Attacking Your Felony Conviction (Not AN APPEAL) Crim.p. Rule 35(c) Proceedings

Attacking Your Felony Conviction (Not AN APPEAL) Crim.p. Rule 35(c) Proceedings

Section 18-1-410, C.R.S. and Rule 35(c) of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure allow defendants to raise certain claims in the trial court even after they have been convicted and exhausted all of their direct appeal rights.

Such claims are called “collateral attacks.” For example, a defendant may believe that he has located important new evidence that was not previously available to the defense that would have changed the outcome of his case,

…or may come to believe that his attorney did not provide adequate representation to him during the pendency of the case.

Claims like these may be raised under Rule 35(c) even if the case was appealed in the regular fashion and that appeal was unsuccessful.

Not every type of claim can be raised under Rule 35(c).

The Rule does not establish the right to re-try the case, nor to raise issues that, with very limited exceptions, were previously decided or could have been presented as part of the initial appeal.

Issues that may be raised under Rule 35(c) are limited to:

  1. significant changes in the law,
  2. constitutional violations in the statute or underlying the conviction or sentence,
  3. a lack of jurisdiction by the trial court that heard the case,
  4. newly discovered evidence,
  5. any other grounds “properly the basis for collateral attack”, or
  6. claims that the sentence has been fully served.
Time Limits to File The Motion

There are time limits within which such claims must be brought. There is an interest in having some finality to decisions of the court, and there is a cost involved in litigating these claims, especially as more and more time passes since the conviction.

Therefore, the legislature passed a statute of limitations on collateral attacks, and required that a person bringing such attacks, including motions pursuant to Rule 35(c), do so within three years of any felony conviction other than for a class 1 felony, eighteen months of a misdemeanor conviction and six months for a petty offense conviction.

There is no statute of limitations for collateral attacks involving a conviction of a class 1 felony.

Motions presenting collateral attacks that are filed after the time limits must be justified by a specified exception, such as the court lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or the failure to file a timely motion was due to “justifiable excuse” or “excusable neglect”.

The Specified Time Limits to Attack a Prior Conviction

Colorado Revised Statutes §16-5-402(1) provides that a person who has been convicted under a criminal statute in Colorado or another state may collaterally attack the validity of that conviction only if such attack is brought within a specified time period or completion of the direct appeal process for that conviction, unless one of the exceptions listed in §16-5-402(2), C.R.S. are applicable.

The specified time periods are as follows:

  • All class 1 felonies: No time limit
  • All other felonies: Three years
  • Misdemeanors: Eighteen months
  • Petty offenses: Six months

There are limited exceptions to this time deadline

  1. The court entering judgment of conviction did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the alleged offense;
  2. The court entering judgment of conviction did not have jurisdiction over the person of the Defendant;
  3. The failure to seek relief within the applicable time period was caused by an adjudication of incompetence or by commitment of the Defendant to an institution for treatment as a mentally ill person; or
  4. The failure to seek relief within the applicable time period was the result of circumstances amounting to justifiable excuse or excusable neglect.
Justifiable Excuse or Excusable Neglect

However, Crim. P. 35(c), section 16-5-402(2)(d), contains a provision excusing operation of the time bar when the defendant has justifiable excuse or excusable neglect for not bringing the claim within the otherwise applicable time period. The statute provides:

(2) In recognition of the difficulties attending the litigation of stale claims and the potential for frustrating various statutory provisions directed at repeat offenders, former offenders, and habitual offenders, the only exceptions to the time limitations specified in subsection (1) of this section shall be:

(d) Where the court hearing the collateral attack finds that the failure to seek relief within the applicable time period was the result of circumstances amounting to justifiable excuse or excusable neglect. § 16-5-402(2)(d), C.R.S. (2007).

Justifiable excuse or excusable neglect based on the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel is a matter that should be addressed, in the first instance, by the trial court.

The defendant must allege facts that, if true, would establish justifiable excuse or excusable neglect in order to entitle him or her to a hearing on the applicability of this exception to the time bar. People v. Wiedemer, 852 P.2d 424, 440 n. 15 (Colo.1993).

A defendant need not set forth the evidentiary support for his or her allegations; instead, a defendant need only assert facts that, if true, would provide a basis for relief.

Here is the Law Regarding a Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

“[T]he standard for making a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim is very high.”

…a defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different

Here is a Non Exhaustive List of Grounds for Excusable Neglect

The issue of justifiable excuse or excusable neglect under section 16-5-402

  1. whether there are circumstances or outside influences preventing a challenge to a prior conviction and the extent to which the defendant having reason to question the constitutionality of a conviction investigates its validity and takes advantage of relevant avenues of relief that are available;
  2. whether a defendant had any previous need to challenge a conviction and either knew that it was constitutionally infirm or had reason to question its validity;
  3. whether a defendant had other means of preventing the government’s use of the conviction, so that a post-conviction challenge was previously unnecessary;
  4. and whether the passage of time has an effect on the State’s ability to defend against the challenge.
Every Ground Must be Included in the Same Colorado 35 C Motion Successive 35 C Motion Attacks on a Prior Felony Conviction

ALL grounds for attacking a conviction must be brought in the one 35 C Petition.

With specific exceptions provided for in Criminal Procedure Rule 35(c)(3)(VII), the court shall deny any claim that could have been presented in an appeal or post conviction proceeding previously brought.

Therefore, all claims related to the conviction under attack in this petition must be listed in this petition, or future motions may be denied.

Client Reviews
"Mr. Steinberg provided my family with expert handling of my son's case. He took extra time understand the case, to consult with us during the pretrial proceedings, and to support him for a plea agreement. Mr. Steinberg is very knowledge about the law and very professional. He guided us in achieving the best possible outcome for my son. If I am ever in need of law services again, I will certainly have Mr. Steinberg handle my case. l also highly recommend his services to anyone that might be in need of an excellent defense attorney!" Tanya Witt
"I found myself in criminal trouble, that I wasn't guilty of and thanks to Mr. Steinberg's dedication and hard work, right before we we're looking at having to continue on to trial level Mr. Steinberg was able to use his vast knowledge of the law and his many respected years in the system to find a way to show my innocence. After a very unsure and somewhat difficult time for me, this very skilled and knowledgeable attorney was able to find the right path to take to reach a dismissal in my case. For that I can't tell you how much I appreciate his representation and his excellent understanding and helpful personality. He's a great man and an even better attorney but don't misunderstand him, he is an attorney not a therapist. Thanks H." Josh
"Working with Michael Steinberg was a wonderful experience. Truly people need to know that he is a expert in what he does. His personality is compassionate, intellectual, and down to earth. I glean that Michael is fun to be around. In the time I worked with him, it was a pleasure to be around him. As for my case, the outcome was amazing and couldn’t be better. He has made my life more manageable because of the outcome of my case. I’ve worked with other lawyers in the Denver area. He is superior to them all. If you’re in need of a lawyer and you come across Mr. Steinberg look no further he’s going to be the one you need. Thank you again Michael." Renee Taylor
Mr. Steinberg, It has been an honor working with you. I very much appreciated your style, demeanor, patience, and determination. I was well instructed in every step of the court process, and I felt that I received excellent guidance and timely information regarding my case. You have been extremely thoughtful with your time, and I was very impressed with your sensitivity in responding to my requests. Thank you. Anonymous