Peo in Interest of APR

── Peo in Interest of APR ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General 23CA1928 Peo in Interest of APR 04-16-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 23CA1928 Weld County District Court No. 22JD52 Honorable Marcelo A. Kopcow, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, In the Interest of A.P.R., Juvenile-Appellant. JUDGMENT AND ORDER AFFIRMED Division III Opinion by JUDGE DUNN Harris and Moultrie, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced April 16, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Brittany Limes Zehner, Senior Assistant Attorney General and Assistant Solicitor General, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner-Appellee Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Casey Mark Klekas, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Juvenile-Appellant ¶1 A.P.R. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for sexual assault. He argues that we must reverse his adjudication because depriving a juvenile charged with a felony of the right to a jury trial is unconstitutional under the federal and state constitutions. He alternatively argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for a jury trial and erred by denying his motion to suppress a pretextual conversation. And, finally, he contends that we must vacate the restitution order. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 After the victim reported to her father that A.P.R., then a juvenile, sexually assaulted her at school, her father contacted the police. The victim met with the investigating officer and agreed to engage in a pretextual conversation with A.P.R. With the officer’s help, the victim texted A.P.R. to talk about “what happened.” During the conversation, the victim asserted that A.P.R. had raped her and that she had told him “no a million times before [he] even touched [her].” A.P.R. responded, “I realize that n I’m sorry . . . I didn’t mean to do that to u.” He later added, “I really am sorry I shouldn’t have done that to u.” 1 ¶3 At the investigating officer’s request, A.P.R. agreed to an interview. A.P.R. admitted that he and the victim — who he had recently dated — had sex at school but said the sex was consensual. When confronted with the text messages, A.P.R. explained that he apologized in the text messages because the victim regretted having sex. ¶4 The prosecution filed a petition in delinquency charging A.P.R. with one count of sexual assault. The district court denied A.P.R.’s request for a jury trial and his motion to suppress the text messages. ¶5 After a bench trial, the court found A.P.R. guilty and adjudicated him delinquent. The court sentenced A.P.R. to two years of probation and later imposed restitution. II. Right to Jury Trial ¶6 Though A.P.R. recognizes that the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that a juvenile does not have a state or federal constitutional right to a jury trial, see A.C. v. People, 16 P.3d 240, 241, 243, 245 (Colo. 2001), he argues at some length that we should reach a different conclusion largely based on out-of-state authority, see In re L.M., 186 P.3d 164, 169-70 (Kan. 2008). 2 ¶7 But A.C. is still good law and is thus binding on us. See People v. Porter, 2015 CO 34, ¶ 23. Because we are not at liberty to overrule the Colorado Supreme Court, we assume A.P.R. is simply preserving his ability to ask the Colorado Supreme Court to revisit and overrule A.C.1 See People v. Novotny, 2014 CO 18, ¶ 26 (The supreme court “alone can overrule [its] prior precedents concerning matters of state law.”). ¶8 We therefore conclude that the district court was not required to grant A.P.R.’s request for a jury trial. III. Dis