(1) The court shall order DNA testing if:
(a) It finds a reasonable probability that the petitioner would not have been convicted if favorable results had been obtained through DNA testing at the time of the original prosecution;
(b) It finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a law enforcement agency collected biological evidence pertaining to the offense;
(c) (I) It finds by a preponderance of the evidence that DNA results were not available prior to the petitioner's conviction or, if previously available and tested, the evidence can be subjected to more advanced, scientifically reliable DNA testing that provides a reasonable likelihood of more probative results; or
(II) The petitioner did not secure the requested DNA testing prior to the petitioner's conviction because DNA testing was not reasonably available or for reasons that constitute justifiable excuse, ineffective assistance of counsel, or excusable neglect; and
(d) The petitioner consents to provide a biological sample for DNA testing.
(2) A petitioner may only file a subsequent petition with new grounds for relief not raised in the prior petition if the petitioner exercised due diligence to raise all viable claims at the time of the initial petition or if the petitioner was not granted a hearing on the initial petition and the subsequent petition raises viable grounds for relief. If the court determines these criteria are satisfied, the court may consider the subsequent petition if the petitioner establishes good cause why a successive petition should be considered or the court finds that the interests of justice so require. If the court considers the subsequent petition, the court shall determine whether to grant the petition pursuant to subsection (1) of this section.
Source: L. 2003: Entire section added, p. 816, § 1, effective August 6. L. 2023: IP(1), (1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c) amended and (2) added, (HB 23-1034), ch. 15, p. 45, § 3, effective October 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case:
v. Thompson, 2020 COA 117 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
v. Thompson, 2020 COA 117 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 14× “He contends that the court erred in denying his requests for DNA testing under section 18-1-413, C.R.S. 2019, and Crim. P.”
People v. Young, 412 P.3d 676 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 49× “Second, the motion "shall include specific facts sufficient to support a prima facie showing that post-conviction relief is warranted under the criteria set forth in section 18-1-413." § 18-1-412(2). Third, under section 18-1-413(1), a court shall not order DNA testing unless…”
State v. Riofta, 209 P.3d 467 (Wash. 2009).
“221 (citing Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-413 (2007); Tex. Code Crim.”
Commonwealth v. Wade, 5 N.E.3d 816 (Mass. 2014).
“278A, § 3 (b) (5) (iv), with Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-1-413 (c)(II) (West 2013) (where petitioner fails to secure available DNA testing at time of trial, petitioner must show that failure was “for reasons that constitute justifiable excuse, ineffective assistance of counsel,…”
Peo v. Daniel (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 23× “” He asked the postconviction court to set an evidentiary hearing, “vacate his convictions and sentences, order DNA testing[,] and assign counsel with expertise in this area[] to articulate a cogent defense.” In its order denying the 2024 motion without a hearing or appointing…”
Peo v. Hebert (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 7× “Under section 18-1-412(2), a motion for such testing “shall include specific facts sufficient to support a prima facie showing that post-conviction relief is warranted under the criteria set forth in section 18-1-413, [C.R.S. 2024].” Under section 18-1-413(1), a court “shall…”
Peo v. Hunter (Colo. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 4× “¶ 24 Those section 18-1-413 factual criteria include the following: (a) Favorable results of the DNA testing will demonstrate the petitioner’s actual innocence; (b) A law enforcement agency collected biological evidence pertaining to the offense and retains actual or…”
Peo v. Solazzo (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “” ¶4 The district court denied Solazzo’s motion, concluding that he had failed to sufficiently allege two of the factual criteria required by section 18-1-413, C.R.S. 2025. First, he failed to adequately allege that he would not have been convicted if favorable results had been…”
Peo v. Lucero (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “Lucero, appeals the postconviction court’s order summarily denying his motion for additional DNA testing under section 18-1-413, C.R.S. 2025. We affirm.”
State v. Riofta, 209 P.3d 467 (Wash. 2009).
“221 (citing Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-1-413 (2007); Tex.Code Crim.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-413(1) — 4 cases
v. Thompson, 2020 COA 117 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“He contends that the court erred in denying his requests for DNA testing under section 18-1-413, C.R.S. 2019, and Crim. P.”
People v. Young, 412 P.3d 676 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
“Second, the motion "shall include specific facts sufficient to support a prima facie showing that post-conviction relief is warranted under the criteria set forth in section 18-1-413." § 18-1-412(2). Third, under section 18-1-413(1), a court shall not order DNA testing unless…”
Peo v. Daniel (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
“” He asked the postconviction court to set an evidentiary hearing, “vacate his convictions and sentences, order DNA testing[,] and assign counsel with expertise in this area[] to articulate a cogent defense.” In its order denying the 2024 motion without a hearing or appointing…”
Peo v. Hebert (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
“Under section 18-1-412(2), a motion for such testing “shall include specific facts sufficient to support a prima facie showing that post-conviction relief is warranted under the criteria set forth in section 18-1-413, [C.R.S. 2024].” Under section 18-1-413(1), a court “shall…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-413(1)(a) — 2 cases
Peo v. Daniel (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).
“” He asked the postconviction court to set an evidentiary hearing, “vacate his convictions and sentences, order DNA testing[,] and assign counsel with expertise in this area[] to articulate a cogent defense.” In its order denying the 2024 motion without a hearing or appointing…”
Peo v. Hebert (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
“Under section 18-1-412(2), a motion for such testing “shall include specific facts sufficient to support a prima facie showing that post-conviction relief is warranted under the criteria set forth in section 18-1-413, [C.R.S. 2024].” Under section 18-1-413(1), a court “shall…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-413(1)(b) — 1 case
People v. Young, 412 P.3d 676 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
“Second, the motion "shall include specific facts sufficient to support a prima facie showing that post-conviction relief is warranted under the criteria set forth in section 18-1-413." § 18-1-412(2). Third, under section 18-1-413(1), a court shall not order DNA testing unless…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-413(1)(c)(I) — 1 case
Peo v. Hunter (Colo. Ct. App. 2022).
“¶ 24 Those section 18-1-413 factual criteria include the following: (a) Favorable results of the DNA testing will demonstrate the petitioner’s actual innocence; (b) A law enforcement agency collected biological evidence pertaining to the offense and retains actual or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.