In Re The People of the State of Colorado v. Keevin Bell, II

── In Re The People of the State of Colorado v. Keevin Bell, II ── Court: Supreme Court of Colorado Date: May 04, 2026 Category: General 1 2026 CO 28 In Re The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff v. Keevin Bell, II, Defendant No. 25SA254 Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc May 4, 2026 2           Original Proceeding Pursuant to C.A.R. 21 Jefferson County District Court Case No. 17CR2407 Honorable Ryan P. Loewer, Judge           Attorneys for Plaintiff: Alexis King, District Attorney, First Judicial District Rebecca A. Adams, Senior Appellate Deputy District Attorney           Attorneys for Defendant: Lord Law Firm, LLC, Kathleen A. Lord, Diamond Law LLC, Moorea E. Diamond 3           Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado District Attorneys' Council: John Walsh, District Attorney, Second Judicial District Richard F. Lee, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Thomas Raynes           Attorney for Amicus Curiae Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel Postconviction Unit: Krista Schelhaas           JUSTICE HOOD delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE MARQUEZ, JUSTICE BOATRIGHT, JUSTICE GABRIEL, JUSTICE SAMOUR, JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER, and JUSTICE BLANCO joined.           ORDER MADE ABSOLUTE 4           HOOD, JUSTICE.          ¶1 In this original proceeding, defendant Keevin Bell, II, asks us to clarify whether a postconviction court has the authority to order duplicate discovery. Bell's postconviction counsel — a different attorney than Bell's trial and appellate counsel — sought from the prosecution a copy of reams of missing pretrial discovery in Bell's case. The prosecution directed Bell's postconviction counsel to request it under the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act ("CCJRA"), §§ 24-72-301 to -309, C.R.S. (2025). Instead, postconviction counsel moved the district court for an order compelling disclosure, which the court denied based on its belief that it lacked the authority to do otherwise.          ¶2 We conclude that if an indigent defendant has shown that he may be entitled to postconviction relief based on specific facts likely mentioned in pretrial discovery, which is unavailable to postconviction counsel, and which would help the defendant substantiate his allegations, the postconviction court should order the prosecution to provide a free copy of the requested duplicate discovery to the defendant.          I. Facts and Procedural History          ¶3 A jury convicted Bell of first degree murder, among other offenses, and the court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Bell 5 appealed, and a division of the court of appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence. People v. Bell, No. 19CA767, ¶ 1 (June 2, 2022).          ¶4 About two years later, Bell moved, pro se, for postconviction relief under Crim. P. 35(c) and requested the appointment of counsel. The district court appointed the Public Defender's Office, but due to a conflict of interest, alternate defense counsel ("ADC") entered an appearance instead.          ¶5 ADC sought a copy of the discovery from Bell's trial counsel but ultimately received only about half of it. (ADC estimates she is missing about thirty-three out of sixty-six discovery packets. "Discovery" in this context encompasses, for example, a broad range of police reports, witness statements, photos, and forensic test results. See, e.g., Crim. P. 16(I)(a)(1). It is the basic fund of information on which charges are based and strategic decisions are made.) ADC requested a copy of the missing packets from the prosecution and was told she needed to submit a request through the CCJRA and pay the associated costs and fees.          ¶6 ADC then moved the court to compel the prosecution to disclose the requested materials. The court denied the motion. Relying on our holdings in People v. Silva-Jaquez, 2025 CO 11, 564 P.3d 650, and People v. Owens, 2014 CO 58M, 330 P.3d 1027, the district court concluded: