Background
A jury convicted Victor Albert Lopez of first degree sexual assault, second degree sexual assault, and third degree assault. The district court adjudicated him a habitual criminal and imposed a sentence of sixty-four years to life. His conviction became final in 2003.
Lopez later filed numerous unsuccessful postconviction motions and appeals. In 2025, he filed another Crim. P. 35(c) motion alleging trial error and ineffective assistance of counsel. Relying on his federal habeas case, Lopez v. Trani, he argued that actual-innocence and miscarriage-of-justice principles eliminated the applicable time and successive-motion bars.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Lopez’s motion. Filed twenty-two years after his conviction became final, the motion was untimely under section 16-5-402 because Lopez did not establish a statutory exception to the three-year limitations period for a non-class-1 felony conviction.
The court also held that the motion was successive because its claims either had been raised or could have been raised in prior postconviction proceedings. Lopez’s reliance on Trani did not change that result: the Tenth Circuit decision concerns federal habeas petitions and did not eliminate Colorado’s procedural bars for state postconviction proceedings. The court therefore found no error in denying the motion without appointing counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A Crim. P. 35(c) motion filed decades after a conviction became final is time barred absent a pleaded and applicable statutory exception.
- Colorado courts must deny claims that were, or could have been, resolved in earlier appeals or postconviction proceedings.
- Federal habeas equitable-tolling principles do not displace Colorado’s state postconviction time and successive-motion rules.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that an assertion of actual innocence based on a federal habeas case does not itself reopen long-final Colorado convictions through Rule 35(c). Defendants must satisfy Colorado’s independent procedural requirements, including its limitations period and restrictions on successive claims.