Peo v. Garcia ( 2024 )

<div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div>22CA2176 Peo v Garcia 10-17-<span>2024</span> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORAD<span></span>O COURT OF APPEALS<span> </span> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 22CA2176 </div>
<div>Adams County Di<span></span>strict Court No. 20CR3610 </div>
<div>Honorable Robert W. Kiesnowski Jr., Judg<span></span>e </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The People of the State of Colorado, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Plaintiff-Appell<span>ee</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>v.<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Reagan Christopher Garcia, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Defendant-Appellant. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>JUDGM<span></span>ENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, </div>
<div>AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division V </div>
<div>Opinion by<span></span> JUDGE GRO<span></span>VE </div>
<div>Freyre and Lum, JJ., concur </div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PUR<span> </span>SUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced October 17, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Alejandro Sorg Gon<span> </span>zalez, Assistant Attorney </div>
<div>General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appell<span>ee</span> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Krista A. Schelhaas<span>, </span>Alternate Defense Counsel, Littleton<span></span>, Colorado, for </div>
<div>Defendant-Appellant </div>
<div> </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf2" data-page-no="2">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MME/4oh/MME4ohwwbp6fTSMIWqmFSRVxNf5NHO/i9OLh4tNjW9I5o%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPX26A6URO&amp;Expires=1729526591&amp;Signature=7Nee0zVaj2UipWKqpERrBTqsgyA%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjECcaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQDP2ydDi9v4%2F8XNLfeTN65QlWLbKJ9%2BGbs15YzsW7%2BbNwIhAPglxsjiF7F9TEZioiQozCJbrmJmUZcjbPQ2AvQlxrC2KrsFCJD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEQABoMOTI2MDQxMjAzOTM1IgzGjXspvXc65qEmJ8gqjwUmkXyUIBLuB2nwDx3jJHe6%2F5Lm%2F%2BwbCAb%2F8EB6ybMNftrNS3IfNaBfouWzNZJMJ0%2B7z%2FrwRz0fmvUhRYRr7FPC3AsmXJWijlFCi49Eh%2FkE5kPR9RJZMvP86aoGcSqelGrPcmFOwX5hr1n9VhIaNCtGqmy2TQ%2B%2FhHFbM0JQ7uBSv5FVANRaZCk9DSOsxh%2FbRpx9ggnltnM2iFIyz6LJXx%2BsSg4IG4sV9YURq3zpTxNQ3H0uwgCdUKWc%2F2ajRCejuXKqqXk%2FMWIfN462u9CFUgDwRI39WScU3mxwYsoaCk9FwO%2FW9mHbIii%2FIyYFfitN1RhWDxdCMxN6UDGgoNWPmQAurZKAL%2F7W6Q75bVX41A7iJfxPchYIzV3Y4V0ZWrw7C%2F4gHT6pjkzMPl5%2BXAXe4YAQ6xC4PzqJ%2Bda66KakYvamkaY13%2B9JHM0nzUM8TCdk1LE%2FVKCzpnvBP4vxA4cFg76K917GBhXPxKuC2KdDWEPtxuK0HnDO%2BB0GRs3G9NUYei9DFIH8Ptkwn3IDFXNtTTkhSQ3FK6ZLAzKTrnUvy6XCpxhytp1BqnxR9%2B7O9sgYuBvTCDBxm8qeJ6BOq9Gu5M9fYPBuHGvn982o45shAxwr3U6tG9lHKcgdbBloRhoS8BnTngJMqWZzbouPe17XbAdBwN8dqDCgcDeMDP%2BgesBeu1n%2BRAsBzrvMsjt2pnwO0ys%2Bubwtm7%2F6TVZIL5iW5w0gZfU1EQN2mnV%2BI%2Fyz5QTy7bRIiRdC%2BgTCI2UKMwGFo04UYwa87ofL7wpn1p3v2%2BwjDf8fD4%2FU8m00X0ecvFkSh7ENvpfhepqsn8AVylPZaP9N%2BpGY5OglOTKD5lN7t%2Bs1cRCZtTLWZb5ngnbGajdsMPnH2bgGOrABd5s29QDSvW1%2B3RE5xmMHUqKv5oud62ZdjJJtiH%2Bi8FwYGHMtr33iyuLOWghtkSQAuVkZ0zkCP0kTzR%2FqGmB1DrJ91MOZi0SmxM3HumwkjUtUIanFoqzCcaxCctDqNUPBNCxKswUvRa1U%2FICjMe2fV658FQmCfq%2FQcr6Bt%2F5fokNpJ649RJbC%2F%2ByVhcuvC3ULNaneNqmY2oBARK62M%2BZft%2F3%2BsuZ072rmazrE9UJ7DYs%3D"><div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>Defendant, Reagan Ch<span></span>ristopher Garcia, appeals hi<span></span>s </span>
</div>
<div>conviction<span></span>s and sen<span></span>tence entered on guil<span></span>ty verdicts for two counts </div>
<div>of<span> stalking and four counts o<span></span>f violating protection<span></span> orders. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>Garcia raises two issues on<span></span> appeal.</span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>First, he contends that </span>
</div>
<div>the cumulative <span></span>effect <span></span>of improperly admitted <span></span>prior bad <span></span>acts evidence </div>
<div>deprived him <span></span>of a f<span></span>air trial. Second<span>, <span>he</span></span> <span></span>arg<span></span>ues that even <span></span>if we affirm </div>
<div>his convi<span></span>ctions, we sh<span></span>ould vacate hi<span></span>s sentence and remand<span></span> for </div>
<div>resentencing. We <span>reject Garcia’s</span> conten<span></span>tions of trial error, but we </div>
<div>agree <span>he</span> <span></span>is entitled <span></span>to a new <span></span>sentencing h<span></span>earing. Consequen<span></span>tly, w<span>e </span>
</div>
<div>affirm <span>Garcia’s</span> conviction<span></span>s<span>, </span>reverse his sentence<span></span>, and remand the </div>
<div>case for resentencing. </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>The prosecutio<span></span>n presented eviden<span></span>ce at trial from which<span></span> a </span>
</div>
<div>reasonable jury could h<span></span>ave found th<span></span>e followin<span></span>g. </div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>Garcia and D.Q. were married for seven years and had three </span>
</div>
<div>children together. <span></span> They <span></span>divorced in 2010<span></span>. <span>Garcia’s conduct during </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> In his openi<span></span>ng brief, Garcia argued that his conviction<span> </span>s for </div>
<div>stalking under sectio<span></span>n <span>18</span>-3-6<span></span>02(1)(c), C.R.S<span></span>. 2024, must be </div>
<div>reversed because that statute is unconstitution<span></span>al, citing </div>
<div>Counterman v. Colorado<span>, 600 U.S. 66 (202<span></span>3). Garcia withdrew this </span>
</div>
