People v. Maes
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Colorado Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Colorado Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Supreme Court of Colorado examined the case of Carlos Ray Maes, who was charged with six felony counts. A magistrate presided over the preliminary hearing and found that probable cause existed for each of the eligible counts. The case was then bound over to the district court. Nearly three months later, Maes petitioned the district court for a review of the magistrate's probable-cause determination, but the district court declined, arguing that it did not have jurisdiction to review such a determination and that Maes's petition was not timely.
The Supreme Court of Colorado held that a magistrate's finding of probable cause after a preliminary hearing is a "final order or judgment" under the Colorado Rules for Magistrates and is therefore reviewable by a district court. Further, the court held that the time limit for petitioning for district court review of a magistrate's final order or judgment begins when the magistrate memorializes that determination in writing. Consequently, the court concluded that Maes's petition was timely filed. The court made the rule to show cause absolute and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Download PDF
The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203 2024 CO 15 Supreme Court Case No. 23SA273 Original Proceeding Pursuant to C.A.R. 21 Arapahoe County District Court Case No. 23CR599 Honorable Darren Vahle, Judge In Re Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Defendant: Carlos Ray Maes. Rule Made Absolute en banc March 25, 2024 Attorneys for Plaintiff: John Kellner, District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District L. Andrew Cooper, Deputy District Attorney Centennial, Colorado Attorneys for Defendant: Megan A. Ring, Public Defender Zack Tennant, Deputy Public Defender Maddy Bullard, Deputy Public Defender Centennial, Colorado Attorneys for Respondent Arapahoe County District Court: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General Peter G. Baumann, Senior Assistant Attorney General Denver, Colorado JUSTICE HOOD delivered the Opinion of the Court, in CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT, JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ, JUSTICE GABRIEL, JUSTICE HART, JUSTICE SAMOUR, and JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER joined. 2 1 JUSTICE HOOD delivered the Opinion of the Court. 2 ¶1 3 assertion that a magistrate’s finding of probable cause after a preliminary hearing 4 is a “final order or judgment” under the Colorado Rules for Magistrates (“C.R.M.”) 5 and is therefore reviewable by a district court. We hold that it is. 6 ¶2 7 district court review of a magistrate’s final order or judgment runs from the time 8 the magistrate memorializes that determination in writing. Thus, we conclude 9 that Maes timely filed his petition. 10 ¶3 In this original proceeding, we consider petitioner Carlos Ray Maes’s We further hold that the time limit the C.R.M. imposes for petitioning for We therefore make the rule to show cause absolute. I. Facts and Procedural History 11 In the underlying criminal action filed in Arapahoe County, Maes was 12 ¶4 13 eligible for a preliminary hearing on six felony counts. A magistrate presided over 14 the hearing.1 See C.R.M. 6(a)(1)(D). Maes argued that the prosecution hadn’t The magistrate didn’t specify, and the district court declined to address, whether the magistrate was acting as a district court or a county court magistrate. See Chief Judge Order 23-09 (18th Jud. Dist.) (allowing magistrates within the Eighteenth Judicial District to serve as both county court and district court magistrates). We presume that the magistrate was acting as a district court magistrate because the C.R.M. specifically permits district court magistrates, without consent of the parties, to “[c]onduct preliminary . . . hearings,” C.R.M. 6(a)(1)(D), while the C.R.M. contains no such explicit authorization for county court magistrates irrespective of consent, see C.R.M. 8. Moreover, the district court, in its Response Brief filed by the Attorney General, acknowledged that “because the magistrate 1 3 1 carried its burden of establishing probable cause for any of the charges. But the 2 magistrate, in ruling from the bench, orally found that probable cause existed for 3 each of the eligible counts and bound the case over to the district court. 4 ¶5 5 issued a signed minute order memorializing his probable-cause ruling. 