eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Colorado Court of Appeals
 2024-10

Peo v. McGee ( 2024 )


Menu:
 
  • <div><div><div><div id="pdf-container" style="width: 782px">
<div id="pf1" data-page-no="1">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>23CA0744 Peo v McGee 10-10-2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Court of Appeals No. 23CA0744 </div>
<div>Arapahoe County District Court No. 05CR356 </div>
<div>Honorable Shay <span>K. Whitaker</span>, Judge </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The People of the State of Colorado, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Plaintiff-Appellee, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>v. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kenneth Louis McGee<span>, </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Defendant-Appellant. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>ORDER AFFIRMED </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Division III </div>
<div>Opinion by JUDGE DUNN </div>
<div>Navarro and <span>Richman*</span>, JJ., concur </div>
<div> </div>
<div>NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) </div>
<div>Announced October 10, 2024 </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Allison S. Block, Assistant Attorney General </div>
<div>Fellow, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kenneth Louis McGee, Pro Se<span> </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. <span>art. </span>
</div>
<div>VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2024. </div>
<div> </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><div>
<div> </div>
<div>1 </div>
<div>¶ 1<span> </span><span>Defendant, Kenneth Louis McGee, appeals the order denying </span>
</div>
<div>his most recent postconviction motion.<span>  </span>We affirm.<span>  </span> </div>
<div>I.<span> <span>Background </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 2<span> </span><span>A jury convicted McGee of distributi<span>ng</span> a schedule II controlled </span>
</div>
<div>substance, a class 3 felony.<span>  </span>The trial court adjudicated him <span>a </span>
</div>
<div>habitual criminal and sentenced him to sixty-four years in prison.<span>  </span>
</div>
<div>A division of this court affirmed.  <span>People v. McGee</span>, (Colo. App. N<span></span>o. </div>
<div>08CA0074, Oct. 11, 2012) (not published pursuant to C.A.R.<span></span> 35(f)) </div>
<div>(<span>McGee I</span><span>).<span>  <span> </span></span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 3<span> </span><span>In 2013, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 13-250, which </span>
</div>
<div>reclassified certain felony drug offenses and reduced their penalties. <span></span> </div>
<div>See<span> Ch. 333,
    2013 Colo. Sess. Laws 1900
    -<span>44.</span><span>  </span>The bill expressly </span>
</div>
<div>applied prospectively.<span>  </span>Sec. <span>71</span>, 2013 Colo. Sess. Laws at 1943.<span>  </span><span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 4<span> </span><span>In March 2014, McGee filed a pro se Crim. P. 35(c) motion, </span>
</div>
<div>asserting multiple postconviction claims.<span>  </span>As relevant here, he </div>
<div>argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing <span>“to prepare or </span>
</div>
<div>request that a proportionality review be completed.<span>”</span><span>  </span>He also </div>
<div>claimed that <span>his sentence “constitute</span>[d] cruel and unusual </div>
<div>punishment” and requested a proportionality review becau<span></span>se his </div>
<div>sentence is “disproportionate to the seriousness of the” cha<span></span>rged </div>
