The People of the State of Colorado v. Shams Abdul-Rahman.

── The People of the State of Colorado v. Shams Abdul-Rahman. ── Court: Supreme Court of Colorado Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General 1 2026 CO 33 The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner v. Shams Abdul-Rahman. Respondent No. 24SC774 Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc May 26, 2026           Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No. 23CA486           Attorneys for Petitioner: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General Erin K. Grundy, First Assistant Attorney General Leo T. Nguyen, Assistant Attorney General Fellow Denver, Colorado           Attorneys for Respondent: Parsons Law Office Jeffrey C. Parsons Broomfield, Colorado           Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado State Board of Parole: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General Tara Buchalter, Senior Assistant Attorney General 2          Graham Gerhart, Assistant Attorney General Denver, Colorado           CHIEF JUSTICE MARQUEZ delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which JUSTICE BOATRIGHT, JUSTICE HOOD, JUSTICE SAMOUR, and JUSTICE BLANCO joined. JUSTICE GABRIEL dissented. JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER did not participate. 3           OPINION           MÁRQUEZ, CHIEF JUSTICE.          ¶1 The Colorado State Board of Parole ("Board") determined that defendant Shams Abdul-Rahman violated the conditions of his parole and revoked it. Instead of appealing the revocation decision to the Board's appellate body, AbdulRahman petitioned the Boulder County District Court for postconviction relief pursuant to Crim. P. 35(c). The postconviction court summarily denied AbdulRahman's petition on the merits. Abdul-Rahman appealed. In a published opinion, a division of the court of appeals concluded that the parole revocation statutory scheme did not require administrative exhaustion and affirmed the postconviction court's order. We granted the People's petition for a writ of certiorari to consider whether a parolee must exhaust their administrative remedies by appealing first to the Board's appellate body before seeking judicial review.[1]          ¶2 We hold that a parolee seeking review of the Board's initial revocation decision must exhaust their administrative remedies before petitioning a court for postconviction relief under Crim. P. 35(c). We conclude that the plain language of the statutes governing parole revocation appeals, specifically section 17-2-103, 4 C.R.S. (2025), and section 17-2-201, C.R.S. (2025), unambiguously requires an administrative appeal to precede judicial review. We further conclude that requiring parolees to use the administrative appeal process that the General Assembly provided falls squarely within Colorado's longstanding administrative exhaustion doctrine and furthers the policy interests animating this doctrine.          ¶3 Because Abdul-Rahman failed to seek an administrative appeal, the postconviction court lacked jurisdiction to review his Crim. P. 35(c) petition. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case with instructions to return it to the postconviction court for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction.          I. Facts and Procedural History          ¶4 Abdul-Rahman was convicted of sexual assault. The trial court imposed an indeterminate sentence pursuant to the Colorado Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act. See §§ 18-1.3-1001 to -1012, C.R.S. (2025). After serving time in prison, Abdul-Rahman was paroled. While on parole, his parole officer served him with a parole revocation complaint and summons alleging that he violated his parole conditions and ordering him to appear before the Board. Following a revocation hearing, the Board revoked Abdul-Rahman's parole.          ¶5 Abdul-Rahman later petitioned the Boulder County District Court for postconviction relief pursuant to Crim. P. 35(c)(2)(VII), contending that the 5 revocation was unlawful. The People filed a written response but did not raise any arguments related to Abdul-Rahman's failure to appea