Background
In 2002, a jury convicted Victor Prieto of first degree felony murder and other offenses, and the trial court imposed a controlling life-without-parole sentence. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. Between 2006 and 2018, Prieto filed four unsuccessful motions for postconviction relief under Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c).
In 2021, Prieto filed a fifth Rule 35(c) motion, arguing that Senate Bill 21-124, which prospectively reclassified felony murder from a class 1 to a class 2 felony, required a reduced sentence and otherwise violated equal protection. The postconviction court rejected those claims because the legislation did not apply retroactively. In 2025, Prieto filed another pro se Rule 35(c) motion repeating those arguments and alleging additional trial errors. The court summarily denied it.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Prieto’s Senate Bill 21-124 claims were barred because he had already raised and resolved them in his prior postconviction proceeding. His remaining claims concerning alleged trial errors were also barred because they could have been raised on direct appeal or in an earlier Rule 35(c) motion.
The court rejected any suggestion that an asserted inconsistency in the jury’s verdicts created a subject-matter-jurisdiction claim exempt from the successive-motion bar. Inconsistent verdicts concern the propriety of a particular judgment, not the court’s authority over the class of criminal cases. The court also declined to consider issues Prieto had not presented below or raised for the first time in his reply brief. Because the motion was successive, denial without an evidentiary hearing was proper.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 35(c) bars claims previously raised and resolved in postconviction proceedings.
- Claims that could have been raised on direct appeal or in an earlier postconviction motion are likewise barred.
- An inconsistent-verdict argument does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction and does not avoid the successive-motion bar.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Colorado’s mandatory limits on successive postconviction litigation. A defendant cannot relitigate previously resolved sentencing claims by filing a later Rule 35(c) motion, absent an applicable rule-based exception.
It also clarifies that labeling an alleged trial error as jurisdictional will not bypass procedural bars when the claimed error does not actually concern the court’s authority to hear the case.