</div></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>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP3BSUYP7I&amp;Expires=1728658986&amp;Signature=88myX7WX9oWFlOcDlM1f0QGfTK4%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEDYaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQD6z7quEHjS3Ef6BOsYfAKMoNH1aBZsqSNf2A6eqlhX5AIgHaJ7W8GroiffTwJNw%2FN63A1D6e2iwr2hupwjVdaNvB0qugUIj%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDH%2BOlBymSktCPR0uPCqOBc%2B%2FN59AoiPAy8yy7k7fxTFnERubHYxodLpW08WAGx141Oo9INFVaJkSjZELLqo8%2F8hdH2CID%2FJPqFKQkIGLpvuiZNJXOHFX2tIsLuddbS82u9k%2B9410rHcD7JIghOIScWhfuI9QsJaoLWC2H%2FY1%2BFFbPMUkHAUorUYCm2AceCuOKuBtEqz45hQZMW4V8qRi%2BbQQm50qkISgGR85HwPBjmSEq4I6UOVrYRvSjV4wCFc9i%2FHMzkOMe1MynP5XVwaYIr55FgZLno226lvgYa5jxPQzJa1pBj%2FWUOcFA83BzJXDA6PKRNVjOnnFBX%2FzfVmORIYxQ86HFFXBjQDAte4YhylrBFAKkAoHSXM4oTZ1eANDke2Cair2RlhF40GWYS%2BJG6xX55moMz%2B%2BxXOkgX3zpEHu2s7pWxz%2FIvcKVh5kOIn%2FouVYH2yBpxb1fcF%2BHbh%2FPCQduZJK8KuNjvdeWvtLc8pffcT1kGG7T2v830diM1fKObwE4tu9qpyZapBHt2SdCuB0q09AQyeNNKKIyi8u5M%2FjK%2BE69BbYD2DFHGa0xHPvlOJ6HLAorzYjT3mwDb9T2MeiI46KEytwDiiLPOAIjKtKdG%2F2LfhDI90DPels1uOlnYdpxKagvdiMzAgugqBCaqtZCmaTPhLuCARja4iv9%2Bta7qxFGOEkuQvz9p5dflSjUIlL%2BkH3Cf%2Fe%2BBnDtb3P7S4Sn7ij7zLAS8wV1%2Bl23fr9g5xrgryuD9Ji3f17dCKfYIRR23d0vfie2gaYUTgjjRVmOYDmDXmsHk9uiDpJXiNHCvWo%2Fb185X5tcq7alP2hB6bFYtz9rOG0PJgjXI40GDbjY9jazzztZ41O7Mqh8bT%2By0L%2Bc7Nh8EUn1u2EBTCg0aS4BjqxAbyKQhDohR9ysH24n7igonzEgIs7K3xOyfUYUTxaGr8DwW9imAXasfqp9L2152He007JQ%2BzP%2BIP2i0VUPS%2B%2Bd9PyT3PG%2B4%2BSy9pYoZGm3hK3V5aQEsO4tzQsaxz3SnJy77%2BTrZex4DM%2Bk3q3pW3LO3pj5AwxLSCHEuK7Myf2x8S9PjF1Pfx66X3WYm2TdKvltU%2BmJZWoTdE3vdaTjPFsjZzNPVfPY5CHijjDHrwXpmUOhA%3D%3D"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>2 </div>
<div>offense.  After appointment of counsel, supplemental motion<span></span>s, and </div>
<div>a hearing, the postconviction court denied the motion.<span>  </span>In doing so, </div>
<div>the court considered the 2013 legislation, conducted an abbreviate<span></span>d </div>
<div>proportionality review, and found the habitual sentence <span>“is </span>
</div>
<div>proportional to the grave and <span>serious nature of” McGee’s crimes</span>.</div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div>  <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 5<span> </span><span>McGee appealed but did not reassert his claim that trial </span>
</div>
<div>counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a proportionality <span></span>review<span>, <span>or</span></span> </div>
<div>that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment.  Nor </div>
<div>did he appeal the <span>court’s </span>proportionality finding.  A division of this </div>
<div>court affirmed the denial of the Rule <span>35</span>(c) motion and conclu<span></span>ded </div>
<div>that McGee abandoned the claims raised before the <span></span>postconviction </div>
<div>court but not reasserted on appeal.<span>  </span><span>People v. McGee</span>, (Colo. App. </div>
<div>No. 18CA1396<span>, </span>July 29, 2021) (not published pursuant to C.A.R.<span></span> </div>
<div>35(<span>e)) (<span>McGee II</span><span>).</span><span>  </span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 6<span> </span><span>In November 2019, the supreme court announced <span>Wells-Yates </span></span>
</div>
<div>v. People<span>,
    2019 CO 90M
    , <span>Melton v. People</span>,
    2019 CO 89
    , and <span>People </span></span>
</div>
<div>v. McRae<span>,
    2019 CO 91
     (collectively, </span><span>Wells-Yates</span><span>), which clarified </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>1</div></div>
<div>
<div> Though the postconviction <span>court didn’t separately address the </span>
</div>
<div>claim that McGee’s sentence constituted cruel and unusual </div>
<div>punishment, by finding the sentence proportional, it implicitly </div>
<div>rejected th<span>at</span> claim.   </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf3" data-dest-detail='[3,"XYZ",69,137,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:652.957222px;bottom:710.010000px;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="pf4" data-page-no="4">
<div><div>
<div> </div>
<div>3 </div>
<div>how courts should conduct proportionality reviews of habit<span></span>ual </div>
<div>criminal sentences.<span>  </span> </div>
<div>¶ 7<span> </span><span>More than three years later, McGee filed a second Rule 35(c) </span>
</div>
<div>motion<span>.  <span>In it</span>, <span>McGee again requested a proportionality review</span>, </span>
</div>
<div>arguing, as material here, that <span>Wells-Yates</span> established a new </div>
