SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m. Oral …€¦ · Jeffery Philip Robbins GOLDMAN ROBBINS...

9:00 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2011SC878 (44 MINUTES)

Petitioner:

Julio Venalonzo, a/k/a Melvin Manzanares(z),

v.

Respondent:

The People of the State of Colorado.

For the Petitioner Julio Venalonzo, a/k/a Melvin Manzanares(z):Tracy C. Renner, Deputy Public DefenderOffice of the Public Defender

For the Respondent The People of the State of Colorado:Majid Yazdi, Assistant Attorney GeneralOffice of the Attorney General

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2007CA882Docketed: November 28, 2011At Issue: October 19, 2015

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred and departed from the longstanding rule against testimony that a witness is telling the truth on a specific occasion by permitting testimony about the credibility of the child accusers in this case.

Whether the court of appeals erred when it held that the testimony of a child forensic interviewer was lay opinion testimony and therefore was not subject to the admissibility and discovery requirements for expert witnesses.

b000ctr

Text Box

Justice Gabriel's Chambers

b000ctr

Text Box


2012SC102 (44 MINUTES)

Petitioner:

Anthony Edwin Marsh,

v.

Respondent:


For the Petitioner Anthony Edwin Marsh:Anne T. AmicarellaCOLORADO STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER

For the Respondent The People of the State of Colorado:John T. Lee, Assistant Attorney GeneralOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2008CA1884Docketed: February 6, 2012At Issue: October 19, 2015

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred when it held that the testimony of a child forensic interviewer was lay opinion testimony and therefore was not subject to the admissibility and discovery requirements for expert witnesses.

Whether images automatically stored by a computer in its Internet cache are sufficient, without additional evidence of a defendant's awareness of the cache or evidence of a defendant's affirmative conduct such as downloading or saving such images, to establish 'knowing possession' under section 18-6-403, C.R.S. (2012).

b000ctr

Text Box



2015SA26 (1 HOUR)

Concerning the Application for Water Rights of the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority in the Eagle River in Eagle County, Colorado

Applicant-Appellant:

Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority,

v.

Opposers-Appellees:

Alan Martellaro, Division 5 Engineer and Dick Wolfe, State Engineer.

For the Applicant-Appellant Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority:Kevin J KinnearGlenn Edward PorzakPORZAK BROWNING & BUSHONG, LLP

For the Opposer-Appellees Alan Martellaro, Division 5 Engineer, and Dick Wolfe, State Engineer:Paul Louis Benington First Assistant Attorney GeneralOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALandDerek L. Turner Assistant Attorney GeneralJeffrey Neel Candrian Assistant Attorney GeneralOffice of the Attorney General

Appeal from the District Court, , 2004CW236Docketed: January 28, 2015At Issue: October 19, 2015

ISSUE(S):

b000ctr

Text Box

Whether the water court correctly ruled that when two direct-flow, conditional water rights are decreed and available for diversion at the same structure, for the same claimed beneficial uses, and at the same place of use, diversions should be attributed first to the more senior conditional right absent a legitimate need for the junior conditional water right.

b000ctr

Line

b000ctr

Text Box

b000ctr

Text Box

b000ctr

Text Box


1:30 p.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2015SA292 (1 HOUR)

Petitioners-Appellants:

Kent Carson, James Gil Tisue, and Dale Pass,

v.

Respondents-Appellees:

Sheila Reiner, as Clerk and Recorder for the County of Mesa, Colorado and Terri Wells, as Designated Election Official for Mesa County Valley School District 51,

and

Intervenor-Appellee:

Paul Pitton.

For the Petitioners-Appellants Kent Carson, James Gil Tisue, and Dale Pass:Mario Daniel NicolaisHACKSTAFF & SNOW, LLC

For the Respondent-Appellee Sheila Reiner, as Clerk and Recorder for the County of Mesa, Colorado:John Patrick ColemanAndrea Nina AtencioMESA COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE

For the Respondent-Appellee Terri Wells, as Designated Election Official for Mesa County Valley School District 51:Tammy Marie EretHOSKIN FARINA & KAMPF, P.C.

For the Intervenor-Appellee Paul Pitton:Barbara Rose ButlerWilliam S DefordDUFFORD, WALDECK, MILBURN & KROHN

Appeal from the District Court, Mesa County, 2015CV30710Docketed: November 3, 2015At Issue: November 30, 2015

ISSUE(S):

b000ctr

Text Box


b000ctr

Text Box

Whether the courts have the authority to provide judicial review of a candidate's qualifications prior to an election under C.R.S. § 1-1-113. Whether Pitton failed to meet the qualification to be a candidate for Mesa School District 51 District B director. Whether the Court may order Pitton removed from the ballot and Clerk Reiner not to count votes cast for Pitton.

b000ctr

Line

9:00 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2015SC667 (1 HOUR)

Petitioners:

City of Longmont Colorado; Food and Water Watch; Sierra Club; Earthworks; and Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont;

v.