<div>argument in his reply brief, so we do n<span></span>ot address it on the merits. <span></span> </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf2" data-dest-detail='[2,"XYZ",69,154,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:443.503889px;bottom:752.010556px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf3" data-page-no="3">
<div><div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>and after the divorce resulted in four <span></span>protection orders that were </div>
<div>active during the relevant times. The protectio<span></span>n orders required </div>
<div>Garcia <span>to</span> not contact D.Q. and prohi<span></span>bited him from goi<span></span>ng near </div>
<div>D.Q.’s residence. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>Between July and Novem<span></span>ber 2020, Garcia violated the </span>
</div>
<div>protection orders many times. S<span></span>ome of these viol<span></span>ations inc<span></span>luded </div>
<div>leaving menaci<span></span>ng <span>voicemail<span></span>s, attempting to break into D.Q.’s </span>
</div>
<div>residence multiple <span></span>times while sh<span></span>e and h<span></span>er family were inside, and<span></span> </div>
<div>threatening to murder and dismembe<span></span>r D.Q. and members of her </div>
<div>family. </div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>Despite these inc<span></span>idents, D.Q. did, on<span></span> a few occasions, </span>
</div>
<div>voluntarily spend <span></span>some time <span></span>with G<span></span>arcia during this period<span>. </span>Garcia </div>
<div>hosted a birthday part<span></span>y for their son at his sister’s house th<span></span>at D.Q. </div>
<div>attended. D.Q. picked Garcia up from his sister<span>’</span>s h<span></span>ouse and gave </div>
<div>him rides a few times<span>. </span>D.Q. and Garcia wen<span></span>t to a concert together, </div>
<div>and D.Q. allowed <span></span>Garcia to stay one night at her house. Regarding </div>
<div>these interactions<span></span><span>, D.Q. clarified that “99 percent of the time, we </span>
</div>
<div>were not cordial.” <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>Shortly after <span>one of Garcia’s attempts to break into D.Q.’s </span></span>
</div>
<div>residence, Garcia was charged with on<span></span>e count of s<span></span>econd degree </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div>3 </div>
<div>burglary<span>, <span></span><span>two counts <span></span>of stalking, and ten counts of protection<span></span> order </span></span>
</div>
<div>violation<span></span>s. After a jury tr<span></span>ial, he was con<span></span>victed of both stalki<span></span>ng </div>
<div>counts and four of the protectio<span></span>n order violation<span></span>s. The d<span></span>istrict </div>
<div>court sentenced Garcia to a con<span></span>trolling sentence o<span></span>f eight years in </div>
<div>the custody of the Department of Corrections. <span></span> <span> </span>
</div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Prio<span></span>r Bad Acts Evidence </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>Garcia contends that se<span></span>veral references to prior criminality </span>
</div>
<div>and other bad acts, when<span></span> viewed cumulatively, deprived<span></span> him of a </div>
<div>fair trial. Because Garcia does not develop<span></span> his argument to a </div>
<div>degree sufficient to allow adequate appel<span></span>late review, we d<span></span>ecline to </div>
<div>address the merits of the issue. </div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>It is well establishe<span></span>d that we will no<span></span>t consider concl<span></span>usory </span>
</div>
<div>arguments or bald legal assertions absent deve<span></span>lopment or </div>
<div>argument. <span>See, e.g.</span><span>, </span><span>People v. Simpson</span>, 93 P.3d 551, 555 (Colo. </div>
<div>App. 2003). <span></span> Instead, <span></span>an appellant must <span></span>apply <span></span>the legal pr<span></span>incipl<span></span>es <span></span>to </div>
<div>the facts to establish legal error entitling h<span></span>im to relief. </div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>Garcia lists the follo<span></span>wing evide<span></span>nce as allegedly imp<span></span>roperly </span>
</div>
<div>admitted other bad acts: </div>
<div>•<span> <span>A police officer testified that Garcia had “<span></span>an active </span></span>
</div>
<div>warrant.” <span>Garcia objected to this testimony and<span></span> </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf5" data-page-no="5">
<div><div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>requested a mistrial. The district court sustained<span></span> the </div>
<div>objection<span></span> but rather than grant a mistrial, the court </div>
<div>instructed the jury to ignore the testimony.<span></span><span> </span> </div>
<div>•<span> <span>D.Q. mentioned that Garcia had en<span></span>tered her home </span></span>
</div>
<div>several times previously. Garcia obj<span></span>ected to this </div>
<div>testimony and <span></span>requested a mistrial; the district court did </div>
<div>not hear the reference, but it still i<span></span>nstructed the jury to </div>
<div>ignore the testimony. </div>
<div>•<span> <span>Portions of <span></span>admitted minute <span></span>orders included <span></span>the following<span></span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>statements: </div>
<div>o<span> <span>“[<span>Garcia’s <span>parenting time] will be in<span></span> the form of </span></span></span></span>
</div>
<div>reintegration therapy at a licensed facility 1 time<span> </span> <span>a </span>
</div>
<div>week for up to 2 hours at a time. The reintegration </div>
<div>therapy will contin<span></span>ue at the discretion of the </div>
<div>therapist.” <span> </span>
</div>
<div>o<span> <span>“Parties were heard arguing in the hall.” <span> </span><span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>o<span> <span>“Petitioner states that there is a history of violen<span></span>ce </span></span>
</div>
