Close v. People (2008)

Close v. People, 180 P.3d 1015, 1019 (Colo. 2008).3 Therefore, our review is de novo.

Martinez-Huerta asserted in his Crim, P. 35(c) motion that due to his reliance on his plea counsel's erroneous advice, he was unaware of the need to challenge his conviction until August 2018 when he was placed in deportation proceedings, We conclude that Martinez-Huerta has pleaded facts that warrant a hearing on justifiable excuse or excusable neglect. - A. - Standard of Review T8 "Justifiable exeuse or excusable neglect based on the alleged ineffective assistance of couns…

To be entitled to a hearing, a defendant is not required to 5 provide evidentiary support for their allegations but “must allege facts which, if true, would entitle [them] to relief from the time bar.” Id. at ¶ 14. ¶ 13 In determining whether justifiable excuse or excusable neglect exists, a court must consider “the particular facts of [the] case, so as to give effect to the overriding concern that defendants have a meaningful opportunity to challenge their convictions as re…

Close v. People, 180 P.3d 1015, 1019 (Colo. 2008); People v. Wiedemer, 852 P.2d 424 , 440 n.15 (Colo. 1993).

Close v. People, 180 P.3d 1015, 1019 (Colo. 2008); People v. Bonan, 2014 COA 156, ¶ 16 .

See Close v. People, 180 P.3d 1015, 1020 (Colo. 2008) (“[A] defendant does not have a constitutional right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings . . . .”).

Close v. People, 180 P.3d 1015, 1019 (Colo. 2008); People v. Chavez-Torres, 2016 COA 169M , ¶ 12, aff’d, 2019 CO 59 .

When deciding whether a defendant has shown justifiable excuse or excusable neglect, “the trial court must consider the particular facts of a case, so as to give effect to the overriding concern that defendants have a meaningful opportunity to challenge their convictions as required by due process.” Close v. People, 180 P.3d 1015, 1019 (Colo. 2008). ¶ 19 In addressing the particular facts in this case, the postconviction court examined the factors listed in People v. Wiedeme…

To be entitled to a hearing, a defendant is not required to provide evidentiary support for his allegations but “must allege facts which, if true, would entitle him to relief from the time bar.” Id. at ¶ 14. ¶ 14 In determining whether justifiable excuse or excusable neglect exists, the district court must consider “the particular facts of [the] 4 case, so as to give effect to the overriding concern that defendants have a meaningful opportunity to challenge their convictions…

Close v. People , 180 P.3d 1015, 1019-20 ( Colo. 2008 ) ( noting the non-exhaustive list of factors that courts should consider in addressing the issue of justifiable excuse or excusable neglect under section 16-5-402 ) . ¶67 Here, for two reasons, I believe that any untimeliness by Hunsaker was the product of justifiable excuse or excusable neglect. ¶68 First, in filing when he did, Hunsaker relied on our unequivocal conclusion in Leyva , 184 P.3d at 50 -51 , that "when an …

Therefore, unless an exception applied (a question that we review de novo, see Close v. People, 180 P.3d 1015, 1019 (Colo. 2008)), the time bar for Jiron to collaterally attack her 1998 DUI conviction expired on May 4, 1999.

Close v. People, 180 P.3d 1015, 1019 (Colo. 2008); State ex rel.

People v. Chavez-Torres, 2019 CO 59, ¶ 11 (citing Close v. People, 180 P.3d 1015, 1019 (Colo. 2008)). 2.

People v. Martinez-Huerta, 2015 COA 69, ¶ 12 (citing Close v. People, 180 P.3d 1015, 1019-20 (Colo. 2008); Wiedemer, 852 P.2d at 441-42 ).

A. Standard of Review 116 We review de novo a trial court's decision to deny a postconviction motion as untimely, Close v. People, 180 P.3d 1015, 1019 (Colo. 2008).

P. 35(c)(3)(I) (any motion filed more than three years after the conviction is final must allege facts to establish justifiable excuse or excusable neglect); see also Close v. People, 180 P.3d 1015, 1019 (Colo. 2008); Collier, 151 P.3d at 671 . ¶ 14 Second, the claim is procedurally barred as successive.

See Close v. People, 180 P.3d 1015, 1019 (Colo. 2008); People v. Valdez, 178 P.3d 1269, 1278 (Colo. App. 2007).

See Close, 180 P.3d at 1022 .

See, e.g., Close , 180 P.3d at 1019 (using "would"); id. (using "could").