrusted with such dangerous instrumentalities.’</span> "</span></span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893318967" data-vids="893318967" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3577"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Trujillo</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">178 Colo. 147</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">497 P.2d 1, 2-3</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1972</span>)</span></a></span> )</span>)</span></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4262" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4262" data-sentence-id="4262" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4262"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span> Strepka appealed <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s denial of his motion regarding the firearms.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4262" data-sentence-id="4345" class="ldml-sentence">While his appeal was pending, a different division of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> determined that, once a valid sentence is imposed, <span class="ldml-entity">trial courts</span> lose jurisdiction to resolve motions for return of property.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4262" data-sentence-id="4545" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4545" data-refglobal="case:peoplevchavez,2018coa139"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Chavez</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2018 COA 139</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4545"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 10</span></a></span></span>, 12-13, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4545" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––"><span class="ldml-cite">––– P.3d ––––</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4262" data-sentence-id="4606" class="ldml-sentence">In light of <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4606" data-refglobal="case:peoplevchavez,2018coa139"><span class="ldml-refname">Chavez</span></a></span>,</i> the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4606" data-refglobal="case:peoplevstrepka,no16ca0348,2020wl1651362apr4,2020"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Strepka</i></span></a></span> division asked <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> had jurisdiction to address Strepka's motion.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4775" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4775" data-sentence-id="4775" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4775"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8</span></a></span> Relying on <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4775"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dike v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">30 P.3d 197</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2001</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the People</span> and Strepka agreed that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> retained jurisdiction to address the motion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4775" data-sentence-id="4927" class="ldml-sentence">The division saw things differently, concluding that <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>' reliance on <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4927"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Dike</i></span></a></span> was misplaced because <span class="ldml-entity">the holding in <span class="ldml-entity">that case</span></span> was limited to its <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"unusual circumstances."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="4775" data-sentence-id="5101" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4927"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strepka</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 15</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5115" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5115" data-sentence-id="5115" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5115"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span> The division ultimately concluded, based largely on <span class="ldml-entity">the holding in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5115" data-refglobal="case:peoplevchavez,2018coa139"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Chavez</i></span></a></span></span>, that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> lost jurisdiction to resolve Strepka's motion for return of property when it dismissed the charges against him.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5115" data-sentence-id="5326" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5115"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strepka</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 25</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5115" data-sentence-id="5341" class="ldml-sentence">The division, accordingly, vacated <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s order for lack of jurisdiction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5115" data-sentence-id="5426" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5341"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5429" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5429" data-sentence-id="5429" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5429"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> granted Strepka's <span class="ldml-entity">petition for certiorari review</span>.<a href="#note-fr1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1">1</a></span> </p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-confidences="very_high" data-ordinal_start="2" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-value="II. Analysis" data-types="analysis" data-id="heading_5486" data-specifier="II" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="2" id="heading_5486" data-content-heading-label="II. Analysis"><span data-paragraph-id="5486" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="5486" data-sentence-id="5486" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5486" data-sentence-id="5490" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="5498" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5498" data-sentence-id="5498" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5498"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> begin by outlining the law regarding motions seeking the return of unlawfully seized property pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5498"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 41<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(e)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5498" data-sentence-id="5627" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> then address <span class="ldml-entity">trial courts</span>' jurisdiction to resolve such motions following the dismissal of charges.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5498" data-sentence-id="5730" class="ldml-sentence">Finally, applying the law to <span class="ldml-entity">the facts of <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> retained jurisdiction to address Strepka's motion because <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> filed the motion before the appeal deadline expired.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5498" data-sentence-id="5930" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reverse the division's judgment and remand <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> to proceed with the appeal on the merits.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6063" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6063" data-sentence-id="6063" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6063"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6063"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 41<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(e)</span></span></a></span> provides the mechanism for the return of property following an unlawful search and seizure:</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_6173" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="6173" class="ldml-sentence">A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> for the county where the property was seized for the return of the property ....</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_6334" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="6334" class="ldml-sentence">....</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_6338" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="6338" class="ldml-sentence">If the motion is granted the property shall be restored unless otherwise subject to lawful detention ....</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="6443" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="6443" data-sentence-id="6444" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6444"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span> However, <span class="ldml-entity">a district court</span> may address a motion for return of property only if it has jurisdiction over <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6443" data-sentence-id="6561" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889704055" data-vids="889704055" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_6617,sentence_6444"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">People v. Dillon</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">655 P.2d 841, 844</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1982</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"It is axiomatic that any action taken by <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> when it lacked jurisdiction is a nullity."