Peo v. Aurelio

── Peo v. Aurelio ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General 23CA1416 Peo v Aurelio 05-07-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 23CA1416 City and County of Denver District Court No. 13CR4662 Honorable Jay S. Grant, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicholas J. Aurelio, Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AFFIRMED Division II Opinion by JUDGE SULLIVAN Fox and Kuhn, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 7, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Patrick A. Withers, Assistant Solicitor General and Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Nicholas J. Aurelio, Pro Se ¶1 Defendant, Nicholas J. Aurelio, appeals the postconviction court’s order denying his Crim. P. 35(c) motion for postconviction relief. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 Aurelio and the victim were involved in a romantic relationship in 2012. The victim ended the relationship in late 2012, and by summer 2013, she had sought and obtained a civil protection order and two criminal protection orders prohibiting further contact. Aurelio then violated the criminal protection order in Denver District Court Case No. 13CR3458 by continuing to communicate with the victim. The day before a bond revocation hearing in Case No. 13CR3458, Aurelio confronted the victim with a gun outside her apartment, forced himself inside, and sexually assaulted her. ¶3 Two different public defenders represented Aurelio at the beginning of the case. Before trial, however, Aurelio fired the public defenders and retained private defense counsel (trial counsel). ¶4 At trial, the prosecution presented testimony from the victim, as well as another of Aurelio’s ex-girlfriends, J.R., who had previously obtained a restraining order against him. Aurelio’s 1  defense was that the victim had fabricated her allegations because she wanted to extort him for money. ¶5 A jury found Aurelio guilty of sexual assault, second degree kidnapping, second degree burglary, intimidation of a witness or victim, tampering with physical evidence, two counts of stalking, two counts of violation of a protection order, and a violation of bail bond conditions. The trial court sentenced Aurelio to seventy-seven and a half years in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC). ¶6 Aurelio appealed his convictions, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erroneously (1) admitted evidence prohibited by CRE 404(b) and (2) denied him a hearing on his postconviction motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. A division of this court rejected his contentions and affirmed his convictions. People v. Aurelio, (Colo. App. No. 16CA0264, Feb. 8, 2018) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)) (Aurelio I). ¶7 Aurelio, proceeding pro se, then filed a 143-page motion for postconviction relief under Crim. P. 35(c). The postconviction court appointed counsel who supplemented Aurelio’s motion. The postconviction court issued a detailed written order denying the 2  bulk of Aurelio’s claims but granting an evidentiary hearing on one: whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. Before the hearing, the court allowed Aurelio’s postconviction counsel to withdraw but denied Aurelio’s request to appoint substitute counsel. Aurelio appeared at the hearing with only advisory counsel. After the hearing, the court rejected his claim, concluding trial counsel provided Aurelio with effective representation during plea negotiations. ¶8 Aurelio, again proceeding pro se, now appeals. He contends that the postconviction court erred by (1) denying all but one of his ineffect