<div>from Responden<span></span>t and she is no<span></span>t comfortable with </div>
<div>visits unless the<span></span>y are supervised.” <span> </span>
</div>
<div>o<span> </span><span>“[D.Q.<span> believes] <span>that the ch<span></span>ildren may be hurt.” </span> </span></span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf6" data-page-no="6">
<div><div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>o<span> <span>“Garcia called from Colorado Corrections.”<span></span> <span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>o<span> <span>“There is also a pend<span></span>ing D&amp;N case involvin<span></span>g the </span></span>
</div>
<div>parties’ children.” <span></span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>Cumulative error requires reversal when the trial court </span>
</div>
<div>commits several <span></span>errors t<span></span>hat indivi<span></span>dually do no<span></span>t necessitate reversal </div>
<div>but that, when viewed<span></span> as a whole, are so prejudi<span></span>cial that the </div>
<div>defendant was den<span></span>ied a fair trial. <span>Howard-Walker v. People</span><span>, 2019 </span>
</div>
<div>CO 69, ¶ <span></span>24. However, <span></span>before we <span></span>can assess <span></span>the prejudicial effect<span></span> of </div>
<div>erroneously admitted eviden<span></span>ce <span>—</span> if any <span>—</span> Garcia must first </div>
<div>establish that errors occurred. But on appeal, Garcia fail<span></span>s to </div>
<div>develop any argument as to wh<span></span>y the various pieces of oth<span></span>er acts </div>
<div>ev<span>idence he i<span></span>dentifies we<span></span>re admitted in error. Indeed, Garcia does </span>
</div>
<div>not even <span></span>mention<span></span> <span></span>the <span></span>analytical framework <span></span>for determining whether </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf7" data-page-no="7">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM4/agg/MM4aggFZ%2BcPAf5hE/MdLVDfKFwlibrS4mKkHezYnQSzaA%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPX26A6URO&amp;Expires=1729526591&amp;Signature=%2F77%2Btkd9DYJJjpxwTGY7hKhcyKs%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjECcaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQDP2ydDi9v4%2F8XNLfeTN65QlWLbKJ9%2BGbs15YzsW7%2BbNwIhAPglxsjiF7F9TEZioiQozCJbrmJmUZcjbPQ2AvQlxrC2KrsFCJD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEQABoMOTI2MDQxMjAzOTM1IgzGjXspvXc65qEmJ8gqjwUmkXyUIBLuB2nwDx3jJHe6%2F5Lm%2F%2BwbCAb%2F8EB6ybMNftrNS3IfNaBfouWzNZJMJ0%2B7z%2FrwRz0fmvUhRYRr7FPC3AsmXJWijlFCi49Eh%2FkE5kPR9RJZMvP86aoGcSqelGrPcmFOwX5hr1n9VhIaNCtGqmy2TQ%2B%2FhHFbM0JQ7uBSv5FVANRaZCk9DSOsxh%2FbRpx9ggnltnM2iFIyz6LJXx%2BsSg4IG4sV9YURq3zpTxNQ3H0uwgCdUKWc%2F2ajRCejuXKqqXk%2FMWIfN462u9CFUgDwRI39WScU3mxwYsoaCk9FwO%2FW9mHbIii%2FIyYFfitN1RhWDxdCMxN6UDGgoNWPmQAurZKAL%2F7W6Q75bVX41A7iJfxPchYIzV3Y4V0ZWrw7C%2F4gHT6pjkzMPl5%2BXAXe4YAQ6xC4PzqJ%2Bda66KakYvamkaY13%2B9JHM0nzUM8TCdk1LE%2FVKCzpnvBP4vxA4cFg76K917GBhXPxKuC2KdDWEPtxuK0HnDO%2BB0GRs3G9NUYei9DFIH8Ptkwn3IDFXNtTTkhSQ3FK6ZLAzKTrnUvy6XCpxhytp1BqnxR9%2B7O9sgYuBvTCDBxm8qeJ6BOq9Gu5M9fYPBuHGvn982o45shAxwr3U6tG9lHKcgdbBloRhoS8BnTngJMqWZzbouPe17XbAdBwN8dqDCgcDeMDP%2BgesBeu1n%2BRAsBzrvMsjt2pnwO0ys%2Bubwtm7%2F6TVZIL5iW5w0gZfU1EQN2mnV%2BI%2Fyz5QTy7bRIiRdC%2BgTCI2UKMwGFo04UYwa87ofL7wpn1p3v2%2BwjDf8fD4%2FU8m00X0ecvFkSh7ENvpfhepqsn8AVylPZaP9N%2BpGY5OglOTKD5lN7t%2Bs1cRCZtTLWZb5ngnbGajdsMPnH2bgGOrABd5s29QDSvW1%2B3RE5xmMHUqKv5oud62ZdjJJtiH%2Bi8FwYGHMtr33iyuLOWghtkSQAuVkZ0zkCP0kTzR%2FqGmB1DrJ91MOZi0SmxM3HumwkjUtUIanFoqzCcaxCctDqNUPBNCxKswUvRa1U%2FICjMe2fV658FQmCfq%2FQcr6Bt%2F5fokNpJ649RJbC%2F%2ByVhcuvC3ULNaneNqmY2oBARK62M%2BZft%2F3%2BsuZ072rmazrE9UJ7DYs%3D"><div>
<div>6 </div>
<div>admitted <span></span>evidence violates <span></span>CRE 404(b).</div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span></span><span>Rather, he simply l<span></span>ists the </span>
</div>
<div>allegedly improper <span></span>pieces <span></span>of evidenc<span></span>e, without offering argument as </div>
<div>to why they were inadmissi<span></span>ble unde<span></span>r CRE 404(b) or relyin<span></span>g on any </div>
<div>authority governing the admissi<span></span>on of that eviden<span></span>ce, and then<span></span> </div>
<div>argues that the cumulative effect of these alle<span></span>ged errors deprived </div>
<div>him of a fair trial.<span> </span>We will no<span></span>t develop <span>Garcia’s</span> arguments for him, </div>
<div>Scholle v. Ehr<span></span>ichs<span>, 2022 COA 87M, ¶ 80<span>, </span><span>aff<span></span>’d in part and rev’d in </span></span>
</div>
<div>part<span>, 2024 CO 22, and therefore declin<span></span>e to consider whe<span></span>ther and </span>
</div>
<div>why the evidence <span></span>he <span></span>identifies was <span></span>properly or improperly admitted. </div>
<div>And withou<span></span>t a showing from Garcia as to why any of the other <span></span>bad </div>
<div>acts evidence <span></span>should have <span></span>been excluded <span>—</span> <span></span>much less <span></span>all of it <span>—</span> he </div>
<div>cannot prevail on<span></span> his argument that cumulativ<span></span>e error requires </div>
<div>reversal. </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> The Colorado S<span></span>upreme Court most recently discussed<span></span> the proper </div>
<div>framework for analyzing objectio<span></span>ns to prior bad acts evidence<span></span> in </div>
<div>Rojas v. People<span>, 2022 CO 8. To determine wheth<span></span>er evidence is </span>
</div>
<div>improper <span></span>other acts evidence, the trial court must first determine if </div>
<div>the evidence is<span></span> extrinsic or intrinsi<span></span>c to the charged offense. <span></span><span>Id.</span> at </div>
<div>¶ 44. If the evidence is extrinsic<span> </span> (and supp<span></span>orts an improper </div>
<div>inference that the defen<span></span>dant has <span>a </span>bad ch<span></span>aracter), then the </div>