Respondents:

Colorado Oil and Gas Association, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and Top Operating Company.

For the Petitioner City of Longmont Colorado:Daniel Evan KramerEugene T MeiLONGMONT CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICEandPhillip Dean BarberPHILLIP D BARBER, PC

For the Petitioners Food and Water Watch,and Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont:Kevin J. LynchBrad Arthur BartlettTimothy M. EstepUNIVERSITY OF DENVER

For the Petitioners Sierra Club and Earthworks:Eric Eugene HuberSIERRA CLUBandKevin J. LynchTimothy M. EstepBrad Arthur BartlettUNIVERSITY OF DENVER

For the Respondent Colorado Oil and Gas Association:Karen Leather Spaulding

BEATTY & WOZNIAK, P.C.

b000ctr

Text Box

Karen Leather Spaulding BEATTY & WOZNIAK, P.C. and Mark Mathews Wayne F Forman BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK

b000ctr

Text Box

b000ctr

Text Box

b000ctr

Text Box

b000ctr

Text Box

Chief Justice Rice's Chambers


For the Respondent Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission:John Edward MatterJulie Marie MurphyOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALandMichael Lee FranciscoMRDLAW

For the Respondent Top Operating Company:Thomas J KimmellZARLENGO & KIMMELL P.C.

For Amicus Curiae Board of County Commissioners of the County of Boulder, State of Colorado:Jeffery Philip RobbinsGOLDMAN ROBBINS & NICHOLSON PC For Amicus Curiae City of Boulder:Thomas Acquinas CarrBOULDER CITY ATTORNEY For Amicus Curiae Colorado Concern, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, Colorado Competitive Council, Colorado Motor Carriers Association and Colorado Farm Bureau:Jason R DunnBROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK For Amicus Curiae Colorado Municipal League:Geoffrey Tyler WilsonCOLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE For Amicus Curiae Mountian States Legal Foundation:Jaimie Nam Lee CavanaughSteven James LechnerMOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2014CA1759Docketed: August 17, 2015At Issue: October 19, 2015

ISSUE(S):

b000ctr

Text Box

Whether home-rule cities are preempted from promulgating local landuse regulations that prohibit the use of hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas operations and the storage of such waste products within city limits when the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC”) regulates hydraulic fracturing within the state.

b000ctr

Text Box


b000ctr

Text Box

Whether the trial court erred by disregarding the City of Longmont's evidence that the local interests are strong and outweigh the state's interests and failing to consider the evidence at summary judgment in the light most favorable to the City. Did the trial court employ the improper test for preemption? Was the district court incorrect to hold that Article XVI prohibits what the state authorizes when no Colorado law expressly authorizes fracking? Did the trial court improperly apply the C.R.C.P. 56 summary judgment standard, and should it, instead, have allowed the City to develop a full evidentiary record at trial? Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider the applicability of the inalienable rights provision in the Colorado Constitution and by making a finding of preemption that took away citizens' supposedly inalienable rights. Whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment when genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding whether a ban on fracking is a de facto ban on all oil and gas development, whether production has been halted in Longmont, and whether fracking poses a threat to public health, safety, and welfare in Longmont. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to consider the local interest in the regulation of fracking and by applying standards other than the correct standard for operational conflict preemption. Whether the trial court erred in determining that fracking in Longmont is an area of mixed state and local concern when local interests dominate the mineral state interest.

b000ctr

Line


2015SC668 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

City of Fort Collins Colorado,

v.

Respondent:

Colorado Oil and Gas Association.

For the Petitioner City of Fort Collins Colorado:John R DuvalCarrie Mineart DaggettCITY OF FORT COLLINSandBarbara J GreenJohn Thomas SullivanSULLIVAN GREEN SEAVY, LLC

For the Respondent Colorado Oil and Gas Association:Mark MathewsJustin L. CohenWayne F FormanBROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK

For Amicus Curiae American Petroleum Institute:Richard Carl KaufmanAllison Pofit AltarasRYLEY CARLOCK & APPLEWHITE For Amicus Curiae Board of County Commissioners of the County of Boulder, State of Colorado:Jeffery Philip RobbinsGOLDMAN ROBBINS & NICHOLSON PC For Amicus Curiae Citizens for a Healthy Fort Collins, Sierra Club and Earthworks:Kevin J. LynchBrad Arthur BartlettUNIVERSITY OF DENVER For Amicus Curiae City of Boulder:Thomas Acquinas CarrBOULDER CITY ATTORNEY For Amicus Curiae Colorado Concern, Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, Colorado Competitive Council, Colorado Motor Carriers Association and Colorado Farm Bureau:Jason R DunnBROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK For Amicus Curiae Colorado Municipal League:Geoffrey Tyler Wilson Amicus CuriaeCOLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE For Amicus Curiae Conservation ColoradoMichael Stephen FreemanEARTHJUSTICE

