People v. Chavez

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions
constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by
the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be
cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division.
Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion
should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.

SUMMARY
September 20, 2018

2018COA139

No. 17CA0782, People v. Chavez — Criminal Law — Sentencing;
Courts and Court Procedures — Jurisdiction of Courts —
Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Criminal Procedure —
Postconviction Remedies

The division holds that the imposition of a valid sentence ends

a criminal court’s subject matter jurisdiction, subject to the limited

exception of claims brought under Crim. P. 35. Because the

defendant’s motion for return of property is not authorized by Crim.

P. 35, the division holds that the criminal court did not have

jurisdiction to rule on it. In so holding, the division follows the

reasoning of People v. Wiedemer, 692 P.2d 327 (Colo. App. 1984),

and declines to follow People v. Hargrave, 179 P.3d 226 (Colo. App.

2007).
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2018COA139

Court of Appeals No. 17CA0782
Pueblo County District Court No. 04CR2139
Honorable Larry C. Schwartz, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Loren A. Chavez,

Defendant-Appellant.

ORDER VACATED

Division IV
Opinion by JUDGE BERGER
Loeb, C.J., and Hawthorne, J., concur

Announced September 20, 2018

Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Lisa K. Michaels, Assistant Attorney
General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Loren A. Chavez, Pro Se
¶1 This case requires us to decide if a criminal court retains

subject matter jurisdiction over a defendant’s motion, filed years

after sentence was imposed, for return of property seized in his

criminal case.

¶2 The criminal court denied defendant’s, Loren A. Chavez’s,

motion for return of property on the merits and Chavez appeals.

We hold that the criminal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction

to decide Chavez’s motion. Accordingly, we vacate the court’s order.

I. Relevant Facts and Procedural History

¶3 In 2004, the police obtained a warrant to search Chavez’s

house as part of an investigation of an alleged sexual assault.

During that search, police seized evidence that they then used to

charge Chavez in five separate criminal cases, none of which

underlie this appeal.

¶4 In the case underlying this appeal, Chavez was charged with

sexual assault (victim helpless) and second degree kidnapping.

None of the evidence seized during the search of his house was

admitted at his trial for sexual assault and kidnapping.

1
¶5 A jury convicted Chavez of both offenses. He appealed, and a

division of this court affirmed. People v. Chavez, (Colo. No.

07CA0954, July 2, 2009) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)).

¶6 Chavez then attacked his convictions under Crim. P. 35(c),

claiming that the trial court gave him a defective Curtis advisement

and thus his waiver of his right to testify was not knowingly and

voluntarily made. The postconviction court granted relief and

vacated Chavez’s convictions.

¶7 Instead of standing for retrial, in November 2013 Chavez

pleaded guilty to both sexual assault and kidnapping and was again

sentenced for those crimes.

¶8 Three years later, Chavez moved the criminal court for the

return of the items seized during the search of his house.1 He

requested the return of, among other things, computers, CDs, and

VHS tapes, claiming that they contained family photographs and

other personal items. The prosecution objected, contending that

1 Chavez filed a motion for return of property in 2010, but, because
his Crim. P. 35(c) motion was pending, the court denied, without
prejudice, his motion for return of property. Chavez did not appeal
that order.

2
the items requested fell “within the nature of [Chavez’s] conviction”

and possibly included information regarding the victim in the

underlying case, as well as the victims of the crimes charged in the

five other cases. The court denied Chavez’s motion on the merits.

II. The Court Did Not Have Jurisdiction Over Chavez’s Motion

¶9 Divisions of this court are split on whether criminal courts

have jurisdiction over motions for return of property made after a

defendant has been sentenced.2

¶ 10 In People v. Wiedemer, 692 P.2d 327, 329 (Colo. App. 1984), a

division of this court held that the imposition of sentence ends a

criminal court’s subject matter jurisdiction, with the sole exception

of motions brought under Crim. P. 35. Because a motion for return

of property is not authorized by Crim. P. 35, the division reasoned

that criminal courts do not have jurisdiction over such motions

2 Some courts have applied Crim. P. 41(e) in resolving these cases,
but, by its express terms, that rule only addresses claims for the
return of property when the search and seizure were unlawful.
Chavez does not claim, nor does the record support any claim, that
the search of Chavez’s home or the seizure of the items at issue
were unlawful. As noted above, the search and seizure were made
in accordance with a warrant issued by a judicial officer.
Accordingly, we conclude that Crim. P. 41(e) has no bearing on the
question before us.

3
made after sentencing. Id.; see also People v. Galves, 955 P.2d 582

(Colo. App. 1997).

¶ 11 A different division held in People v. Hargrave, 179 P.3d 226,

230 (Colo. App. 2007), that “the [criminal] court has ancillary

jurisdiction, or inherent power, to entertain defendant’s post-

sentence motion for return of property.” See also People v.

Rautenkranz, 641 P.2d 317, 318 (Colo. App. 1982). The division

relied on the test for ancillary jurisdiction used by federal courts.

179 P.3d at 229-30.3 Under this test, ancillary jurisdiction attaches

when

(1) the ancillary matter arises from the same
transaction which was the basis of the main
proceeding, or arises during the course of the
main matter, or is an integral part of the main
matter; (2) the ancillary matter can be
determined without a substantial new
factfinding proceeding; (3) determination of the

3 We note that the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction has particular
importance in federal courts because federal courts are courts of
limited jurisdiction, Lobato v. State, 218 P.3d 358, 370 (Colo. 2009),
and defendants in Chavez’s position might be remediless in the
federal courts in the absence of ancillary jurisdiction. See United
States v. Wingfield, 822 F.2d 1466, 1470 (10th Cir. 1987). In
contrast, Colorado district courts are courts of general jurisdiction.
Wood v. People, 255 P.3d 1136, 1140 (Colo. 2011). Thus, there is
no need to borrow the federal court’s use of ancillary jurisdiction.

4
ancillary matter through an ancillary order
would not deprive a party of a substantial
procedural or substantive right; and (4) the
ancillary matter must be settled to protect the
integrity of the main proceeding or to insure
that the disposition in the main proceeding will
not be frustrated.

Id. (quoting Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.2d 728, 740 (D.C.

Cir. 1969)) (emphasis added).

¶ 12 We agree with the Wiedemer division. “[A] final judgment in a

criminal case does not come until the defendant is acquitted, the

charges are dismissed, or the defendant is convicted and sentence is

imposed.” People v. Guatney, 214 P.3d 1049, 1051 (Colo. 2009)

(emphasis added). “The general rule is that once a trial court enters

a final judgment in a proceeding, it has no power to take further

action.” People v. Campbell, 738 P.2d 1179, 1180 (Colo. 1987),

superseded by statute on other grounds, § 16-12-102, C.R.S. 2017,

as recognized in People v. Blagg, 2015 CO 2, ¶ 14.

¶ 13 Thus, once a valid sentence is imposed, apart from the limited

claims described in Crim. P. 35, see Wiedemer, 692 P.2d at 329, a

5
criminal court has no further jurisdiction. For these reasons, we

decline to follow Hargrave.4

¶ 14 Even if Hargrave were correct, the criminal court still was

without jurisdiction. Among the property at issue are two

computers and numerous CDs, which could contain both property

subject to return, such as innocuous family photos, as well as (or

only) contraband not subject to return, such as photos of unlawful

sexual behavior involving Chavez. Such an inquiry would

invariably involve “substantial new factfinding proceeding[s].”

Hargrave, 179 P.3d at 229-30. Thus, even under Hargrave, the

criminal court lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of Chavez’s

motion.5

4 In addition, Hargrave requires the criminal court to engage in a
multi-part test, quoted above, to determine whether it has
jurisdiction to entertain a motion for return of property. People v.
Hargrave, 179 P.3d 226, 230 (Colo. App. 2007). It is cumbersome
and anomalous to condition a court’s subject matter jurisdiction on
multi-part factual inquiries.
5 Our disposition does not necessarily leave Chavez remediless.

Colorado district courts are courts of general jurisdiction and may
entertain a civil action seeking equitable relief. Because no such
claim is before us, we express no opinion regarding the elements,
available defenses, or merits of any such claim.

6
III. Conclusion

¶ 15 The order denying Chavez’s motion for return of property is

vacated for lack of jurisdiction.

CHIEF JUDGE LOEB and JUDGE HAWTHORNE concur.

7