St. George v. Office of the State Public Defender Government

── St. George v. Office of the State Public Defender Government ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: April 09, 2026 Category: General The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion. SUMMARY April 9, 2026 2026COA28 No. 25CA0380, St. George v. Office of the State Public Defender Government — Public Records — Criminal Justice Records Act — Criminal Justice Agency; Office of the State Public Defender A division of the court of appeals concludes that the Office of the State Public Defender is not a “criminal justice agency” within the meaning of the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act, §§ 24-72-301 to -309, C.R.S. 2025. COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2026COA28 Court of Appeals No. 25CA0380 Jefferson County District Court No. 23CV193 Honorable Todd L. Vriesman, Judge Eric St. George, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Office of the State Public Defender, Defendant-Appellant. JUDGMENT REVERSED Division I Opinion by JUDGE LUM J. Jones and Meirink, JJ., concur Announced April 9, 2026 Killmer Lane, LLP, Thomas B. Kelley, Reid Allison, Madison Schaefer, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Scott A. Schultz, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Quigley, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Defendant, the Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD), appeals the district court’s grant of statutory penalties to plaintiff, Eric St. George, under the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act (CCJRA), §§ 24-72-301 to -309, C.R.S. 2025. OSPD argues that (1) the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over it due to improper service of process; (2) it isn’t subject to the CCJRA because it isn’t a “criminal justice agency”; (3) the records St. George sought aren’t “criminal justice records” within the meaning of the CCJRA; and (4) the district court clearly erred, even if OSPD is subject to the CCJRA, by concluding that OSPD improperly denied St. George the records he sought. ¶2 We conclude that OSPD waived its personal jurisdiction argument, but we reverse the district court’s judgment because we agree with OSPD that it isn’t a criminal justice agency within the meaning of the CCJRA. Accordingly, we need not address OSPD’s remaining arguments. I. Framework: The CCJRA ¶3 The CCJRA governs the public’s access to criminal justice records. See Freedom Colo. Info., Inc. v. El Paso Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 196 P.3d 892, 899 (Colo. 2008). As we discuss in greater 1  detail below, criminal justice records are made, maintained, or kept by a “criminal justice agency.” § 24-72-302(4), C.R.S. 2025. ¶4 “Any person denied access to . . . a[] criminal justice record . . . may apply to the district court of the district wherein the record is found for an order directing the custodian of such record to show cause why said custodian should not permit the inspection of such record.” § 24-72-305(7), C.R.S. 2025. If the court finds that the denial was improper, it must order the custodian to permit inspection of the record. Id. And if the district court finds that the denial was arbitrary or capricious, it may order the custodian to pay the applicant’s reasonable costs and attorney fees. Id. In addition, the court may order the custodian to pay the applican