<div>prosecution must establi<span></span>sh the eviden<span></span>ce is relevant to <span>a </span>c<span></span>ommon </div>
<div>plan, motive, opp<span></span>ortunity, or intent. <span>Id.</span> at <span>¶ </span>48. Once the </div>
<div>prosecution establishes <span></span>a <span></span>non-<span></span>propensity <span></span>purpose for admitting the </div>
<div>evidence, then <span></span>the court weighs the probative valu<span></span>e of the evidence </div>
<div>against the risk of unfair prejudice. <span></span><span>Id.</span> at <span>¶ </span>52. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf7" data-dest-detail='[7,"XYZ",69,269,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:430.074444px;bottom:877.999444px;width:10.080000px;height:32.870000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf8" data-page-no="8">
<div><div>
<div>7 </div>
<div>III.<span> <span>S<span></span>entencin<span></span>g </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 12<span> </span><span>In supplemental briefing submitted in response to an order of </span>
</div>
<div>this court, Garcia contends that h<span></span>is sentence must be vacated </div>
<div>because the district court lacked authority to impo<span></span>se it while </div>
<div>Garcia’s motion to recuse the trial judge was pend<span></span>ing. We agree. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>A.<span> <span>Additional Facts <span> </span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>Garcia was represented by <span>a </span>public d<span></span>efender throughout the </span>
</div>
<div>pretrial and <span></span>trial proceedings. At the se<span></span>ntencing hearin<span></span>g, however, </div>
<div>Garcia announced<span></span> that he no lo<span></span>nger wished to be represented<span></span> by </div>
<div>his appoin<span></span>ted public de<span></span>fender because he be<span></span>lieved h<span></span>is public </div>
<div>defender was ineffective. In essence, Garcia argued that his public<span></span> </div>
<div>defender had given<span></span> the prosecution access to h<span></span>is trial strategy by </div>
<div>conspirin<span></span>g with the prosecution an<span></span>d jail deputies to h<span></span>ave the jail </div>
<div>deputies film Webex<span></span> conferences between<span></span> Garcia and his coun<span></span>sel. </div>
<div>Additionally, Gar<span></span>cia <span></span>claimed counsel intimidated <span></span>him <span></span>when advising </div>
<div>him on vario<span></span>us matters, including about whe<span></span>ther to speak at </div>
<div>sentencin<span></span>g. The court attempted to expla<span>in</span>, to no<span></span> avail, that legal </div>
<div>strategy was the province of his attorney. Ultimately, h<span></span>owever, the </div>
<div>court determined that an irreconcil<span></span>able conflic<span></span>t had arisen<span></span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>disqualified the<span></span> public defende<span></span>r’s office from representing Garcia<span>, </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf9" data-page-no="9">
<div><div>
<div>8 </div>
<div>and granted Garcia’s request to have alternate defense counsel<span> </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>(ADC) appointed<span></span> for sentencing. Th<span></span>e court continued sen<span></span>tencing </div>
<div>and schedul<span></span>ed a status conference to be h<span></span>eld several weeks later.<span> </span> </div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>A day before the new sen<span></span>tencing date, Garcia filed a pro se </span>
</div>
<div>motion seeking <span></span>a continuance <span></span>and t<span></span>he appointment <span></span>of new counsel. </div>
<div>Garcia retracted the request for new counsel at the hearing, but </div>
<div>ADC requested a continuance so<span></span> that he could<span></span> explore a potential<span></span> </div>
<div>motion for <span></span>a new trial. The court granted the con<span></span>tinuance over the </div>
<div>prosecutor’s <span></span>objection and <span></span>rescheduled <span></span>sentencing <span></span>for September 1, </div>
<div>2022. The cou<span></span>rt emphasized that if a motion for a new trial wi<span></span>th </div>
<div>new eviden<span></span>ce <span>wa</span>s not filed by then<span></span>, sentencin<span></span>g would proceed<span></span> as </div>
<div>scheduled<span></span>. </div>
<div>¶ 15<span> </span><span>Three days before the reschedul<span></span>ed sentencin<span></span>g hearing<span>, </span>th<span></span>e </span>
</div>
<div>court held a hearing on<span></span> two pro se motion<span></span>s that Garcia had filed. </div>
<div>Taken together, the motion<span></span>s sought (1)<span></span> a new trial based on<span></span> </div>
<div>ineffective assistance o<span></span>f trial counsel<span></span> and (2) to fire ADC and </div>
<div>proceed pro se. ADC explain<span></span>ed that Garcia wished to proceed<span></span> pro </div>
<div>se <span>due to fundamental di<span></span>sagreements over strategy <span>—</span> specifically, </span>
</div>
<div>Garcia’s insistence that they <span>li<span></span>tigate his ineffective assistan<span></span>ce of </span>
</div>
<div>counsel clai<span></span>ms before sentencin<span></span>g. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfa" data-page-no="a">
<div><div>
<div>9 </div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>After confirming <span></span>with ADC <span></span>that the conflict <span></span>had <span></span>arisen because </span>
</div>
<div>Garcia was “requesting that [counsel]<span></span> take a course of action that </div>
<div>[he did] not <span></span>believe [was]<span></span> legally justified,” the co<span></span>urt <span>advised Garcia </span>
</div>
<div>about his right to representation an<span></span>d inquired into h<span></span>is </div>
<div>understanding of the ch<span></span>arges against him and the po<span></span>ssible </div>