</span></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6443" data-sentence-id="6712" class="ldml-sentence">While it is well-settled that <span class="ldml-entity">district courts</span> in Colorado are <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> of general jurisdiction, having jurisdiction over, among other things, nearly all criminal matters, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894742259" data-vids="894742259" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6712"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Wood v. People</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">255 P.3d 1136, 1140</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2011</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have not addressed whether <span class="ldml-entity">district courts</span> retain jurisdiction to resolve a motion for return of <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_7031" data-val="1231" data-vol="489" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> property following the dismissal of all charges against <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7100" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="7100" data-sentence-id="7101" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7101"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Jurisdiction is a question of law, which <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review de novo."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7100" data-sentence-id="7167" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893065478" data-vids="893065478" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7101"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Maser</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2012 CO 41</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7101"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 10</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893065478" data-vids="893065478" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">278 P.3d 361, 364</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7220" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="7220" data-sentence-id="7220" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7220"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span> The division's determination in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> lacked jurisdiction to address Strepka's motion relied largely upon <span class="ldml-entity">the holding in <i class="ldml-italics"> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7220" data-refglobal="case:peoplevchavez,2018coa139"><span class="ldml-refname">Chavez</span></a></span></i></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7220" data-sentence-id="7379" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7220"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strepka</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 6, 9-11</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">citing</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7220"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Chavez</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 7-8, 10, 12-13, 15</span></a></span> )</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7220" data-sentence-id="7445" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that this reliance was misplaced.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7220" data-sentence-id="7491" class="ldml-sentence">The division in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7491" data-refglobal="case:peoplevchavez,2018coa139"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Chavez</i></span></a></span> is one of a number of divisions of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> to consider the extent of <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span>'s jurisdiction to resolve motions for return of property in criminal <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span>.</span> <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span data-paragraph-id="7220" data-sentence-id="7686" class="ldml-sentence"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_7705"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Chavez</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 13</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[O]</span>nce a valid sentence is imposed ... a criminal <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> has no further jurisdiction."</span></span>)</span></span><span data-paragraph-id="7220" data-sentence-id="7792" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889092036" data-vids="889092036" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_7851"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Wiedemer</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">692 P.2d 327, 329</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1984</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"A <span class="ldml-entity">trial court</span> loses jurisdiction upon imposition of a valid sentence except under the circumstances specified in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 35</span></a></span>."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886914284" data-vids="886914284" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_8048"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Hargrave</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">179 P.3d 226, 228</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2007</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"When the need for property seized in <span class="ldml-entity">a case</span> has ended, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> has the jurisdiction and the obligation to order its return and, if necessary, to conduct a hearing to determine its appropriate disposition ...."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="7220" data-sentence-id="8267" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8268" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8268" data-sentence-id="8268" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8268"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span> With the exception of <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886914284" data-vids="886914284" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8268"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Hargrave</i></span></a></span> , the divisions in <span class="ldml-entity">these cases</span> have generally concluded that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> loses jurisdiction upon the imposition of a valid conviction and sentence.<a href="#note-fr2" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr2">2</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8268" data-sentence-id="8455" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">These cases</span> shed no real light on the issue before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span>, however, because the underlying motions in <span class="ldml-entity">these cases</span> all involved <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> requests for the return of <i class="ldml-italics">lawfully</i> obtained property <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> that were filed <i class="ldml-italics">years after</i> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span> were <i class="ldml-italics">convicted and sentenced.</i></span> <span data-paragraph-id="8268" data-sentence-id="8717" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8455"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Chavez</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 7-8, 14</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889092036" data-vids="889092036" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8455"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Wiedemer</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">692 P.2d at 328-29</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8774" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8774" data-sentence-id="8774" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8774"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span> Here <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are called on to answer a different and much narrower question: How does a person, whose property was unlawfully obtained by the government, get that property back after all the charges against him or her are dismissed?</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8774" data-sentence-id="9006" class="ldml-sentence">The answer to that narrow question turns on whether <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span> has jurisdiction to rule on a motion for return of property under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9006"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 41<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(e)</span></span></a></span> after <i class="ldml-italics">dismissing</i> the entire case.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8774" data-sentence-id="9187" class="ldml-sentence">With respect to that issue, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the People</span> and Strepka both got it right: Our <span class="ldml-entity">holding in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9187"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Dike</i></span></a></span></span> controls the resolution of <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9331" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9331" data-sentence-id="9331" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9331"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span> In <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9331"><span class="ldml-refname">Dike</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> dismissed <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s case after granting his <span class="ldml-entity">motion to suppress</span> the results of his blood alcohol content <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"BAC"</span>)</span> test.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9331" data-sentence-id="9484" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9331"><span class="ldml-cite">30 P.3d at 199</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9331" data-sentence-id="9500" class="ldml-sentence">Because of the dismissal, <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> was unable to file an interlocutory appeal and, instead, filed a <span class="ldml-entity">motion to reconsider</span> twenty days after the dismissal.