Peo v. Allen

23CA1044 Peo v Allen 03-12-2026

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 23CA1044
Douglas County District Court No. 21CR556
Honorable Patricia D. Herron, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

John Jeffrey Allen,

Defendant-Appellant.

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division V
Opinion by JUDGE FREYRE
Schock and Sullivan, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced March 12, 2026

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Jessica E. Ross, Senior Assistant Attorney
General and Assistant Solicitor General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Elkus & Sisson, P.C., Reid J. Elkus, Andrew Lauer, Lucas Lorenz, Greenwood
Village, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant
¶1 Defendant, John Jeffrey Allen, appeals his judgment of

conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts

of violation of a protection order, harassment, and violation of bail

bond conditions. The jury acquitted him of the only felony charge,

stalking. We reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new

trial on the counts for which Allen was convicted.

I. Background

¶2 The evidence presented at trial supported the following facts.

In 2020, Allen and S.A. were involved in a domestic relations legal

dispute concerning their daughter, G.A.

¶3 Starting the same year, S.A. began receiving an inordinate

number of phone calls from unknown numbers multiple times a

day and throughout the night. Occasionally, the calls would come

from Allen’s phone number. The phone calls were angry in tone,

played loud music and banging noises, and included abusive

language such as “whore,” “cunt,” and “you should die.” S.A.

attempted to block the phone numbers, but she would just receive

more calls from different phone numbers.

¶4 Around November 16 and 17, 2020, Allen called S.A. multiple

times and left S.A. a voicemail that included crass language. S.A.

1
also received text messages from random numbers. One of the text

messages read, “Fuck you and your daughter,” and contained

multiple middle-finger emojis.

¶5 On November 17, S.A. was driving home with G.A. S.A.

noticed Allen’s truck behind her, driving very close to her car. Allen

swerved around her and made a U-turn towards her house. After

S.A. and G.A. made it into their house, Allen parked outside. G.A.

took a photo of Allen’s truck.

¶6 Between January 9 and 11, 2021, S.A. received sixteen hostile

voicemails from Allen. The voicemails included offensive language

and name-calling and telling S.A. that she would end up in a ditch.

S.A. reported the voicemails to police, and Allen was arrested for

harassment.

¶7 On January 13, 2021, Allen was released on bond. A

mandatory protection order was put in place. Among other

requirements, the mandatory protection order required Allen to not

harass, molest, intimidate, retaliate against, or tamper with the

victims; to stay away from the victims’ home; and to refrain from

contacting or directly or indirectly communicating with the victims.

Both S.A. and G.A. were listed as protected parties.

2
¶8 However, on May 6, 2021, S.A. saw Allen drive past her house.

Then on June 17, 2021, Allen parked his car in front of S.A.’s house

and played loud music.

¶9 Following Allen’s conviction, the trial court sentenced him to a

total of four years in the county jail.

¶ 10 Allen appealed and asserted, among other contentions, that

the trial court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing

regarding Allen’s motion to suppress. This division agreed that the

trial court abused its discretion in refusing to conduct an

evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of Allen’s consent to

search and issued a limited remand order for the trial court to

conduct the hearing. People v. Allen, (Colo. App. No. 23CA1044,

Feb. 21, 2025) (unpublished order). On remand, the trial court

entered an order granting Allen’s motion to suppress. The time has

now passed for the People to appeal the court’s ruling. See C.A.R.

4.1(b).

II. Analysis

¶ 11 The trial court’s ruling granting Allen’s motion to suppress

requires us to reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for a

new trial on the misdemeanor convictions. Accordingly, we reverse

3
the judgment and remand for further proceedings. We do not

address the remaining, nonsuppression issues raised in the

opening brief because they either pertain to the acquitted felony

and are not properly before us or are not likely to arise in the same

posture on remand.

III. Disposition

¶ 12 The judgment of conviction is reversed, and the case is

remanded for a new trial.

JUDGE SCHOCK and JUDGE SULLIVAN concur.

4