<div>penalties. The co<span></span>urt emphasized the co<span></span>mplexity and di<span></span>fficulties of </div>
<div>self-representation<span></span><span>, <span>attempted to explain <span></span>some aspects of </span></span>
</div>
<div>sentencin<span></span>g and appellate procedu<span></span>re, and pointed out that </div>
<div>sentencin<span></span>g would need to be co<span></span>mplete before any ineffective </div>
<div>assistance claims could be raised<span>. </span>Garcia reaffirmed he woul<span></span>d like </div>
<div>to fire ADC, and the court granted the request. However, the court </div>
<div>again expressed <span></span>concern <span>about Gar<span></span>cia’s ability to <span>represent hi<span></span>mself </span></span>
</div>
<div>and inquired further into h<span></span>is wish to procee<span></span>d pro se. <span> </span>
</div>
<div>Court: I<span></span>s anyone forcing you, threatening you? </div>
<div>Garcia: No. </div>
<div>Court: Coercing you or putting any pressure </div>
<div>on you to get you to waive your right to </div>
<div>counsel? </div>
<div>Garcia: No. </div>
<div>Court: And you’re not under the influe<span></span>nce of </div>
<div>any drugs, <span></span>alcohol, intoxicants, <span></span>or <span></span>prescription </div>
<div>medication that migh<span></span>t impact your ability to </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfb" data-page-no="b">
<div><div>
<div>10<span> </span>
</div>
<div>understand your waiver of the right to </div>
<div>counsel? </div>
<div>Garcia: No. </div>
<div>Court: Do you suffer from any emotional or </div>
<div>mental disabil<span></span>ity or illness that might impact </div>
<div>your ability to understand what you’re doin<span></span>g </div>
<div>here today? </div>
<div>Garcia: No. </div>
<div>¶ 17<span> </span><span>After some <span></span>further discussion <span></span>in which <span></span>the court <span></span>explained the </span>
</div>
<div>procedural steps that had to happen<span></span> before Garcia could raise an </div>
<div>ineffective assistance cl<span></span>aim, Garcia eventuall<span></span>y asked that his ADC </div>
<div>be reinstated as his coun<span></span>sel for sentencin<span></span>g. The court granted the </div>
<div>request, but before it did so, <span>it deni<span></span>ed Garcia’s pending pro se </span>
</div>
<div>motions during the brief window that he was representi<span></span>ng himself. </div>
<div>The court rescheduled<span></span> sentencing for Septemb<span></span>er 8, 2022<span>. </span> <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>Later the same <span></span>week, ADC requested a status conference after </span>
</div>
<div>“receiving a message . . . from a family member of Mr. Garcia </div>
<div>indicatin<span></span>g <span></span>that <span></span>[Garcia] <span></span>believe[ed] there <span></span>[was] <span></span>a conflict with <span></span>[ADC’s<span></span>] </div>
<div>representation.” <span></span> When asked <span></span>to <span></span>explain<span></span> <span></span>the <span></span>conflict, Garcia told the </div>
<div>court <span>that he had a confli<span></span>ct with ADC “because of the sim<span></span>ple fact </span>
</div>
<div>I’m suing the [Office of Alternate Defense Counse<span></span>l] and the publ<span></span>ic </div>
<div>defenders [office].” <span>The court agreed that this develo<span></span>pment created </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfc" data-page-no="c">
<div><div>
<div>11<span> </span>
</div>
<div>a conflict and po<span></span>inted out anoth<span></span>er problem: <span>by</span> pursuing his<span></span> </div>
<div>lawsuit, Garcia would be co<span></span>nflicting out every potential co<span></span>urt-</div>
<div>provided attorney in the state. In response, <span></span>Garcia requested </div>
<div>appointmen<span></span>t of <span>an attorney “outside of the [Office<span></span> of Alternate </span>
</div>
<div>Defense Counsel]<span></span>, but the court declined, stating that it did n<span></span>ot </div>
<div>“have that <span></span>ability.”<span> </span>The <span></span>court then <span></span>listed Garcia’s two options<span>: </span>“Yo<span></span>u </div>
<div>can hire private counsel<span></span> . . . <span>. </span> <span>You can represent yourself. I don’t </span>
</div>
<div>have any other lawyers to give you.” <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 19<span> </span><span>Garcia responded, “I need so<span></span>mebody to help me<span></span> —<span> assistance </span></span>
</div>
<div>of counsel to h<span></span>elp me understand or go through th<span></span>ese motions of </div>
<div>the due process motion<span></span> that you have.” <span>After the court reminded<span></span> </span>
</div>
<div>Garcia that it had already denied his pro se mo<span></span>tions, Garcia </div>
<div>attempted to pivot, claiming that hi<span></span>s ADC had not prepared for </div>
<div>sentencin<span></span>g. <span></span> At this point, the court grew frustrated and issued the </div>
<div>followin<span></span>g ruling: </div>
<div>That’s not true, Mr. Garcia. You are just </div>
<div>blowing smo<span></span>ke at me now. Okay? We </div>
<div>continued<span></span> the matter from the 29th so as to </div>
<div>afford [counsel]<span></span> an opportunity to get </div>
<div>prepared, to speak with your sister, your </div>
<div>family members, those ind<span></span>ividuals. Okay. </div>
<div>I’m not buying any of this crap. Okay? It’s </div>
<div>plain and si<span></span>mple. I’m not<span>. </span>
</div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfd" data-page-no="d">
<div><div>
<div>12<span> </span>
</div>
<div> <span>. . .<span> . </span></span>
</div>
<div>What you <span></span>are doing at<span></span> this point in time is you </div>
<div>are trying to just simply delay the inevitable. </div>
<div>You are trying to delay the imposition o<span></span>f a </div>