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9331" data-sentence-id="9661" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9500"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9331" data-sentence-id="9665" class="ldml-sentence">In the <span class="ldml-entity">motion to reconsider</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> asserted that the BAC test was admissible, based on previously unknown precedent from <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9331" data-sentence-id="9808" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9665"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9331" data-sentence-id="9812" class="ldml-sentence">In sum, <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> argued that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> misapplied the law.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9331" data-sentence-id="9884" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9812"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="9331" data-sentence-id="9888" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The trial court</span> agreed, and prior to the expiration of the deadline for filing an appeal, granted <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span>'s motion and reinstated the charges against <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9331" data-sentence-id="10061" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9888"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10064" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10064" data-sentence-id="10064" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10064"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The defendant</span> appealed, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> ultimately determined that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"possessed jurisdiction to set aside and correct its initial order dismissing <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="10064" data-sentence-id="10232" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10064"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 200</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10064" data-sentence-id="10244" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> held that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"retained jurisdiction to rescind its initial dismissal until the time for appeal under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10244"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 37<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span></span></a></span> had expired."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="10064" data-sentence-id="10390" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10244"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10393" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10393" data-sentence-id="10393" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10393"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span> While the challenged <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> order concerned reconsideration, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> see no discernible reason why <span class="ldml-entity">the holding in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10393"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Dike</i></span></a></span></span> does not apply to <span class="ldml-entity">the facts presented</span> here.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10393" data-sentence-id="10554" class="ldml-sentence">Contrary to the division's conclusion, <span class="ldml-entity">the holding in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10554"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Dike</i></span></a></span></span> was not premised on <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span>'s inability to file an interlocutory appeal.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10393" data-sentence-id="10694" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10554"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strepka</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 13-15</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10393" data-sentence-id="10713" class="ldml-sentence">Rather, our holding was premised on <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s ability to reconsider its prior erroneous ruling <i class="ldml-italics">because it retained jurisdiction until the expiration of the time for filing an appeal.</i></span> <span data-paragraph-id="10393" data-sentence-id="10904" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_10926,sentence_10713"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dike</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">30 P.3d at 201</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span>'s <span class="ldml-entity">motion to reconsider</span> was filed within the time for filing an appeal ... ; consequently, the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[trial]</span> court had not lost jurisdiction over <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span>."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="10393" data-sentence-id="11095" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11096" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="11096" data-sentence-id="11096" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11096"><span class="ldml-cite">¶21</span></a></span> True, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> discussed <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span>'s inability to file an interlocutory appeal when determining that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> did not err by permitting <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> to file the <span class="ldml-entity">motion to reconsider</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11096" data-sentence-id="11293" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11096"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 200-01</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11096" data-sentence-id="11308" class="ldml-sentence">However, <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_11317" data-val="1232" data-vol="489" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> such discussion concerned the paths available to <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> to appeal <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s order erroneously suppressing the results of <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s BAC test–not whether <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> retained jurisdiction over <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11096" data-sentence-id="11546" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11308"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11096" data-sentence-id="11550" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, regardless of whether <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> had an immediate appellate remedy, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> still possessed jurisdiction to reconsider its prior ruling before the time for filing an appeal had expired.<a href="#note-fr3" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr3">3</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="11755" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11755" data-sentence-id="11756" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11756"><span class="ldml-cite">¶22</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> additionally reject the division's determination that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the time for filing a notice of appeal could not have provided a window of continuing jurisdiction in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>"</span> because <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> requested that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[Strepka's]</span> charges be dismissed, so it could not very well appeal <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s dismissal order."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11755" data-sentence-id="12068" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11756"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Strepka</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">¶ 15</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11755" data-sentence-id="12083" class="ldml-sentence">While it is unlikely, indeed, that either Strepka or <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> would have appealed <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s dismissal order, what matters for purposes of analyzing the jurisdictional question here is that both <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> retained the right to appeal for forty-nine days after the charges had been dismissed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11755" data-sentence-id="12387" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_12422,sentence_12083"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 16-12-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The <span class="ldml-entity">prosecution</span> may appeal any <span class="ldml-entity">decision of <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span></span> in a criminal case upon any question of law."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_12535,sentence_12083"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 4<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">providing that either <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> may appeal in a criminal case within forty-nine days of the entry of the judgment</span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12646" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12646" data-sentence-id="12647" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12647"><span class="ldml-cite">¶23</span></a></span> Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that the likelihood of <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> filing an appeal is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span> possesses jurisdiction to rule on a motion for return of property filed after <span class="ldml-entity">a case</span> is dismissed and before the deadline to file an appeal expires.