b000ctr

Text Box



For Amicus Curiae Jared Polis, Congressman:Courtney Jordan KrauseWHITE & JANKOWSKI LLP For Amicus Curiae National Association of Royalty Owners - Colorado Chapter:Thomas William NiebruggeLINDQUIST & VENNUM PLLP For Amicus Curiae Northwest Colorado Council of Governments acting by and through its Water Quality Quantity Committee:Victoria L. JarvisNWCCOG/ WATER QQ COMMITTEE

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2014CA1991Docketed: August 17, 2015At Issue: October 19, 2015

ISSUE(S):

b000ctr

Text Box

Whether home-rule cities are preempted from promulgating local landuse regulations that prohibit the use of hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas operations and the storage of such waste products within city limits when the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC”) regulates hydraulic fracturing within the state. Did the district court incorrectly rule that they City's moratorium is the same as a permanent ban? Did the district court incorrectly rule that the City's citizen-initiated moratorium ordinance (the “Moratorium”) is impliedly preempted by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act (the “Act”)? Did the district court fail to apply the correct test for determining an operational conflict (i.e., whether the Moratorium materially impedes or destroys the state's interest in oil and gas development)? Did the district court incorrectly rule that the Moratorium creates a per se “operational conflict” in the absence of a fully developed evidentiary record?

b000ctr

Line

b000ctr

Text Box


1:30 p.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2013SC216 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

The People of the State of Colorado,

v.

Respondent:

David Will Corson.

For the Petitioner The People of the State of Colorado:Christine Cates Brady, Assistant Attorney GeneralOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

For the Respondent David Will Corson:Ingrid J DefrancoLAW OFFICE OF INGRID J. DEFRANCO

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2011CA241Docketed: April 2, 2013At Issue: October 19, 2015

ISSUE(S):

Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law when it concluded that Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), applies to a collateral attack on a guilty plea based on evidence discovered after the guilty plea was entered.

Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law when it interpreted Crim. P. 16 in a novel way to conclude that a juvenile adjudication is part of a witness's criminal history, thereby broadly expanding the prosecution's duty to disclose juvenile adjudications.

Whether the court of appeals erred when it reversed the district court's order by carving out an exception to the holding in United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002), that the Government is not required to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering into a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.

b000ctr

Text Box


9:00 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Thursday, December 10, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2013SC587 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

The People of the State of Colorado,

v.

Respondent:

Carl Daniel Ruch.

For the Petitioner The People of the State of Colorado:Wendy J RitzOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

For the Respondent Carl Daniel Ruch:Michael C. Mattis, Deputy Public DefenderOFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2010CA2436Docketed: July 29, 2013At Issue: October 19, 2015

ISSUE(S):

Whether the trial court violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by revoking his probation based on his refusal to attend sex offender treatment.

Whether the defendant's blanket refusal to attend the sex offender treatment program was a legitimate and effective invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege.

b000ctr

Text Box

Justice Coats' Chambers

10:00 a.m.SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADOOral Argument: Thursday, December 10, 2015 EN BANCBailiff:

2015SA192 (1 HOUR)

Petitioner:

Rene Lima- Marin,

v.

Respondent:


For the Petitioner Rene Lima- Marin:Kimberly Christine DiegoandPatrick Michael MegaroHalscott Megaro PA

For the Respondent The People of the State of Colorado:Katharine Jackson GillespieOFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Appeal from the District Court, Arapahoe County, 1998CR2401Docketed: July 20, 2015At Issue: October 19, 2015

ISSUE(S):

b000ctr

Text Box

Whether the appellant's due process rights were violated and whether the people waived jurisdiction where the department of corrections released appellant after he completed a sentence of imprisonment and parole and several years passed prior to re-imposition of additional sentences? Whether it was cruel and unusual punishment and violated double jeopardy to release appellant from prison, permit him to marry, father children, lead a law-abiding life, and re-impose an additional eighty-two year sentence after he had been released for six years without incident? Whether the district court properly summarily denied a motion for recusal where a member of the judiciary, not the district attorney, conducted its own investigation into appellant's custody status and spurred the district attorney to seek a warrant for appellant's arrest and subsequent eighty-two year re-sentence?

b000ctr

Line

b000ctr

Text Box

Justice Coats' Chambers

SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m. Oral …€¦ · Jeffery Philip Robbins GOLDMAN ROBBINS...

Documents

Transcript of SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO 9:00 a.m. Oral …€¦ · Jeffery Philip Robbins GOLDMAN ROBBINS...