Peo v. Webster

── Peo v. Webster ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General 23CA0981 Peo v Webster 05-21-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 23CA0981 Adams County District Court No. 18CR2394 Honorable Priscilla J. Loew, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeremy Webster, Defendant-Appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED Division V Opinion by JUDGE LIPINSKY Yun and Schutz, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 21, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Jessica E. Ross, Senior Assistant Attorney General and Assistant Solicitor General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Esteban A. Martinez, Alternate Defense Counsel, Longmont, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 Jeremy Webster appeals his convictions for one count of first degree murder, six counts of attempted first degree murder, four counts of first degree assault, one count of attempted first degree assault, and ten crime of violence sentence enhancers. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 A jury could have reasonably found the following facts from the evidence introduced at trial. ¶3 On June 18, 2018, following a road rage incident, Webster shot a mother, two of her children, and a bystander in a dental office parking lot. One of the children died from the gunshot wound, while the other victims survived. Webster was charged with the counts noted above. ¶4 At trial, defense counsel argued that Webster was not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). The jury found Webster guilty as charged, however. The trial court sentenced him to a mandatory controlling sentence of life without the possibility of parole in the custody of the Department of Corrections. ¶5 Webster rests his appeal on three Sixth Amendment arguments, asserting that the trial court (1) denied his right to counsel at a critical stage; (2) violated his right to counsel of choice 1  by removing his original public defenders; and (3) infringed his right to conflict-free counsel by creating a conflict between him and the public defenders. We disagree. II. Analysis A. Additional Facts ¶6 Webster’s initial advisement took place three days after the shootings. But the case did not go to trial for another five years. ¶7 The initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic struck during the pretrial proceedings and delayed the completion of Webster’s NGRI evaluation. As a result, Webster did not enter his NGRI plea until April 6, 2020. ¶8 The COVID-19 pandemic also caused problems for Webster’s lawyers. In January 2021, during a virtual hearing at which the trial court said it was prepared to set the case for trial, Webster’s two public defenders, Kimberly A. Gonzalez and Stuart I. Rubinstein (jointly, initial defense counsel), informed the court that they did not intend to appear at trial due to their high risk for COVID-19 infections. Gonzalez said that health issues placed her at high risk and that Rubinstein was at high risk because he had a 2  young child and his wife was pregnant. Nonetheless, the court set Webster’s trial for July 7, 2021. ¶9 Although that trial began as scheduled, it ended in a mistrial due to the unavailability of a critical prosecution witness. At a July 9 hearing to reset the trial, Rubinstein informed the trial court that he would not appear on a new trial date that coincided with his pregnant wife’s due date — September 25, 2021. He said he would withdraw as Webster’s counsel if the court scheduled the trial on that date. The parties and the court agreed to schedule the new trial for October 25, 2021, with a pretrial conference set for October 12. ¶ 10 On September 23