<div>sentence. And thi<span></span>s is all a bunch<span></span> of <span>—</span> <span>it’s a </span>
</div>
<div>game at this point in time. Okay? </div>
<div>So what’s going on<span></span> is you’re pulling out every </div>
<div>stop you can think<span></span> of to derail you getting </div>
<div>sentenced. Okay? You concocted al<span></span>l this </div>
<div>nonsen<span></span>se about the public de<span></span>fender’s office </div>
<div>being in cah<span></span>oots with the district attorney’s </div>
<div>office. <span></span>Okay? And <span></span>I gave you t<span></span>he benefit of the </div>
<div>doubt; so I removed [the publi<span></span>c defender].<span></span> </div>
<div>I appointed [ADC] to represent you. Okay? </div>
<div>You couldn’t get along with<span></span> [ADC], okay, </div>
<div>because you know be<span></span>tter than the trained </div>
<div>lawyer about what needs to be argued. Okay. </div>
<div>That’s what’s going on. Th<span></span>is is nothi<span></span>ng but </div>
<div>delay. Okay? </div>
<div>There has <span></span>never been an issue w<span></span>ith the public </div>
<div>defender’s office bein<span></span>g in league or conspirin<span></span>g </div>
<div>to turn over client confi<span></span>dences, therefore, they </div>
<div>know strategy and game plan. That’s all </div>
<div>nonsen<span></span>se. It didn’t happen. You kno<span></span>w it. . . . </div>
<div>You don’t want to get s<span>entence<span></span>d. Okay. But </span>
</div>
<div>you’re g<span></span>oing to get sentenced. <span></span> It’s as simple as </div>
<div>that. Okay? </div>
<div>You have basically thwarted every attorney’s </div>
<div>efforts to work with you. All right? . . . You </div>
<div>are going to represent yourself at this point in </div>
<div>time. Okay? I have given you every chance to </div>
<div>have counsel<span></span> to represent you, and you are </div>
<div>just playing a game with me. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pfe" data-page-no="e">
<div><div>
<div>13<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 20<span> </span><span>Garcia attempted <span></span>to argue with the court that he still had due </span>
</div>
<div>process <span></span>claims and<span></span> ineffective assistance o<span></span>f counsel claim<span></span>s that he </div>
<div>need<span>ed</span><span> help <span></span>with. H<span></span>e again requested <span></span>appointment <span></span>of counsel <span></span>other </span>
</div>
<div>than an ADC att<span></span>orney; the court reiterated, <span>“I don’t have the abili<span></span>ty </span>
</div>
<div>to appoint anyon<span></span>e other than alternate defense co<span></span>unsel. What are </div>
<div>you not grasping?” The court concl<span></span>uded the hearing<span> </span>, “So it seems<span></span> </div>
<div>to me you’ve put yourself in a position<span></span> that you are forced to </div>
<div>represent yourself or hire a new lawyer. You have until<span> </span> September </div>
<div>8th<span> </span><span>to hire a new lawyer.” <span> <span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 21<span> </span><span>On September <span></span>6, using the <span></span>Adams County Detention <span></span>Facility<span>’s </span></span>
</div>
<div>legal mail system, Garcia mailed a pro se motion<span></span> to the district </div>
<div>court titled “Motion<span></span> for Judge to Recuse Himself and for </div>
<div>Appointmen<span></span>t of Defense Counsel.”<span></span> <span>As grounds for his request, </span>
</div>
<div>Garcia ar<span></span>gued that the t<span></span>rial judge had <span></span>exhibited actual bias against </div>
<div>him, incl<span></span>uding by “lo[si<span></span>ng] his proffessio<span></span>nal [sic]<span></span> composure,” </div>
<div>“le[avin<span></span>g] <span></span>his seat,” “plac[<span></span>ing] everyone in<span></span> the Courtroom in fear for </div>
<div>their safety,” <span></span>and annou<span>ncing <span></span>before <span></span>sentencing t<span></span>hat he was <span></span>already </span>
</div>
<div>plannin<span></span>g on sendin<span></span>g Garcia back to prison. Th<span></span>e motion was </div>
<div>stamped received by the district court on Sep<span></span>tember 8, the day of </div>
<div>the sentencin<span></span>g hearing. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pff" data-page-no="f">
<div><div>
<div>14<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 22<span> </span><span>No one men<span></span>tioned the mo<span></span>tion during the sen<span></span>tencing hearin<span></span>g, </span>
</div>
<div>but a week later, on September 15, the dis<span></span>trict court issued an </div>
<div>order granting it. For reasons the record does not reveal, however, </div>
<div>the judge who granted the motio<span></span>n subsequently iss<span></span>ued several </div>
<div>procedural orders. And despi<span></span>te the recusal, neither party objected </div>
<div>to these order<span></span>s and there <span></span>is no indication <span></span>in t<span></span>he record that another </div>
<div>judicial offic<span></span>er was appointed to replace the origin<span></span>al judge before </div>
<div>Garcia filed his no<span></span>tice of appeal. <span> </span> </div>
<div>B.<span> <span>A New Sentenci<span></span>ng Hearing is Required </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 23<span> </span><span>When a party files a motion<span></span> for substitution of a judge based </span>
</div>
<div>on a claim that the jud<span></span>ge is “in any way interested or prejudiced<span></span> </div>
<div>with respect to the case, the parties, or coun<span></span>sel,<span>” “al<span></span>l other </span>
</div>
<div>proceedings in th<span></span>e case shall be suspen<span></span>ded until a rulin<span></span>g is made </div>
<div>thereon.”<span> Crim. <span></span>P. 21(b)(1)(IV), (3). <span>“</span>Th<span></span>e rule is designed to en<span></span>sure </span>
</div>
<div>that a judge who is the subj<span></span>ect of recusal proceedings wil<span></span>l not </div>
<div>exercise any authority over any aspect of the case so lo<span></span>ng as that </div>
<div>judge<span>’</span><span>s neutrality is questioned.<span></span><span>”</span> <span>People v. Bossert</span><span>, 722 <span></span>P.2d 998, </span></span>
</div>
<div>1007 (Colo<span></span>. 1986). And i<span></span>t applies <span>whe<span></span>n “the judge’s mani<span></span>festation </span>
</div>
<div>of hostility <span></span>or ill will is <span></span>apparent from the motion and<span></span> affidavits and </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf10" data-page-no="10">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM4/agg/MM4aggFZ%2BcPAf5hE/MdLVDfKFwlibrS4mKkHezYnQSzaA%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPX26A6URO&amp;Expires=1729526591&amp;Signature=%2F77%2Btkd9DYJJjpxwTGY7hKhcyKs%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjECcaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQDP2ydDi9v4%2F8XNLfeTN65QlWLbKJ9%2BGbs15YzsW7%2BbNwIhAPglxsjiF7F9TEZioiQozCJbrmJmUZcjbPQ2AvQlxrC2KrsFCJD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEQABoMOTI2MDQxMjAzOTM1IgzGjXspvXc65qEmJ8gqjwUmkXyUIBLuB2nwDx3jJHe6%2F5Lm%2F%2BwbCAb%2F8EB6ybMNftrNS3IfNaBfouWzNZJMJ0%2B7z%2FrwRz0fmvUhRYRr7FPC3AsmXJWijlFCi49Eh%2FkE5kPR9RJZMvP86aoGcSqelGrPcmFOwX5hr1n9VhIaNCtGqmy2TQ%2B%2FhHFbM0JQ7uBSv5FVANRaZCk9DSOsxh%2FbRpx9ggnltnM2iFIyz6LJXx%2BsSg4IG4sV9YURq3zpTxNQ3H0uwgCdUKWc%2F2ajRCejuXKqqXk%2FMWIfN462u9CFUgDwRI39WScU3mxwYsoaCk9FwO%2FW9mHbIii%2FIyYFfitN1RhWDxdCMxN6UDGgoNWPmQAurZKAL%2F7W6Q75bVX41A7iJfxPchYIzV3Y4V0ZWrw7C%2F4gHT6pjkzMPl5%2BXAXe4YAQ6xC4PzqJ%2Bda66KakYvamkaY13%2B9JHM0nzUM8TCdk1LE%2FVKCzpnvBP4vxA4cFg76K917GBhXPxKuC2KdDWEPtxuK0HnDO%2BB0GRs3G9NUYei9DFIH8Ptkwn3IDFXNtTTkhSQ3FK6ZLAzKTrnUvy6XCpxhytp1BqnxR9%2B7O9sgYuBvTCDBxm8qeJ6BOq9Gu5M9fYPBuHGvn982o45shAxwr3U6tG9lHKcgdbBloRhoS8BnTngJMqWZzbouPe17XbAdBwN8dqDCgcDeMDP%2BgesBeu1n%2BRAsBzrvMsjt2pnwO0ys%2Bubwtm7%2F6TVZIL5iW5w0gZfU1EQN2mnV%2BI%2Fyz5QTy7bRIiRdC%2BgTCI2UKMwGFo04UYwa87ofL7wpn1p3v2%2BwjDf8fD4%2FU8m00X0ecvFkSh7ENvpfhepqsn8AVylPZaP9N%2BpGY5OglOTKD5lN7t%2Bs1cRCZtTLWZb5ngnbGajdsMPnH2bgGOrABd5s29QDSvW1%2B3RE5xmMHUqKv5oud62ZdjJJtiH%2Bi8FwYGHMtr33iyuLOWghtkSQAuVkZ0zkCP0kTzR%2FqGmB1DrJ91MOZi0SmxM3HumwkjUtUIanFoqzCcaxCctDqNUPBNCxKswUvRa1U%2FICjMe2fV658FQmCfq%2FQcr6Bt%2F5fokNpJ649RJbC%2F%2ByVhcuvC3ULNaneNqmY2oBARK62M%2BZft%2F3%2BsuZ072rmazrE9UJ7DYs%3D"><div>
<div>15<span> </span>
</div>
<div>indicates the absen<span></span>ce of the impartiality required for a fair trial.” <span> </span>
</div>
<div>Brewster v. Dist. Ct.<span>, 811 P.2d 812, 814 (Colo<span></span>. 1991)<span></span>. </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 24<span> </span><span>The People do <span></span>not dispute <span></span>that, by utilizing the Adams County </span>
</div>
<div>Detention <span>Facili<span></span>ty’s system for legal mail, Garcia’s motion was </span>
</div>
<div>deemed filed on<span></span> September 6, 2022<span></span> <span>—</span> two days before the </div>
<div>sentencin<span></span>g hearing. <span>See </span>Crim. P. 45(f); <span>see also Wall<span></span>in v. Cosner</span><span>,</span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>210 P.3d 479, 480 (<span></span>Colo. App. 2009)<span> </span> (exp<span></span>lainin<span></span>g that a complaint </div>
<div>filed by an <span></span>inmate t<span></span>hrough the prison <span></span>mail system <span></span>is filed when<span></span> it is </div>
<div>received by the institution<span></span>’s internal mailin<span></span>g<span> system).<span> </span>Instead, the </span>
</div>
<div>People poi<span></span>nt out that the motion was p<span></span>rocedurally deficie<span></span><span>nt</span>, and </div>
<div>they also argue Garcia waived or forfeited the right to have the </div>
<div>motion decided <span></span>by failing <span></span>to mention during the sentencing hearing </div>
<div>that it had been filed<span></span> and was still pen<span></span>ding.<span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 25<span> </span><span>Th<span>e Peopl<span></span>e’s<span> arguments would have so<span></span>me force if the judge </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>had not later <span></span>granted t<span></span>he motion. But <span></span>he did g<span></span>rant it, and he did so </div>
<div>without offering <span></span>any <span></span>reasons for his <span></span>decision<span> </span>.</div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>In the absence of an </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div> In their supplemental briefin<span></span>g, the People seem to imp<span></span>ly that the </div>
<div>trial judge did not actually me<span></span>an to recuse himself bec<span></span>ause he </div>
<div>subsequently ruled on two<span></span> of Garcia’s procedural motions. <span></span><span>The </span>
</div>
<div>judge’s actions are indeed<span></span> puzzling, and it<span></span><span> is at least conceivable<span> </span> </span>
</div>
<div>that his order granting the recusal motion<span></span> was the result of a </div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf10" data-dest-detail='[16,"XYZ",69,170,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:483.012778px;bottom:248.016667px;width:10.080000px;height:32.860000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf11" data-page-no="11">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM4/agg/MM4aggFZ%2BcPAf5hE/MdLVDfKFwlibrS4mKkHezYnQSzaA%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTPX26A6URO&amp;Expires=1729526591&amp;Signature=%2F77%2Btkd9DYJJjpxwTGY7hKhcyKs%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjECcaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJIMEYCIQDP2ydDi9v4%2F8XNLfeTN65QlWLbKJ9%2BGbs15YzsW7%2BbNwIhAPglxsjiF7F9TEZioiQozCJbrmJmUZcjbPQ2AvQlxrC2KrsFCJD%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEQABoMOTI2MDQxMjAzOTM1IgzGjXspvXc65qEmJ8gqjwUmkXyUIBLuB2nwDx3jJHe6%2F5Lm%2F%2BwbCAb%2F8EB6ybMNftrNS3IfNaBfouWzNZJMJ0%2B7z%2FrwRz0fmvUhRYRr7FPC3AsmXJWijlFCi49Eh%2FkE5kPR9RJZMvP86aoGcSqelGrPcmFOwX5hr1n9VhIaNCtGqmy2TQ%2B%2FhHFbM0JQ7uBSv5FVANRaZCk9DSOsxh%2FbRpx9ggnltnM2iFIyz6LJXx%2BsSg4IG4sV9YURq3zpTxNQ3H0uwgCdUKWc%2F2ajRCejuXKqqXk%2FMWIfN462u9CFUgDwRI39WScU3mxwYsoaCk9FwO%2FW9mHbIii%2FIyYFfitN1RhWDxdCMxN6UDGgoNWPmQAurZKAL%2F7W6Q75bVX41A7iJfxPchYIzV3Y4V0ZWrw7C%2F4gHT6pjkzMPl5%2BXAXe4YAQ6xC4PzqJ%2Bda66KakYvamkaY13%2B9JHM0nzUM8TCdk1LE%2FVKCzpnvBP4vxA4cFg76K917GBhXPxKuC2KdDWEPtxuK0HnDO%2BB0GRs3G9NUYei9DFIH8Ptkwn3IDFXNtTTkhSQ3FK6ZLAzKTrnUvy6XCpxhytp1BqnxR9%2B7O9sgYuBvTCDBxm8qeJ6BOq9Gu5M9fYPBuHGvn982o45shAxwr3U6tG9lHKcgdbBloRhoS8BnTngJMqWZzbouPe17XbAdBwN8dqDCgcDeMDP%2BgesBeu1n%2BRAsBzrvMsjt2pnwO0ys%2Bubwtm7%2F6TVZIL5iW5w0gZfU1EQN2mnV%2BI%2Fyz5QTy7bRIiRdC%2BgTCI2UKMwGFo04UYwa87ofL7wpn1p3v2%2BwjDf8fD4%2FU8m00X0ecvFkSh7ENvpfhepqsn8AVylPZaP9N%2BpGY5OglOTKD5lN7t%2Bs1cRCZtTLWZb5ngnbGajdsMPnH2bgGOrABd5s29QDSvW1%2B3RE5xmMHUqKv5oud62ZdjJJtiH%2Bi8FwYGHMtr33iyuLOWghtkSQAuVkZ0zkCP0kTzR%2FqGmB1DrJ91MOZi0SmxM3HumwkjUtUIanFoqzCcaxCctDqNUPBNCxKswUvRa1U%2FICjMe2fV658FQmCfq%2FQcr6Bt%2F5fokNpJ649RJbC%2F%2ByVhcuvC3ULNaneNqmY2oBARK62M%2BZft%2F3%2BsuZ072rmazrE9UJ7DYs%3D"><div>
<div>16<span> </span>
</div>
<div>explanation<span> </span>, we can onl<span></span>y conclude the trial jud<span></span>ge decided to step </div>
<div>aside on the groun<span></span>ds asserted in the moti<span></span>on <span>—</span> that he was </div>
<div>“<span>interested or prejudiced with respect to the case<span> </span> [or] th<span></span>e parties<span>.” </span></span>
</div>
<div>Crim. P. 21(b)(1)<span></span>(IV). </div>
<div>¶ 26<span> </span><span>Thus, regardless of the timin<span></span>g of Garcia’s motion or whether </span>
</div>
<div>he should have <span></span>orally r<span></span>aised it at<span></span> the sentencing hearing, <span></span>the record </div>
<div>establishes that, on<span></span>e week after sentencing <span></span><span>—</span> and with no<span></span> other </div>
<div>proceedings havi<span></span>ng occurred in the interim <span></span><span>—</span> the trial judge </div>
<div>recused himself from the case on<span></span> grounds of actual bias.</div>
</div>
<div><div>4</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>By </span>
</div>
<div>granting the motion, the co<span></span>urt rendered questions of preservation </div>
<div>irrelevant. And on th<span></span>ese facts, we can only con<span></span>clude the tim<span></span>ing of </div>
<div>the judge<span>’s order granting Garcia’s motion establish<span></span>es that</span>, during </div>
<div> </div>
<div>clerical error. Under some circumstances it mi<span></span>ght be fruitful to </div>
<div>remand <span></span>the case for clarification<span> </span> of this questio<span></span>n. But here, that is </div>
<div>impossible because <span></span>the <span></span>trial judge is <span></span>no longer on <span></span>the bench<span>. </span><span>See In </span>
</div>
<div>re<span> Kiesnow<span></span>ski<span>, 2024 CO 12. </span></span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>4</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>We note that Garcia’s assertions of actual bias were based on th<span></span>e </span>
</div>
<div>conflict that <span></span>arose between <span></span>himself and <span></span>the trial judge after the trial </div>
<div>but before <span></span>the sentencing date. We have found n<span></span>othing in<span></span> Garcia’s </div>
<div>motion or elsew<span></span>here in the record suggesting that the j<span></span>udge </div>
<div>harbored any bias against Garcia before or during trial. Thus, our </div>
<div>opinio<span></span>n should<span></span> not be read to suggest that Garcia’s conviction<span> </span><span>s </span>
</div>
<div>were tainted by judicial bi<span></span>as. </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf11" data-dest-detail='[17,"XYZ",69,187,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:584.979444px;bottom:542.033333px;width:10.080000px;height:32.860000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a>
</div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
<div id="pf12" data-page-no="12">
<div><div>
<div>17<span> </span>
</div>
<div>sentencin<span></span>g, he harbored the same bias<span></span> that led to his subse<span></span>quent </div>
<div>recusal<span>. <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 27<span> </span><span>The judge’s deci<span></span>sion to recuse him<span></span>self shows h<span></span>e recognized </span>
</div>
<div>that he had a “ben<span></span>t of mind” against Garcia. <span>People v. Drake<span>, 748 </span></span>
</div>
<div>P.2d 1237, <span></span>1249 (Colo. <span></span>1988). And when a judge is actually biase<span></span>d </div>
<div>against a party, “we question the <span>resul<span></span>t</span>” of the proceeding. <span>People </span>
</div>
<div>in Interes<span></span>t of A.P.<span>, 2022 CO 24, ¶ 29. Accordin<span></span>gly, because the </span>
</div>
<div>record establishes that the judge presidi<span></span>ng over Garcia’s case was </div>
<div>no lon<span></span>ger neutral at the time of sentencing, we must reverse </div>
<div>Garcia’s sentence and remand the case so<span></span> that Garcia may be </div>
<div>resentenced by a different judge. </div>
<div>IV.<span> </span><span>Disposition </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 28<span> </span><span>We affirm Gar<span></span>cia’s conviction<span>s. <span></span> We rever<span></span>se the order imposing </span></span>
</div>
<div>his sentenc<span></span>e and remand the case for resentenci<span></span>ng by a different </div>
<div>judge<span>. <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>JUDGE FREYRE and JUDGE LUM conc<span></span>ur. </div>
</div></div>
<div data-data='{"ctm":[1.277778,0.000000,0.000000,1.277778,0.000000,0.000000]}'></div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div>