<div>substantive rule of constitutional law that applied retroactively, and </div>
<div>thus he was entitled to a new proportionality review.   </div>
<div>¶ 8<span> </span><span>Concluding that<span> Wells-Yates</span> <span>didn’t create</span> a new substantive </span>
</div>
<div>rule of constitutional law, the postconviction court denied <span>McGee<span></span>’s<span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>motion as successive without appointing counsel or conducting a </div>
<div>hearing<span>.  <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>II.<span> <span>Discussion </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 9<span> </span><span>McGee contends that the postconviction court erred by </span>
</div>
<div>denying his second Rule 35(c) motion as successive because <span>Wells-</span>
</div>
<div>Yates<span> created a new rule of constitutional law that shoul<span></span>d be </span>
</div>
<div>retroactively applied to his request for a proportionality review.  </div>
<div>Because we conclude that the motion is successive, we disagre<span></span>e.   </div>
<div>¶ 10<span> </span><span>Rule 35(c) allows a defendant to challenge a judgment <span></span>of </span>
</div>
<div>conviction on the ground that it was obtained in violation <span></span>of his </div>
<div>constitutional or statutory rights.  <span>See</span> Crim. P. 35(c)(2)(I).  <span></span>But a </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> </div>
<div>4 </div>
<div>defendant is not entitled to perpetual review of his postconviction </div>
<div>claims.  <span>People v. Rodriguez</span>,
    914 P.2d 230
    , 249 (Colo. <span></span>1996).  Thus, </div>
<div>generally speaking, a postconviction court must summarily <span></span>deny </div>
<div>any successive claim.  Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(VI)-(VII); <span>see also People v. </span>
</div>
<div>Taylor<span>,
    2018 COA 175
    , ¶ 17 (explaining the language directing <span></span>a </span>
</div>
<div>court to deny successive postconviction claims is “mandat<span></span>ory rather </div>
<div>than permissive”).<span>  </span>A claim is successive if it either “was raised and </div>
<div>resolved” or “could have been presented” in a previous appeal or </div>
<div>postconviction proceeding<span>. </span> Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(VI)<span>, </span>(VII); <span>see Taylor</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>¶¶<span> 9, 17.   </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 11<span> </span><span>An exception to the successiveness bar applies to claims base<span></span>d </span>
</div>
<div>on a new rule of constitutional law that was previously unavailabl<span></span>e </div>
<div>if that rule should be applied retroactively.  <span>See</span> Crim. P. </div>
<div>35(c)(3)(VI)(b), (VII)(c) (outlining this exception).   </div>
<div>¶ 12<span> </span><span>We review de novo whether a postconviction claim is </span>
</div>
<div>successive.  <span>Taylor</span><span>, ¶</span> 8.<span>  </span> </div>
<div>¶ 13<span> </span><span>McGee first requested a proportionality review in 2014.  The </span>
</div>
<div>postconviction court conducted an abbreviated proporti<span></span>onality </div>
<div>review and concluded that Mc<span>Gee’s sentence wasn’t </span>
</div>
<div>disproportionate.  McGee didn’t appeal that finding.  <span>See</span><span> <span>McGee II<span></span><span>, </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> </div>
<div>5 </div>
<div>slip op. at ¶ <span>39</span>.  Thus, the proportionality claim was raised and </div>
<div>resolved in 2014, which makes it successive<span>.  </span><span>See</span> Crim. P. </div>
<div>35(c)(3)(VI).<span>  <span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 14<span> </span><span>Even so, McGee contends that his second request for a </span>
</div>
<div>proportionality review is excepted from the successiveness ba<span></span>r </div>
<div>because <span>Wells-Yates</span> announced a new rule of substantive </div>
<div>constitutional law that applies retroactively to cases on coll<span></span>ateral </div>
