Peo v. Bailey

24CA2255 Peo v Bailey 06-25-2026

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS

Court of Appeals No. 24CA2255
Mesa County District Court Nos. 21CR43, 21CR600 & 24CR569
Honorable Jeremy Chaffin, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Breann Kelly Bailey,

Defendant-Appellant.

SENTENCES AFFIRMED

Division II
Opinion by JUDGE HARRIS
Tow and Brown, JJ., concur

NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced June 25, 2026

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Jillian J. Price, Deputy Attorney General,
Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Breann Kelly Bailey, Pro Se
¶1 Defendant, Breann Kelly Bailey, appeals her sentences

imposed in three cases. We affirm.

I. Background

¶2 In 2021, Bailey entered into a global plea agreement resolving

two criminal cases. Under the agreement, Bailey pleaded guilty to

three felonies and four misdemeanor counts in exchange for

dismissal of the other counts. The district court sentenced her to a

controlling term of four years in community corrections.

¶3 In February 2024, Bailey absconded from the community

corrections facility. She was charged with felony unauthorized

absence and was terminated from community corrections. As part

of a plea agreement in the new case, she pleaded guilty to one count

of misdemeanor unauthorized absence. After pleading guilty, but

before sentencing, Bailey filed a notice of appeal. In response, this

court issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be

dismissed for lack of a final, appealable judgment. Then, on

January 8, 2025, the district court sentenced Bailey in the 2024

case to 100 days in jail. The court also revoked her community

corrections sentence in the 2021 cases and resentenced her to four

years in prison. Following her resentencing, this court discharged

1
the show-cause order and further ordered that “[t]he appeal shall

proceed, but solely as to the district court’s resentencing entered on

January 8, 2025, in each of the underlying cases.”

II. Discussion

¶4 Bailey’s opening and reply brief do not address the January 8,

2025, resentencing order. She does not argue that the district

court abused its discretion in imposing the 100-day jail sentence or

the four-year prison sentence.

¶5 Instead, she appears to raise a collateral challenge to her 2021

convictions and sentences. For example, Bailey alleges that her

original trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a First

Amendment defense to the charges, the prosecution committed

misconduct by failing to turn over evidence favorable to her defense,

she was charged with multiple counts for the same criminal act,

and she is factually innocent of the crimes for which she was

convicted in 2021. Indeed, her opening brief is styled as a “brief in

support of post-conviction relief.”

¶6 Requests for postconviction relief are governed by Crim. P. 35

and section 18-1-410, C.R.S. 2025. Section 16-5-402(1), C.R.S.

2025, sets forth the deadline for filing such a motion. Under Crim.

2
P. 35(c)(3), a defendant must file her motion for postconviction relief

“in the court which imposed the sentence.” The court that imposed

Bailey’s sentences is the Mesa County District Court.

¶7 Because Bailey does not challenge the resentencing order

entered in January 2025, we affirm the sentences.

III. Disposition

¶8 The sentences are affirmed.

JUDGE TOW and JUDGE BROWN concur.

3