6 ¶6 7 Arapahoe County District Court (“the district court”) for review of the 8 magistrate’s probable-cause determination. The district court declined. It found 9 that (1) it didn’t have jurisdiction to review a probable-cause determination and Nearly three months later, prompted by a filing from Maes, the magistrate Twenty-one days after the written ruling issued, Maes petitioned the 10 (2) Maes didn’t timely file his petition. 11 ¶7 12 court and the People of the State of Colorado (“the prosecution”) as respondents. 13 We issued a rule to show cause to those respondents.2 Maes then petitioned this court under C.A.R. 21, proposing both the district was sitting without the consent of the parties, the magistrate is best viewed as a district court magistrate.” Brief for Respondent Arapahoe County District Court at 11. 2 The petition presented the following issue: Whether a magistrate’s probable cause determination at a preliminary hearing in a criminal case is a “final order or judgment” for purposes of the Colorado Rules for Magistrates such that the respondent district court erred when it declined to consider Mr. Maes’ petition for review pursuant to C.R.M. 7(a). 4 1 II. Analysis 2 A. Original Jurisdiction Under C.A.R. 21 The decision to exercise original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 “is an 3 ¶8 4 extraordinary remedy limited in purpose and availability.” 5 2018 CO 55, ¶ 4, 420 P.3d 257, 258. 6 jurisdiction. C.A.R. 21(a)(1); see also People v. A.S.M., 2022 CO 47, ¶ 9, 517 P.3d 675, 7 677. We typically exercise original jurisdiction when “an appellate remedy would 8 be inadequate, a party may suffer irreparable harm, or a petition raises an issue of 9 first impression that has significant public importance.” A.S.M., ¶ 9, 517 P.3d at People v. Owens, We have sole discretion to exercise this 10 677. 11 ¶9 12 right to a preliminary hearing, a right that can’t be redressed through traditional 13 appellate review because it’s “rendered moot after trial.” Id. at ¶ 10, 517 P.3d at 14 678. Second, if the magistrate erred in its probable-cause determination, Maes may 15 be wrongfully confined while he awaits trial, a harm that cannot be redressed by 16 an acquittal. See id. at ¶ 11, 517 P.3d at 678. Last, we’ve never squarely considered 17 whether a magistrate’s probable-cause determination is a reviewable final order This case presents all three grounds. First, Maes’s challenge implicates his 5 1 or judgment, despite having previously acknowledged that a very similar issue 2 was of significant public importance. See id. at ¶ 12, 517 P.3d at 678.3 3 ¶10 For these reasons, we choose to intervene now. B. Standard of Review and Principles of Interpretation 4 We interpret court rules de novo. Id. at ¶ 14, 517 P.3d at 678. In doing so, 5 ¶11 6 we “employ the same interpretive rules applicable to statutory construction.” 7 People v. McLaughlin, 2023 CO 38, ¶ 23, 530 P.3d 1206, 1211 (quoting People v. Angel, 8 2012 CO 34, ¶ 17, 277 P.3d 231, 235). We therefore first “look to the language of 9 the rule, interpreting it consistently with its plain and ordinary meaning” and in 10 the context of the rules as a whole. Id.; see also People v. Jones, 2020 CO 45, ¶ 54, 11 464 P.3d 735, 746. 12 McLaughlin, ¶ 23, 530 P.3d at 1211. “If, however, the language is ambiguous, 13 meaning it is . . . susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, we may 14 use extrinsic aids of construction . . . .” Jones, ¶ 55, 464 P.3d at 746. This includes 15 considering the purpose of the rule and the consequences of a particular “If the rule is unambiguous, we apply it as written.” In A.S.M., we issued a rule to show cause and recognized that the question of whether “a juvenile [is] entitled to have a juvenile court review a magistrate’s preliminary hearing finding” was an issue of significant public importance, ¶ 12, 517 P.3d at 678, but ultimately declined to reach this issue, id. at ¶ 17, 517 P.3d at 679. 3 6 1 construction. See Hice v. Giron, 2024 CO 9, ¶ 10, 534 P.3d 385, 390; see also 2 § 2-4-203(1), C.R.S. (2023). Against this backdrop, we turn to the issues presented. C. Final Orders or Judgments Under C.R.M. 7 3 A magistrate’s order is subject to different forms of review depending on 4 ¶12 5 the nature of the proceeding. When a magistrate hears a matter in the place of a 6 judge with the consent of the parties, a magistrate’s decision is treated like a 7 district court decision and may be appealed in the same manner under the 8 Colorado Rules of Appellate Procedure. C.R.M. 7(b). But in proceedings like this 9 one, when a magistrate hears a matter without the parties’ consent, the C.R.M. 10 permits district courts to review a district court magistrate’s “final order or 11 judgment.” C.R.M. 7(a)(3) (emphasis added). 