motion without hearing in Colorado

2026The second-for holding a hearing-requires the court to conduct a hearing unless "the motion, files, and record in the case clearly establish that the allegations presented in the defendant's motion are without merit and do not warrant postconviction relief." Ardolino v. People , 69 P.3d 73, 77 (Colo. 2003) (emphasis added) ("Because relief for ineffective assistance of counsel requires a criminal defendant to prove both deficient representation and prejudice, denial of the motion without a hearing is justified if, but only if, the existing record establishes that the defendant's allegations, e

2009See Ardolino v. People, 69 P.3d 73, 77 (Colo.2003) (denial of the motion without a hearing is justified if the existing record establishes that the defendant's allegations, even if proved true, would fail to establish either deficient representation or prejudice); People v. Karpierz, 165 P.3d 753, 759 (Colo.App.2006) (to prove prejudice, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's ineffective assistance, the result of the proceeding would have been different).

2016Court, 766 P.2d 632, 635 (Colo. 1988) A district court may deny the motion without a hearing if the claim raises only an issue of law or if the allegations, even if true, do not provide a basis for relief" People v. Venzor, 121 P.3d 260, 262 (Colo. App. 2005).

2016People v. Venzor , 121 P.3d 260 , 262 (Colo. App. 2005) (citing Moore v. People , 174 Colo. 570 , 572, 485 P.2d 114 , 115 (1971) ); see also Duran , ¶ 9 . ¶ 19 Denial of the motion without a hearing may also be justified if the record directly refutes the defendant's claims or if the motion, files, and existing record clearly establish that the defendant's allegations, even if proven true, would fail to satisfy one or the other prong of Strickland .

2024See People v. Osorio, 170 P.3d 796, 799 (Colo. App. 2007) (holding that a court may deny a motion without a hearing if “the motion, the files, and the record clearly establish that the defendant is not entitled to relief”); see also Moody v. People, 159 P.3d 611, 615 (Colo. 2007) (appellate court may affirm on any basis the record supports, even if that basis is different from the grounds on which the district court relied). ¶ 12 Hoid’s claim that his lawyer coerced him into pleading guilty fails for a different reason.

2022A 3 court may deny the motion without a hearing if “the motion, t he files, and the record clearly establish that the defendant is not entitled to relief.” People v. Osorio , 170 P.3d 796, 799 (Colo. App. 2007). ¶ 8 Generally, a defendant must file a Crim.

2007Ardolino v. People, 69 P.3d 73, 77 (Colo.2003); People v. Kendrick, 143 P.3d 1175, 1177 (Colo.App.2006).

2007Ardolino v. People, 69 P.3d 73, 77 (Colo.2003); People v. Kendrick, 143 P.3d 1175, 1177 (Colo.App.2006).

2025Ct., 766 P.2d 632, 635 (Colo. 1988), a postconviction court may deny a motion without a hearing if “the files and record of the case show to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant is not entitled to relief,” Crim.

2016Court, 766 P.2d 632, 635 (Colo. 1988) A district court may deny the motion without a hearing if the claim raises only an issue of law or if the allegations, even if true, do not provide a basis for relief" People v. Venzor, 121 P.3d 260, 262 (Colo. App. 2005).

2024People v. Trujillo , 169 P.3d 235, 237 (Colo. Ap p. 2007) . ¶ 12 A defendant has three years to collaterally attack a final judgment for a class 5 felony. § 16-5- 40 2(1), C.R.S. 2023.

2024People v. Trujillo , 169 P.3d 235, 237 (Colo. Ap p. 2007) . ¶ 12 A defendant has three years to collaterally attack a final judgment for a class 5 felony. § 16-5- 40 2(1), C.R.S. 2023.

2026Id. ¶53 We further explained: Thus, upon its initial review of a Crim.

2025See People v. Segura, 2024 CO 70 , ¶ 26 n.8 (“Even if, upon an initial review, the court declines to deny [a Rule 35(c)] motion outright, it may subsequently resolve the motion without a hearing after any arguably meritorious claims pursued by postconviction counsel have been fully briefed.”). ¶ 16 Beyond this single point, however, Madrid doesn’t explain how or why the postconviction court erred by denying his ineffective assistance claims without a hearing.

2026People v. Phipps, 2016 COA 190M , ¶ 19; see People v. Duran, 2025 COA 34, ¶ 15 . ¶ 12 We review de novo the denial of a Crim.

2026See People v. Moriarity, 8 P.3d 566, 569 (Colo. App. 2000) (noting that a defendant is not entitled to a hearing or appointment of counsel “if the motion, the files, and the record establish that the defendant is not entitled to relief as a matter of law”).

2026The second-for holding a hearing-requires the court to conduct a hearing unless "the motion, files, and record in the case clearly establish that the allegations presented in the defendant's motion are without merit and do not warrant postconviction relief." Ardolino v. People , 69 P.3d 73, 77 (Colo. 2003) (emphasis added) ("Because relief for ineffective assistance of counsel requires a criminal defendant to prove both deficient representation and prejudice, denial of the motion without a hearing is justified if, but only if, the existing record establishes that the defendant's allegations, e

2025See People v. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d 230, 250 (Colo. 1996) (summarily affirming when appellant fails to “inform this court ‘both as to the specific errors relied upon and as to the grounds, supporting facts and authorities therefor’” (quoting People v. Diefenderfer, 784 P.2d 741, 752 (Colo. 1989))); Cikraji v. Snowberger, 2015 COA 66 , ¶ 21 n.3 (“We do not consider bald factual or legal assertions presented without argument or development.”). 3 also deny the motion without a hearing if the claims are bare and conclusory in nature, or if they lack supporting factual allegations.