<div>review.  <span>See</span> Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(VI)(b), (VII)(c).   </div>
<div>¶ 15<span> </span><span>For the reasons explained in <span>People v. McDonald</span>,
    2023 COA 23
     </span>
</div>
<div>(<span>cert. granted<span> Nov. 14, 2023), we disagree that </span><span>Wells-Yates</span><span> </span></span>
</div>
<div>announced a new rule of substantive constitutional law t<span></span>hat applies </div>
<div>retroactively.  Rather, as <span>McDonald</span> explained, <span>Wells-Yates</span> </div>
<div>announced a new procedural rule that doesn’t apply retroa<span></span>ctively to </div>
<div>final convictions.  <span>McDonald</span>, ¶¶ 2, 9, 13, 22-<span>24</span><span>; </span><span>see also Edwards </span>
</div>
<div>v. People<span>,
    129 P.3d 977
    , 982 (Colo. 2006) <span>(“[N]ew constitutional </span></span>
</div>
<div>rules of criminal procedure do not apply retroactively t<span></span>o cases on </div>
<div>collateral review.”).<span>  And while we </span>aren’t bound by<span> <span>McDonald</span><span>, </span></span>
</div>
</div>
<a href="https://www.next.westlaw.com/link/document/FullText?rs=kmfh4.8.1&amp;vr=2.0&amp;kmvr=2.6&amp;FindType=Y&amp;pubNum=0004645&amp;sernum=2008401730"><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:589.975556px;bottom:331.915556px;width:80.530000px;height:32.880000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a><a href="https://www.next.westlaw.com/link/document/FullText?rs=kmfh4.8.1&amp;vr=2.0&amp;kmvr=2.6&amp;FindType=Y&amp;pubNum=0004645&amp;sernum=2008401730"><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:89.125000px;bottom:289.902222px;width:286.170000px;height:32.880000px;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="pf7" data-page-no="7">
<div>
<img alt="" src="https://icbg.s3.amazonaws.com/media/MM9/Zgu/MM9ZguMTW/pwsU7Hj38Z0aT83wGmUtrM/47S7PRRijEBs%3D?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA5PHC3MTP3BSUYP7I&amp;Expires=1728658986&amp;Signature=88myX7WX9oWFlOcDlM1f0QGfTK4%3D&amp;x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEDYaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIQD6z7quEHjS3Ef6BOsYfAKMoNH1aBZsqSNf2A6eqlhX5AIgHaJ7W8GroiffTwJNw%2FN63A1D6e2iwr2hupwjVdaNvB0qugUIj%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAAGgw5MjYwNDEyMDM5MzUiDH%2BOlBymSktCPR0uPCqOBc%2B%2FN59AoiPAy8yy7k7fxTFnERubHYxodLpW08WAGx141Oo9INFVaJkSjZELLqo8%2F8hdH2CID%2FJPqFKQkIGLpvuiZNJXOHFX2tIsLuddbS82u9k%2B9410rHcD7JIghOIScWhfuI9QsJaoLWC2H%2FY1%2BFFbPMUkHAUorUYCm2AceCuOKuBtEqz45hQZMW4V8qRi%2BbQQm50qkISgGR85HwPBjmSEq4I6UOVrYRvSjV4wCFc9i%2FHMzkOMe1MynP5XVwaYIr55FgZLno226lvgYa5jxPQzJa1pBj%2FWUOcFA83BzJXDA6PKRNVjOnnFBX%2FzfVmORIYxQ86HFFXBjQDAte4YhylrBFAKkAoHSXM4oTZ1eANDke2Cair2RlhF40GWYS%2BJG6xX55moMz%2B%2BxXOkgX3zpEHu2s7pWxz%2FIvcKVh5kOIn%2FouVYH2yBpxb1fcF%2BHbh%2FPCQduZJK8KuNjvdeWvtLc8pffcT1kGG7T2v830diM1fKObwE4tu9qpyZapBHt2SdCuB0q09AQyeNNKKIyi8u5M%2FjK%2BE69BbYD2DFHGa0xHPvlOJ6HLAorzYjT3mwDb9T2MeiI46KEytwDiiLPOAIjKtKdG%2F2LfhDI90DPels1uOlnYdpxKagvdiMzAgugqBCaqtZCmaTPhLuCARja4iv9%2Bta7qxFGOEkuQvz9p5dflSjUIlL%2BkH3Cf%2Fe%2BBnDtb3P7S4Sn7ij7zLAS8wV1%2Bl23fr9g5xrgryuD9Ji3f17dCKfYIRR23d0vfie2gaYUTgjjRVmOYDmDXmsHk9uiDpJXiNHCvWo%2Fb185X5tcq7alP2hB6bFYtz9rOG0PJgjXI40GDbjY9jazzztZ41O7Mqh8bT%2By0L%2Bc7Nh8EUn1u2EBTCg0aS4BjqxAbyKQhDohR9ysH24n7igonzEgIs7K3xOyfUYUTxaGr8DwW9imAXasfqp9L2152He007JQ%2BzP%2BIP2i0VUPS%2B%2Bd9PyT3PG%2B4%2BSy9pYoZGm3hK3V5aQEsO4tzQsaxz3SnJy77%2BTrZex4DM%2Bk3q3pW3LO3pj5AwxLSCHEuK7Myf2x8S9PjF1Pfx66X3WYm2TdKvltU%2BmJZWoTdE3vdaTjPFsjZzNPVfPY5CHijjDHrwXpmUOhA%3D%3D"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>6 </div>
<div>Campbell v. People<span>,
    2020 CO 49
    , ¶ <span>41,</span> we are persuade<span></span>d by </span>
</div>
<div>McDonald<span>’s <span>reasoning and follow it here.</span></span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div>  <span> </span>
</div>
<div>¶ 16<span> </span><span>Thus, the postconviction court properly denied <span>McGee’s</span> </span>
</div>
<div>second Rule 35(c) motion as successive.</div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div>  <span>See McDonald</span>, ¶¶ 8, 24.  </div>