12 ¶13 13 the course of judicial proceedings,” C.R.M. 3(e), and such an order or judgment 14 becomes final when it “fully resolves an issue or claim,” C.R.M. 7(a)(3) (emphasis 15 added). 16 ¶14 17 arguments. An order or judgment is a “ruling[], decree[] or other decision[] . . . made in With this basic legal framework in mind, we consider the parties’ 7 1 1. Language of the C.R.M. 2 a. Issue or Claim The prosecution claims in essence that “final order or judgment” should 3 ¶15 4 mean the same thing for magistrates as it does for judges; that is, it’s a judgment 5 “that ends the particular action in which it is entered, leaving nothing further for 6 the court pronouncing it to do in order to completely determine the rights of the 7 parties involved in the proceedings.” People v. Guatney, 214 P.3d 1049, 1051 (Colo. 8 2009) (emphasis added). Guatney limits final judgments to acquittals, dismissals, 9 or convictions and sentencing. Id. A finding of probable cause is none of these. 10 In so arguing, the prosecution implies that an “action” under Guatney is the same 11 as an “issue or claim” under the relevant magistrate rules. The district court, 12 represented by the Attorney General, makes a substantively similar argument, 13 claiming that a probable-cause determination made at a preliminary hearing isn’t 14 final because it is subsumed by the jury’s ultimate decision on the merits. Cf. 15 Wood v. People, 255 P.3d 1136, 1141 (Colo. 2011) (determining that a preliminary 16 request for immunity wasn’t a final judgment based on the same logic). 17 ¶16 18 judgment” includes probable-cause findings because the words “issue or claim” 19 can encompass parts of an action. Maes disagrees. He contends that, under the C.R.M., a “final order or 8 We begin by examining the plain meaning of the terms. Black’s Law 1 ¶17 2 Dictionary defines “issue” as “[a] point in dispute between two or more parties,” 3 and specifies that in an appeal, an issue can be “a separate and discrete question 4 of law or fact.” Issue, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). It defines “claim” as 5 “[a] demand for money, property, or a legal remedy to which one asserts a right.” 6 Claim, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). And it defines “action” as “[a] civil 7 or criminal judicial proceeding.” Action, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). 8 ¶18 9 does incorporate multiple issues and claims. Simply put, an action is the whole, 10 and issues and claims are the building blocks that comprise it. A court can resolve 11 an individual component of an action without resolving the action in its entirety. 12 “Final order or judgment” under the C.R.M. therefore includes more than just 13 acquittals, dismissals, and convictions. 14 ¶19 15 the finding is just a constituent part of the larger action? After all, probable cause 16 is typically a weigh station en route to a trial or plea agreement. Even so, probable 17 cause is clearly an issue because it is “[a] point in dispute between two or more 18 parties.”4 Issue, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also, e.g., People v. So, an action, as the overarching conflict between the parties, can and often But does a probable-cause finding really resolve an issue or a claim, even if This interpretation is consistent with our case law. In People in Interest of J.D., 2020 CO 48, ¶ 15, 464 P.3d 785, 789, we determined that accepting a plea isn’t a 4 9 1 Nygren, 696 P.2d 270, 272 (Colo. 1985) (“The sole issue at a preliminary hearing is 2 whether probable cause exists . . . .”); People v. Horrocks, 549 P.2d 400, 402 (Colo. 3 1976). It might also be a claim, because when a defendant is charged with certain 4 kinds of felonies, he has the right to demand and receive a preliminary hearing in 5 which probable cause will be determined, § 16-5-301, C.R.S. (2023); Crim. P. 5(a)(4), 6 and if the decisionmaker finds that probable cause is lacking, the defendant 7 receives a legal remedy in the form of a dismissal, Crim. P. 5(a)(4)(IV). But because 8 the rule is framed in the disjunctive, we need not decide whether probable cause 9 (or the alleged lack of it) also constitutes a claim. An issue suffices. So, yes, a probable-cause finding at least resolves an issue. But does it fully 10 ¶20 11 resolve it? b. Fully Resolved 12 A magistrate’s determination to bind a case over after a preliminary hearing 13 ¶21 14 “fully resolves,” C.R.M. 7(a)(3), the issue or claim of probable cause. In People in 15 Interest of J.D., 2020 CO 48, ¶ 12, 464 P.3d 785, 788, we established, based on an 16 analysis of the C.R.M.’s plain language, that an issue or claim is fully resolved final order or judgment under the C.R.M. In reaching this conclusion, we determined that a conviction isn’t final until sentencing, but we didn’t state that only acquittals, dismissals, and convictions can be final orders or judgments. Id. at ¶ 13, 464 P.3d at 788–89; see also Guatney, 214 P.3d at 1051. Moreover, a plea isn’t an issue or claim, so on this point J.D. is distinguishable from the case before us now. 10 1 when a magistrate no longer has the authority to revisit its determination. There, 2 we concluded that accepting a plea didn’t fully resolve the issue of J.D.’s guilt 3 because there are situations in which a defendant can withdraw his plea before 4 sentencing. Id. at ¶ 13, 464 P.3d at 789. 