Peo v. Wortman

── Peo v. Wortman ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General 23CA1790 Peo v Wortman 05-07-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 23CA1790 Weld County District Court No. 19CR539 Honorable Allison J. Esser, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremy Edward Wortman, Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AFFIRMED Division I Opinion by JUDGE J. JONES Fox and Dunn, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 7, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Joshua J. Luna, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Emeson & Zale, LLC, Brian S. Emeson, Boulder, Colorado for Defendant- Appellant ¶1 Defendant, Jeremy Edward Wortman, appeals the district court’s order denying his Crim. P. 35(b) motion following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 Wortman was charged with first degree kidnapping, second degree kidnapping, third degree assault, and obstruction of telephone or telegraph service. The charges stemmed from allegations that Wortman and the victim (his ex-girlfriend) met in a parking lot to discuss custody issues concerning their daughter. The victim got into Wortman’s car to talk. When they began to argue, however, Wortman drove off. He drove erratically, crashing the car at one point, and refused to let the victim out of the car or allow her to call 911. When the victim tried to escape the car, Wortman grabbed her, causing pain and injury. Eventually, law enforcement officers stopped the car and Wortman was arrested. ¶3 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Wortman pleaded guilty to attempted first degree kidnapping. The remaining counts were dismissed. The parties stipulated to a prison sentence of between eight and eighteen years. The district court imposed an eighteen- year sentence. Wortman didn’t directly appeal his sentence. 1 ¶4 Thereafter, Wortman filed a pro se motion under Crim. P. 35(c), asserting that (1) plea counsel had provided him with ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion under Crim. P. 35(b) despite promising to do so, and (2) his sentence was grossly disproportionate. The district court appointed counsel, who later supplemented Wortman’s ineffective assistance claim and included additional information pertinent to the Crim. P. 35(b) motion. At a status conference, the prosecution confessed Wortman’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and the court agreed to allow Wortman to pursue his untimely Crim. P. 35(b) motion. ¶5 Wortman asked the district court to reconsider his sentence based on his (1) expressed remorse for his actions; (2) progression from maximum security to minimum security incarceration and his lack of disciplinary reports while in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC); (3) successful completion of multiple DOC classes, programs, and treatment; (4) successful completion of educational courses through Pueblo Community College and Adams State University; and (5) strong family support. In a written response, the prosecution opposed any reduction in Wortman’s sentence, noting the seriousness of the offense, Wortman’s prior 2  criminal history, and the victim and her family’s strong support of the original sentence. ¶6 The district court set the matter for a hearing. At the hearing, the court heard testimony from the victim, the victim’s family, Wortman, and Wortman’s family. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court declined to reduce Wortman’s sentence. The court remarked that it was “impressed” with all the classes Wortman had taken and was convinced that his work spoke “very highly” of his “character” and would set him up for “success” upon his release. However, the