2025See Thiret v. Kautzky, 792 P.2d 801, 808 (Colo. 1990) (“[T]he ‘governing’ sentence is the longest sentence . . . , and the relevant parole provisions of that sentence apply to the entire ‘composite’ sentence.”). 5 ¶ 12 In a detailed order, the postconviction court denied the motion without a hearing.

2025See People v. White, 981 P.2d 624, 626 (Colo. App. 1998). ¶8 The order is affirmed.

2025In Counterman, the Supreme Court held that, in a criminal prosecution premised on communications of true threats of violence, “[t]he State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.” Id. at 69, 72-73 . ¶5 In a lengthy order, the postconviction court denied the motion without a hearing.

2025See People v. Rodriguez, 914 P.2d 230, 250 (Colo. 1996) (summarily affirming when appellant fails to “inform this court ‘both as to the specific errors relied upon and as to the grounds, supporting facts and authorities therefor’” (quoting People v. Diefenderfer, 784 P.2d 741, 752 (Colo. 1989))); Cikraji v. Snowberger, 2015 COA 66 , ¶ 21 n.3 (“We do not consider bald factual or legal assertions presented without argument or development.”). 3 also deny the motion without a hearing if the claims are bare and conclusory in nature, or if they lack supporting factual allegations.

2024See People v. Osorio, 170 P.3d 796, 799 (Colo. App. 2007) (holding that a court may deny a motion without a hearing if “the motion, the files, and the record clearly establish that the defendant is not entitled to relief”); see also Moody v. People, 159 P.3d 611, 615 (Colo. 2007) (appellate court may affirm on any basis the record supports, even if that basis is different from the grounds on which the district court relied). ¶ 12 Hoid’s claim that his lawyer coerced him into pleading guilty fails for a different reason.

2024True, a “defendant may challenge his guilty plea on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel when that challenge goes to the issue of whether the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered.” People v. Stovall, 2012 COA 7M , ¶ 13; see also People v. Isham, 923 P.2d 190, 194 (Colo. App. 1995) (“A defendant can successfully attack a plea only if he can prove serious dereliction on the part of counsel sufficient to show 5 that his plea was not a knowing and intelligent act.”).

2024Significantly, Bemish did not condition his desire to plead guilty on the forensic expert’s findings, even though Bemish was aware that the court had authorized Baker to engage such an expert. ¶ 13 Even if we were to read Bemish’s pro se motion broadly, see Jones v. Williams, 2019 CO 61, ¶ 5 , 443 P.3d 56, 58 (“Pleadings by pro se litigants must be broadly construed to ensure that they are not denied review of important issues because of their inability to articulate their argument like a lawyer.”), and ignore the strong evidence of his wish to plead guilty, we cannot conclude that he sufficie

2024Significantly, Bemish did not condition his desire to plead guilty on the forensic expert’s findings, even though Bemish was aware that the court had authorized Baker to engage such an expert. ¶ 13 Even if we were to read Bemish’s pro se motion broadly, see Jones v. Williams, 2019 CO 61, ¶ 5 , 443 P.3d 56, 58 (“Pleadings by pro se litigants must be broadly construed to ensure that they are not denied review of important issues because of their inability to articulate their argument like a lawyer.”), and ignore the strong evidence of his wish to plead guilty, we cannot conclude that he sufficie

2018People v. Gardner, 250 P.3d 1262, 1266 (Colo. App. 2010). ¶ 10 A district court may deny the motion without a hearing if the motion, files, and record clearly show that the defendant is not entitled to relief.

2009Such motions require a defendant to show: "[1] that the evidence was discovered after the trial; [2] that defendant and his counsel exercised dili-genee to discover all possible evidence favorable to the defendant prior to and during the trial; [8] that the newly discovered evidence is material to the issues involved, and not merely cumulative or impeaching; and [4] that on retrial the newly discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal." People v. Gutierrez, 622 P.2d 547, 559-60 (Colo. 1981), quoted in People v. Schneider, 25 P.3d 755, 761 (Colo.2001).

2009Such motions require a defendant to show: "[1] that the evidence was discovered after the trial; [2] that defendant and his counsel exercised dili-genee to discover all possible evidence favorable to the defendant prior to and during the trial; [8] that the newly discovered evidence is material to the issues involved, and not merely cumulative or impeaching; and [4] that on retrial the newly discovered evidence would probably produce an acquittal." People v. Gutierrez, 622 P.2d 547, 559-60 (Colo. 1981), quoted in People v. Schneider, 25 P.3d 755, 761 (Colo.2001).

2009See People *339 v. Long, 126 P.3d 284, 286 (Colo.App.2005) (whether a postconviction motion states a claim for relief is a legal determination subject to de novo review); People v. Venzor, 121 P.3d 260, 262 (Colo.App.2005) (denial of a postconviction motion without a hearing is appropriate if the claims raise an issue of law, or if the allegations asserted, even if true, do not provide a basis for relief).