5 ¶22 6 probable-cause finding. When a magistrate finds probable cause, the Colorado 7 Rules of Criminal Procedure require that the magistrate “order the defendant 8 bound over to the appropriate court of record for trial.” Crim. P. 5(a)(4)(III). The 9 magistrate can’t rehear any issue. C.R.M. 5(a). Once the magistrate binds the case 10 over following a preliminary hearing, the magistrate may only correct clerical 11 errors. Id. At that point, the issue of probable cause is fully resolved by the 12 magistrate. So it was here (with the magistrate’s subsequent issuance of a signed 13 minute order simply correcting a clerical oversight, as we discuss below). But here, unlike in J.D., a magistrate loses jurisdiction after making a 2. Extrinsic Aids in Construction 14 To the extent there is any ambiguity in the text of the magistrate rules at 15 ¶23 16 issue here, our conclusion also finds extrinsic support when we consider the 17 purpose of the rule and the consequences of our construction. 18 considerations include various other matters addressed in the briefs: for example, 19 how probable-cause determinations are reviewed in other contexts, the purpose of 20 preliminary hearings, and institutional competence. We examine each in turn. 11 These a. Probable-Cause Review in Other Contexts 1 Our precedent holds that judges’ probable-cause determinations are 2 ¶24 3 generally unreviewable on direct appeal. See, e.g., People v. Dist. Ct., 652 P.2d 582, 4 585 (Colo. 1982) (“District Court”) (holding that a district court can’t review a 5 county court’s probable-cause determination); People ex rel. Russel v. Dist. Ct., 6 526 P.2d 289, 290 (Colo. 1974) (same for a district court’s review of its own 7 probable-cause determination). 8 magistrates’ probable-cause determinations should be unreviewable. 9 ¶25 These cases, however, do not hold that District Court and Russel rely on the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, 10 which require that, upon finding that probable cause exists, a county court “order 11 the defendant bound over to the appropriate court of record for trial,” Crim. 12 P. 5(a)(4)(III), and a district court “set the case for arraignment or trial,” Crim. 13 P. 7(h)(4). We concluded that these rules, standing alone, preclude review because 14 “[t]here is no provision for rehearing on or reconsideration of a ruling on 15 completion of a preliminary hearing” in either rule. District Court, 652 P.2d at 585 16 (quoting Russel, 526 P.2d at 290). 17 ¶26 18 work they do, magistrates aren’t judges. A magistrate is “[a]ny person other than 19 a judge authorized by statute or by [the C.R.M.] to enter orders or judgments in But, without meaning any disrespect or diminishing the critically important 12 1 judicial proceedings.” C.R.M. 3(a) (emphasis added).5 And magistrates’ 2 procedures are governed by the C.R.M. as well as by statute. C.R.M. 2; see also 3 Colo. Const. art. VI, § 21. C.R.M. 7(a) permits review of a magistrate’s preliminary- 4 hearing rulings. In short, for magistrates, the rules of criminal procedure don’t 5 stand alone. b. Purpose of Preliminary Hearings 6 Allowing review of a magistrate’s probable-cause determinations doesn’t 7 ¶27 8 subvert the purpose of preliminary hearings. 9 “screening device to test the sufficiency of the prosecution’s case before an 10 impartial judge and to weed out the fatally weak case,” Maestas v. Dist. Ct., 11 541 P.2d 889, 891 (Colo. 1975), not a “mini-trial,” District Court, 652 P.2d at 586 12 (quoting People v. Quinn, 516 P.2d 420, 421 (Colo. 1973)). A preliminary hearing is 13 designed to benefit both the prosecution and the defense; it “offers [the 14 prosecution] a method for testing the complaints of prosecuting witnesses,” and it 15 “accords the defendant an opportunity to correct any misconceptions which may 16 have arisen with respect to his conduct.” A preliminary hearing is a Maestas, 541 P.2d at 891 (quoting Unlike county court and district court judges, who are independent constitutional officers retained by voters, Colo. Const. art. VI, § 25, magistrates are Judicial Department employees who are “appointed, evaluated, retained, discharged, and disciplined, if necessary, by the chief or presiding judge of the district, with the concurrence of the chief justice,” C.R.M. 4(c). 