Background
In 2017, Daniel Eric Jelosek pleaded guilty to stalking and second degree criminal trespass in one Larimer County case. He received a deferred judgment on the stalking count and probation on the trespass count. Two months later, he was charged with stalking the same victim and violating a protection order in a second case.
The parties resolved both matters through plea agreements. Jelosek admitted the revocation allegations in the first case and pleaded guilty to stalking in the second. On December 7, 2017, the district court imposed concurrent two-year Department of Corrections sentences.
Jelosek filed lengthy pro se Crim. P. 35(c) motions exactly three years later, but did not appeal their summary denial. In 2024, he filed new motions in both cases seeking to withdraw his pleas. He asserted that health problems, seizures, head injuries, and resulting cognitive impairment supplied justifiable excuse or excusable neglect for the delayed filings.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the orders denying the 2024 motions as untimely. Because Jelosek did not directly appeal, his convictions became final when sentence was entered on December 7, 2017, leaving him until December 7, 2020, to seek postconviction relief absent an exception.
The record directly refuted Jelosek’s claim that cognitive impairment prevented a timely filing. He in fact filed lengthy Crim. P. 35(c) motions on the December 2020 deadline. The court also relied on records from a related criminal case showing that he was found competent to proceed in July 2021, undermining his assertion that he could not competently pursue relief until 2024.
The court further agreed with the People that the 2024 motions were successive because their claims had been raised, or could have been raised, in the 2020 motions.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant who does not directly appeal generally must file a Crim. P. 35(c) challenge to a non-class-1 felony conviction within three years of sentencing.
- Allegations of justifiable excuse or excusable neglect may be summarily rejected when the record directly contradicts them.
- Later postconviction motions are barred when they raise claims that were, or could have been, raised in an earlier motion.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a claimed cognitive inability to meet Colorado’s postconviction deadline must be consistent with the court record. A defendant’s timely prior filing can itself defeat an assertion that impairment made timely litigation impossible.
It also confirms that Colorado courts may affirm a postconviction denial on the independent ground that a motion is successive, even if the postconviction court relied on timeliness.