Peo v. Close

── Peo v. Close ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General 24CA0600 Peo v Close 05-14-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 24CA0600 City and County of Denver District Court No. 15CR4878 Honorable Eric M. Johnson, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James C. Close, Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AFFIRMED Division I Opinion by JUDGE DUNN J. Jones and Fox, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 14, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Grant R. Fevurly, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Lauretta A. Martin Neff, Alternate Defense Counsel, Montrose, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 James C. Close appeals the postconviction court’s order denying his Crim. P. 35(c) motion without a hearing and without the appointment of postconviction counsel. He argues that his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel — specifically his allegation that counsel failed to “pursue evidence of [the victim’s] history of false reports” — are sufficient to warrant the appointment of postconviction counsel. We affirm. I. Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 Based on allegations that he sexually assaulted a teenager who was living at his house, the People charged Close with sexual assault on a child (position of trust) and sexual assault on a child (pattern of sexual abuse). ¶3 Close did not testify at trial, but his counsel defended on the theory that the victim fabricated the allegations. The theory of defense was not without support. For example, the victim’s mother testified that the victim was untruthful about “significant things” and that throughout her life, the victim “made up allegations” to get people in trouble. As to the last point, the victim’s mother told the jury about false allegations the victim had made against a few family members as well as a “boy from her school.” As to the 1  accusations against Close, the victim’s mother expressed “doubts about what [her] daughter was saying.” ¶4 The jury convicted Close as charged, and the court sentenced him to twelve years to life in prison. On appeal, a division of this court affirmed the judgment of conviction. See People v. Close, (Colo. App. No. 18CA1071, Feb. 10, 2022) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)). ¶5 Close filed a timely pro se Rule 35(c) motion alleging that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance. He alleged that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by (1) eliciting and commenting on bolstering testimony; (2) failing to ask the court to allow evidence of the victim’s history of false reporting of sexual assaults; (3) allowing the victim’s “PTSD” testimony; (4) failing to object to the court’s response to a jury question; and (5) failing to raise a jurisdictional objection to a detective’s testimony. He also alleged that counsel’s errors cumulatively resulted in ineffective assistance. Close asked for appointment of postconviction counsel and a hearing. ¶6 The postconviction court denied Close’s motion without appointing counsel and without a hearing. Rejecting the claims for 2  different reasons, the court found none of them potentially meritorious. II. Analysis ¶7 Now represented by counsel, Close contends that his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are sufficient to warrant the appointment of postconviction counsel. Thus, he asks us to “put the train back on the tracks at the point it got derailed” and remand the case for appointment of postconviction counsel, “the opportunity to supplement[]” the motion, and “reconsideration of the merits of” the motion and any supplement “as