People v. Medina

── People v. Medina ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 07, 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 May 7, 2026 2026 COA 36 No. 24CA2021, People v. Medina — Criminal Law — Postconviction Remedies — Punishment for Habitual Criminals In this postconviction proceeding, a division of the court of appeals considers, as a matter of first impression in Colorado, whether the rule announced in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 835 (2024) — which requires that a jury, rather than a judge, determine whether a defendant committed prior offenses on separate occasions for purposes of habitual sentencing — may be applied retroactively to cases that became final before the rule’s announcement. Applying the framework established in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310-11 (1989), the division concludes that, to the extent that Erlinger announced a new rule of constitutional law, the rule is neither substantive nor a watershed rule of procedure and, thus, it does not apply retroactively on collateral review. The division therefore affirms the postconviction court’s denial of the defendant’s Crim. P. 35(c) motion, which was both untimely and successive. The division also rejects the defendant’s claim alleging a violation of his speedy trial rights under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act. Applying the law of the case doctrine, the division declines to consider this issue, which was previously rejected by two prior divisions of the court. COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2026 COA 36 Court of Appeals No. 24CA2021 Jefferson County District Court No. 14CR3044 Honorable Chantel Contiguglia, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delano Marco Medina, Defendant-Appellant. ORDERS AFFIRMED Division VII Opinion by JUDGE GOMEZ Pawar and Johnson, JJ., concur Announced May 7, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Brock J. Swanson, First Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Delano Marco Medina, Pro Se ¶1 The United States Supreme Court held in Erlinger v. United States that for purposes of sentencing a defendant under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act — which increases prison terms for defendants who previously committed three violent felonies or serious drug offenses on separate occasions — the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury, rather than a judge, to decide whether the defendant’s prior offenses were committed on separate occasions. 602 U.S. 821, 835 (2024). The Colorado Supreme Court has held that this rule applies to Colorado’s habitual criminal sentencing statute, such that a jury, rather than a judge, must decide whether a defendant’s prior felony convictions arose out of separate and distinct criminal episodes. People v. Gregg, 2025 CO 57, ¶ 24; see § 18-1.3-801(1)(b)(I), (1.5), (2)(a)(I), C.R.S. 2025.1 ¶2 In this appeal, defendant, Delano Marco Medina, asks us to consider, as a matter of first impression in Colorado, whether this rule may be applied retroactively to cases that became final before the rule was announced. We hold that it cannot. Therefore, we 1 After the announcement of Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), the General Assembly amended the habitual criminal sentencing statute to