Background
A jury convicted Jerry Thompson of second degree kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, attempted theft, and two counts of felony menacing. He also pleaded guilty to four habitual-criminal counts and received a stipulated controlling 64-year Department of Corrections sentence. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, and the appellate mandate issued in September 2013.
Thompson filed postconviction motions in 2016 and 2023. In June 2025, he filed another motion, captioned under Criminal Procedure Rule 35(a), contending that Erlinger v. United States rendered his habitual-criminal sentence unconstitutional because a judge, rather than a jury, made findings supporting the enhancement. The district court denied the motion without a hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that, despite its Rule 35(a) caption, Thompson’s constitutional challenge to his sentence was a Rule 35(c) postconviction claim and therefore subject to Rule 35(c)’s time and successive-motion limits.
The motion was filed nearly 12 years after Thompson’s conviction became final and was his third Rule 35(c) motion. Although a retroactively applicable new constitutional rule could excuse those bars, the court followed its earlier decision in People v. Medina and concluded that Erlinger does not apply retroactively on collateral review. The court also held that Colorado’s 2025 legislation assigning habitual-criminal determinations to juries applies only prospectively and does not reach Thompson’s long-final case. It declined to consider arguments Thompson had not raised in the district court.
Key Takeaways
- The substance of a postconviction claim, not its caption, determines whether it is governed by Rule 35(c).
- An untimely and successive Rule 35(c) motion cannot rely on Erlinger unless that decision applies retroactively on collateral review; the court held that it does not.
- Colorado’s 2025 jury-determination amendment for habitual proceedings is expressly prospective.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that defendants cannot use Rule 35(a) labeling to avoid the procedural bars governing constitutional sentencing challenges under Rule 35(c). It also applies the Colorado Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Erlinger offers no collateral-review relief for convictions that were final before that decision.