5 13 1 6 Theodore A. Borrillo, Colorado Practice: Criminal Practice and Procedure § 82 2 (1971)). This means we balance the interests of both parties when considering the 3 hearing’s purpose. 4 ¶28 5 result in some delay to the pre-trial process in those jurisdictions that use 6 magistrates to preside over preliminary hearings. See Abbott v. Cnty. Ct., 886 P.2d 7 730, 734 (Colo. 1994) (establishing that a preliminary hearing shouldn’t be a “tool 8 for delay”). But protecting the delegation of judicial power under the Colorado 9 Constitution and honoring defendants’ due process rights outweigh those delay 10 concerns. See Colo. Const. art. VI, § 1; cf. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 677 11 (1980) (exploring when a magistrate’s determination without review violates due 12 process). Here, allowing review of magistrates’ probable-cause determinations will c. Institutional Competence 13 Finally, there is no question that district court judges possess the 14 ¶29 15 competence to conduct this form of review. See People ex rel. Leidner v. Dist. Ct., 16 597 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Colo. 1979) (asserting that, for probable-cause determinations, 17 appellate courts shouldn’t “second-guess the discretionary first-hand assessments 18 of trial courts and substitute their evaluations of testimony based on cold 19 transcripts”). 20 magistrate determinations in other contexts, like contempt orders, see In re On the contrary, district courts are well-versed in reviewing 14 1 Marriage of Sheehan, 2022 COA 29, ¶ 20, 511 P.3d 708, 715, and petitions for 2 paternity, see In re Parental Responsibilities Concerning G.E.R., 264 P.3d 637, 638 3 (Colo. App. 2011). There’s no reason they can’t do so here. 4 ¶30 5 rules, we conclude that a magistrate’s probable-cause determination is a final 6 order or judgment under the C.R.M. 7 ¶31 8 review was untimely under the C.R.M. We now turn to respondents’ claim that Maes’s request for district court D. Timeliness 9 10 Therefore, for reasons both intrinsic and extrinsic to the text of the governing ¶32 C.R.M. 7(a)(5) provides that 16 [a] party may obtain review of a magistrate’s final order or judgment by filing a petition to review such final order or judgment with the reviewing judge no later than [fourteen] days subsequent to the final order or judgment if the parties are present when the magistrate’s order is entered, or [twenty-one] days from the date the final order or judgment is mailed or otherwise transmitted to the parties. 17 Additionally, C.R.M. 7(a)(4) states that “[a] final order or judgment is not 18 reviewable until it is written, dated, and signed by the magistrate.” 19 ¶33 20 the final order or judgment is “entered” or “transmitted,” not when the final order 21 or judgment becomes “reviewable.” 22 limitation period from the date a probable-cause finding is first issued, regardless 23 of its form, may seem more natural based on the plain language of that section of 11 12 13 14 15 C.R.M. 7(a)(5) states that the period for seeking review begins running once Consequently, a reading that runs the 15 1 the rule alone. But under that cramped construction, a magistrate could prevent 2 a decision from ever being reviewed—even if a defendant timely files a petition— 3 simply by failing to memorialize the determination in writing. See Schaden v. DIA 4 Brewing Co., 2021 CO 4M, ¶ 32, 478 P.3d 1264, 1270 (establishing that we read court 5 rules to avoid “constructions that would . . . lead to illogical or absurd results”). 6 ¶34 7 reviewable avoids this problem: it ensures that defendants can petition for review 8 of, and that district courts can consider, all final magistrate orders or judgments. 9 Though respondents contend that a defendant could extend the available review 10 period until the eve of trial by not requesting a written order from the magistrate, 11 a magistrate could prevent this by promptly signing and transmitting a minute 12 order, as the rule explicitly permits. 13 ¶35 14 in writing, his determination became reviewable. The parties weren’t present 15 then, so the plain terms of C.R.M. 7(a)(5) gave Maes twenty-one days to file his 16 petition. Maes did this, so his petition was timely filed. Running the limitation period from the date the magistrate’s order becomes Here, once the magistrate memorialized his probable-cause determination III. Conclusion 17 We make the rule to show cause absolute and remand for further 18 ¶36 19 proceedings consistent with this opinion. 16
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
