Peo v. Garrett

── Peo v. Garrett ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General 24CA1691 Peo v Garrett 06-04-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 24CA1691 El Paso County District Court No. 22CR1821 Honorable David A. Gilbert, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marisa Gail Garrett, Defendant-Appellant. SENTENCE AFFIRMED Division VI Opinion by JUDGE GROVE Gomez and Moultrie, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced June 4, 2026 Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, John T. Lee, First Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee The Law Office of Sean C. Thomson, LLC, Sean C. Thomson, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant ¶1 This opinion addresses a challenge to sentences imposed in two separate cases brought against defendant, Marisa Gail Garrett. In accordance with a plea agreement with the prosecution, Garrett pleaded guilty to child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury in a 2022 case and second degree burglary in a 2023 case. After various post-plea proceedings that we describe in detail below, the district court sentenced Garrett in both cases to concurrent terms of eight years in the custody of the Department of Corrections. In this appeal, Garrett contends that the district court misapplied the law and abused its discretion in imposing both sentences. We affirm. I. Introduction ¶2 At the heart of this appeal is a statute that went into effect after Garrett pleaded guilty but before the district court revoked her probation and resentenced her to the Department of Corrections. The statute creates “a rebuttable presumption against detention and incarceration of a pregnant or postpartum defendant.” § 18- 1.3-103.7(3)(a), C.R.S. 2025. Garrett was pregnant on the statute’s effective date and, for the remaining time relevant to this appeal, she was either pregnant or postpartum under the statute, which 1  defines the postpartum period as “a period of one year after the end of a pregnancy, regardless of whether the pregnancy ends with a live birth.” § 18-1.3-103.7(2)(b). On appeal, Garrett argues that the district court misunderstood or misapplied section 18-1.3-103.7 when resentencing her to the Department of Corrections. II. Background ¶3 In November 2022, Garrett was charged with child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury after officers responded to a report that Garrett’s two-month-old infant had been dropped. They found the infant to be “emaciated, pale in color with poor skin turgor.” An examination at the hospital revealed that the infant weighed only four pounds and had diagnoses of bradycardia, hypothermia, COVID-19, and “severe, egregious malnutrition that [was] near fatal and chronic.” The infant also tested positive for amphetamines. ¶4 In May 2023, Garrett pleaded guilty to the child abuse charge. At the providency hearing, the prosecution stated its “biggest concern” was drug use and requested the court impose random weekly urinalysis (UA) testing as an additional bond condition. The court agreed. 2 ¶5 In a separate case filed in May 2023, Garrett was charged with second degree burglary and aggravated motor vehicle theft based on allegations that she had altered GPS monitoring equipment on a rental van and used the van to commit storage unit burglaries. Garrett later pleaded guilty to second degree burglary, and as part of the plea agreement, the court dismissed the aggravated motor vehicle theft charge. ¶6 In July 2023, the court held a sentencing hearing on the child abuse conviction. The prosecutor informed the court that when the abuse occurred, Garrett had been on probation for previous offenses: