S_JUD_2019A 01/23/2019 01:51:24 PM Committee Summary

The meeting was called to order.  A quorum was present. 

Senator Cooke, bill sponsor, explained SB19-026 which prohibits a defendant from bringing a second or subsequent claim for post-conviction remedy on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel in a prior post-conviction proceeding.  Senator Cooke noted that post-conviction claims are also known as 35(c) claims.  These claims allow defendants to raise certain concerns in the trial court after they have been convicted and exhausted all of their direct appeal rights.  Senator Cooke reported they are most often used for ineffective counsel or the finding of new evidence.  Senator Cooke discussed the time and resources spent on multiple 35(c) claims.  The Alternate Defense Counsel (ADC) budget was discussed. 

Mr. Bob Russell, representing the Denver District Attorney's Office and the Colorado District Attorneys' Council, spoke in favor of the bill.  He provided a brief background of his experience with 35(c) claims.  He noted that it is difficult to determine the number of 35(c) motions because they are not delineated from other motions. He explained that 35(c) motions consume an inordinate amount of resources, especially the multiple, repetitive claims.  He answered questions about the constitutional right of post-conviction counsel and standards of competence for attorneys. 

Mr. Russell continued explaining the bill and discussed the need for a statute of limitations with 35(c) claims.  He discussed the difficulties in defending a case after a certain amount of time has passed.  He answered questions from the committee about statutes of limitations and cases where a judge allocates cost against a defendant. 

The committee discussed the judge's role in 35(c) motions and putting limitations on a defendant's right to a new trial.

Karen Taylor and Jason Middleton, representing the Office of State Public Defender, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Taylor explained that rules have already been established for 35(c) motions, and there is no need to change the current process. She expressed concerns that the bill limits a defendant's right to file subsequent motions and mentioned due process issues.  She further noted that the number of 35(c) motions in her office is low. 

Mr. Middleton discussed the discovery and attorney client privilege portions of the bill and pointed out that current law already governs these areas.  He also expressed concerns that provisions in the bill disproportionately impact  indigent and incarcerated individuals and cautioned that the bill is too narrow in scope.   

Mr. Middleton and Ms. Taylor answered questions from the committee about ineffective counsel and other grievance procedures.

Ann Roan, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, testified in opposition to the bill.  She expressed constitutional concerns with the bill and also testified that the bill creates two tiers of justice for the indigent and others. She also discussed disparities in the bill concerning file retention and attorney costs. 

Gail Johnson, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, spoke in opposition to the bill. She explained how provisions in the bill would deny opportunities to file 35(c) motions. 

Lindy Frolich, representing ADC, spoke in opposition to the bill.  She reported that ADC handles the vast majority of post-conviction motions and provided related statistics.  Ms. Frolich also reported that the number of post conviction motions are not rising exponentially and that most do not advance in the judicial system. She expressed concerns that the bill would unfairly impact juveniles with adult felony convictions.

Bruce Brown, District Attorney in the 5th Judicial District, spoke in favor of the bill.  He discussed how 35(c) motions adversely affect victims and that a disproportionate amount of funds are required for these cases. 

Jim Bullock, District Attorney in the 16th Judicial District, spoke in favor of the bill.  He discussed the number of 35(c) cases in the 16th Judicial District and the related resources needed.  He shared his concerns about invalid claims, as well as ineffective counsel and victims. 

Rich Orman, Senior District Attorney in the 18th Judicial District, testified in support of the bill.  He discussed his experience working on these cases as a prosecutor and expressed concerns about victims. 

Senator Cooke made closing remarks and stressed that district attorneys need some relief with post-conviction motions.  He also noted that there needs to be a better response to claims of ineffective counsel. 

Committee members stated reasons for their support of or opposition to the bill. 

Senator Holbert, sponsor, presented SB 19-048, concerning protecting public school students from electronically accessing harmful material.  Senator Holbert explained that students are easily accessing inappropriate material on the Internet at schools and libraries through EBSCO, a provider of research databases. He distributed an article on the issue (Attachment A).  He expressed the need for parents to have a means of recourse and a tool to prevent this, as outlined in the bill.   

Jared Masterson, representing the Colorado Association of School Executives, Colorado Association of School Boards, and Rural Alliance, spoke in opposition to the bill.  He expressed concerns about local control, liability, and the bill's far reaching scope.  He discussed electronic filtering and answered questions from the committee. 

Brenda Fickenshur, representing herself, testified remotely from Lamar in support of the bill.  Mr. Fickenshur had concerns about kids breaking through firewalls and accessing graphic material.  She discussed harmful effects of exposure to inappropriate materials.  She answered questions from the committee. 

Barbara Hernandez, representing herself, testified remotely from Lamar in support of the bill.  She discussed the ease with which inappropriate material is easily and innocently discovered on the school's homework tab link and the associated trauma that may ensue.  She answered questions from the committee about homework tabs and filters. 

Claudia Gill, representing herself, testified remotely from Lamar in support of the bill.  She discussed Internet access at libraries, filters, and the lack of enforcement. 

Belinda Groner, representing herself, testified remotely from Lamar in support of the bill.  She expressed concerns about the homework help tab and cited studies about the dangers of internet pornography.  She answered questions from the committee about school boards and their role in monitoring Internet providers. 

Jeff Hunt, representing Colorado Christian University, testified in support of the bill.

Dr. Robin Paterson, representing Pornography Is Not Education, testified in support of the bill. She discussed aspects of student databases. She provided two handouts to the committee (Attachments B and C).  She answered questions from the committee. She discussed school database content that contains school names and pornographic material.

Drew Paterson, representing Pornography is Not Education, testified in support of the bill. He provided information and statistics about the harmful effects of pornography.

Dr. Robin Paterson read testimony in support of the bill from Jenna Ellis on behalf of Colorado Family Action.  The testimony stressed that filtering software does not work. 

James La Rue, representing himself, spoke in opposition to the bill.  He discussed the far-reaching implications of the bill and the safeguards that are already in place to filter obscene material. He brought up First Amendment issues and answered questions from the committee.

Tammy Sayles, representing the Colorado Association of Libraries, testified in opposition to the bill. She stressed that school districts are already required to filter online data bases and answered questions from the committee.

Jaxson Sharpe, representing himself as a student, spoke in opposition to the bill.  He expressed concern about the already limited amount of online resources becoming even more restricted.  He explained the importance of navigating the online world. 

Tristan Gorman, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, spoke in opposition to the bill.  She discussed unintended consequences and expressed concerns that the definitions in the bill are overly broad.

Senator Holbert explained and presented Amendment L. 002 (Attachment D). 

The committee took a short break. 

The meeting was called back to order.

Senators Gardner and Lee, co-prime sponsors, presented SB19-043, which increases the number of district court judges.  Senator Lee explained that he sponsored the bill on behalf of the judges based on workload studies.   Senator Gardner reiterated that filings are increasing and there is a demand for additional judges state-wide. 

Chris Ryan, State Court Administrator in the Judicial Department, testified in favor of the bill.  He also discussed the need for more judges and the crowded dockets.  He noted the Colorado Counties Inc. supports the bill as well. 

Jessica Brown, representing the Colorado Bar Association, spoke in support of the bill. She discussed crowded dockets and delays.

Senator Lee noted that the Office of the Child's Representative is in support of the bill and made closing remarks.