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12931" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12931" data-sentence-id="12932" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12932"><span class="ldml-cite">¶24</span></a></span> Because Strepka filed his motion for return of property twenty-one days after <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> had been dismissed, which was within the forty-nine-day deadline provided by <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 4<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span></span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> possessed jurisdiction to resolve the motion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12931" data-sentence-id="13175" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12932"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dike</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">30 P.3d at 201</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="13201" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="13201" data-sentence-id="13202" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13202"><span class="ldml-cite">¶25</span></a></span> Our analysis is not yet complete, however, because, unlike <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13202"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Dike</i></span></a></span></span>, which ruled before the expiration of the appeal period, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span></span> did not rule on the motion for return of property until sixty-four days after it dismissed all the charges against Strepka.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13201" data-sentence-id="13499" class="ldml-sentence">But, here, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> could not have ruled on Strepka's motion before the expiration of the forty-nine-day appeal deadline because it needed to hear from both sides.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13201" data-sentence-id="13670" class="ldml-sentence">And to that end, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> appropriately took steps to ensure that <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span> had the opportunity to respond to Strepka's motion and that Strepka had the opportunity to reply to <span class="ldml-entity">the prosecution</span>'s response.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="13886" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="13886" data-sentence-id="13887" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13887"><span class="ldml-cite">¶26</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> retains jurisdiction to resolve a motion for return of unlawfully obtained property after <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> dismisses <span class="ldml-entity">a case</span> so long as the motion for return of property is filed before the appeal period expires.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13886" data-sentence-id="14129" class="ldml-sentence">To conclude otherwise would force <span class="ldml-entity">trial courts</span> into the untenable position of having to rule on motions pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14129"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 41<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(e)</span></span></a></span> –other than those filed immediately after dismissal–without the benefit of hearing from both sides.<a href="#note-fr4" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr4">4</a></span> <span data-paragraph-id="13886" data-sentence-id="14360" class="ldml-sentence">And, as <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> noted in <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14360"><span class="ldml-refname">Dike</span></a></span>,</i> the criminal rules <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"are intended to provide for the just determination of criminal proceedings.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-entity">They</span> shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay."</span></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="13886" data-sentence-id="14626" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887049427" data-vids="887049427" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14360"><span class="ldml-cite">30 P.3d at 201</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14360"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 2</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13886" data-sentence-id="14663" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are persuaded that <span class="ldml-entity">trial courts</span> retain jurisdiction to address motions for return of property under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14663"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 41<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(e)</span></span></a></span> so long as such motions are filed before the appeal deadline expires.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13886" data-sentence-id="14857" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, the division erred by vacating <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s order denying Strepka's motion for return of property for lack of jurisdiction.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14998" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="14998" data-sentence-id="14999" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14999"><span class="ldml-cite">¶27</span></a></span> In reaching this conclusion, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> emphasize that: <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">trial courts</span> retain jurisdiction beyond the appeal deadline to resolve <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14999"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 41<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(e)</span></span></a></span> motions</span> for return of unlawfully <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_15174" data-val="1233" data-vol="489" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite"></span> seized property after an entire case has been dismissed only when the motion for return of property is filed before the appeal deadline expires, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> the filing of a motion for return of property under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14999"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim P. 41<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(e)</span></span></a></span> does not extend the deadline to appeal an order of dismissal.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-confidences="very_high" data-ordinal_start="3" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-value="III. Conclusion" data-types="conclusion" data-id="heading_15455" data-specifier="III" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="3" id="heading_15455" data-content-heading-label="III. Conclusion"><span data-paragraph-id="15455" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="15455" data-sentence-id="15455" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15455" data-sentence-id="15460" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="15470" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="15470" data-sentence-id="15470" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15470"><span class="ldml-cite">¶28</span></a></span> Because the division erred in concluding that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> lacked jurisdiction, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> reverse the division's judgment and remand <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> to proceed with the appeal on the merits.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="15677" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="15677" data-sentence-id="15678" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> granted certiorari to consider the following issue:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_15732" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="15732" class="ldml-sentence">Whether <span class="ldml-entity">trial courts</span> lose jurisdiction to dispose of property, unlawfully seized by the government from Colorado citizens, at the instant criminal charges are dismissed.</span></blockquote></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="15901" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr2" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr2">2</a> <span data-paragraph-id="15901" data-sentence-id="15902" class="ldml-sentence">The question of which, if any, of these approaches is correct is not before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> here.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="15986" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr3" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr3">3</a> <span data-paragraph-id="15986" data-sentence-id="15987" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> do not construe <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15987"><span class="ldml-cite">Crim. P. 41</span></a></span> as being dispositive of whether <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span> has jurisdiction to review a motion for return of unlawfully seized property.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="16141" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr4" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr4">4</a> <span data-paragraph-id="16141" data-sentence-id="16142" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> emphasize that it is the timing of the filing of the motion for return of property–not the timing of the response or the reply–that determines if <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> has jurisdiction to rule on the motion after the expiration of the appeal deadline.</span></p></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div>