Peo v. Hill

── Peo v. Hill ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General 24CA2277 Peo v Hill 05-21-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 24CA2277 City and County of Denver District Court No. 06CR4898 Honorable Eric M. Johnson, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luther Hill, Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AFFIRMED Division I Opinion by JUDGE MEIRINK J. Jones and Lum, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 21, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, William G. Kozeliski, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Luther Hill, Pro Se ¶1 Defendant, Luther Hill, appeals the postconviction court’s order denying his most recent postconviction motion. We affirm. I. Background ¶2 In 2008, a jury found Hill guilty of second degree kidnapping, sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact, and possession of a controlled substance. In a separate proceeding, the trial court found that the prosecution had proven seven habitual criminal counts, and it sentenced Hill to an aggregate term of 174 years to life in the custody of the Department of Corrections. ¶3 On direct appeal, a division of this court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. See People v. Hill, (Colo. App. No. 09CA0021, May 9, 2013) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)). The mandate was issued in 2014. ¶4 In 2017, Hill filed his first Crim. P. 35(c) motion, raising numerous postconviction claims. The trial court denied the motion, and a division of this court affirmed. See People v. Hill, (Colo. App. No. 17CA1772, July 25, 2019) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e)). ¶5 In 2024, the United States Supreme Court held in Erlinger v. United States that a criminal defendant has the constitutional right 1  to have a jury determine whether the defendant’s prior convictions were committed on different occasions for purposes of a federal habitual criminal statute, the Armed Career Criminal Act (federal ACCA). See 602 U.S. 821 (2024); see also People v. Gregg, 2025 CO 57, ¶¶ 15-26 (applying Erlinger to the pre-2025 version of Colorado’s habitual criminal statute).1 ¶6 Later that year, Hill filed the pro se postconviction motion at issue, which he labeled a Crim. P. 35(a) motion “pursuant to the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Erlinger v. United States.” In it, he argued that, based on Erlinger, he had the right to have a jury determine whether his prior convictions arose out of separate and distinct criminal episodes under Colorado’s habitual criminal statute. And near the end of his motion, he asserted, “As Defendant’s habitual criminal charges were tried by a judge and not a jury, the 1 In 2025, the General Assembly amended Colorado’s habitual criminal statute to require a jury, rather than the district court, to determine whether the defendant has the alleged previous felony convictions, whether the convictions were separately brought and tried, and whether the convictions arose out of separate and distinct criminal episodes. See Ch. 344, sec. 1, § 18-1.3-803(1), 2025 Colo. Sess. Laws 1866. 2  convictions and sentences which resulted therefrom were obtained in violation of the United States Constitution, the sentences are therefore not authorized by law, are in fact illegal sentences, and must therefore be vac[a]ted.” ¶7 The postconviction court denied the motion without a hearing, concluding, among other things, that Hill’s sentences were authorized by law under Crim. P. 35(a) and Erlinger does not apply retroactively on collateral review. II. Analysis ¶8 We first address the foundationa