<div>Having so concluded, we <span>reject McGee’s </span>corresponding contention </div>
<div>that he was entitled to postconviction counsel.  <span>See People v. </span>
</div>
<div>Nozolino<span>,
    2023 COA 39
    , ¶ <span>34</span> <span>(“</span>[T]he statutory right to </span>
</div>
<div>postconviction counsel is triggered when the ‘motion’ or ‘petit<span></span>ion’ is </div>
<div>not wholly unfounded.”).<span>   </span>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div><div>2</div></div>
<div>
<div> We decline McGee<span>’s request </span>in his reply brief asking us to defer </div>
<div>ruling on his appeal until our supreme court decides <span>People v. </span>
</div>
<div>McDonald<span>,
    2023 COA 23
     (<span>cert. granted</span> Nov. 14, 2023).<span>  </span> </span>
</div>
</div>
<div><div>3</div></div>
<div>
<div> <span>Because McGee’s </span>conviction was final in 2013, <span>see Hunsa<span></span>ker v. </span>
</div>
<div>People<span>,
    2021 CO 83
    , ¶ <span>36</span><span>, </span>the most recent postconviction motion i<span>s </span></span>
</div>
<div>also untimely, as it was filed past the three-year deadline for su<span></span>ch </div>
<div>motions.  <span>See</span> § 16-5-402(1), C.R.S. 2024 (collateral attacks to </div>
<div>convictions for non-class 1 felonies must be filed within three yea<span></span>rs </div>
<div>of the conviction).  And even assuming for argument<span>’s</span> sake that we </div>
<div>agreed with McGee that the 2019 decisions <span>—</span> <span>Wells-Yates v. Pe<span></span>ople<span>, </span></span>
</div>
<div>
    2019 CO 90M
    , <span>Melton v. People</span>,
    2019 CO 89
    , and <span>People v. McRae</span><span>, </span>
</div>
<div>
    2019 CO 91
     <span>—</span> created a new substantive rule of constitutional law </div>
<div>that applied retroactively, McGee offers no reason why he wait<span></span>ed </div>
<div>over four years after those decisions to file his most recent </div>
<div>postconviction motion<span>. </span> Having alleged no justifiable excuse or </div>
<div>excusable neglect for the delay in seeking relief, the Rule 35(c) </div>
<div>motion is time barred.   </div>
</div>
<a href="#pf7" data-dest-detail='[7,"XYZ",69,351,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:441.868333px;bottom:835.973333px;width:10.080000px;height:32.880000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a><a href="#pf7" data-dest-detail='[7,"XYZ",69,302,null]'><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:438.661111px;bottom:751.959444px;width:10.080000px;height:32.880000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a><a href="https://www.next.westlaw.com/link/document/FullText?rs=kmfh4.8.1&amp;vr=2.0&amp;kmvr=2.6&amp;FindType=Y&amp;pubNum=0007780&amp;sernum=2074586822"><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:543.477222px;bottom:667.945556px;width:116.920000px;height:32.880000px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0.000001);"></div></a><a href="https://www.next.westlaw.com/link/document/FullText?rs=kmfh4.8.1&amp;vr=2.0&amp;kmvr=2.6&amp;FindType=Y&amp;pubNum=0007780&amp;sernum=2074586822"><div style="border-style:none;position:absolute;left:89.125000px;bottom:625.932222px;width:201.330000px;height:32.880000px;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> </div>
<div>7 </div>
<div>¶ 17<span> </span><span>Finally, <span>we decline to address McGee’s ineffective assistance of </span></span>
</div>
<div>appellate counsel claim first raised in his reply brief.  <span>See People v. </span>
</div>
<div>Cline<span>,
    2022 COA 135
    , ¶ 75 n.3.  To the extent McGee conten<span></span>ds he </span>
</div>
<div>raised that claim in his Rule 35(c) motion, we <span>don’t see it</span><span>.</span><span>  </span> </div>
<div>III.<span> <span>Disposition </span></span>
</div>
<div>¶ 18<span> </span><span>The order is affirmed.<span>  </span> </span>
</div>
<div>JUDGE NAVARRO and JUDGE RICHMAN concur.<span>  </span> </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>
Leave a Comment

Document Info

Docket Number： 23CA0744

Filed Date： 10/10/2024

Precedential Status： Precedential

Modified Date： 10/11/2024