The Colorado Court of Appeals issued 3 opinions on November 5. Read the summary and full opinion below.
The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Rogers, Defendant-Appellant. 2026 COA 79. In this direct appeal, the defendant argues that he was denied his right to counsel when the district court conducted a competency review hearing while his lawyer’s motion to withdraw was pending,
which prevented his lawyer from objecting to the competency evaluation. A division of the court of appeals considers whether such a claim requires a showing of deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984), or whether, as the defendant asserts, prejudice is presumed under
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658 (1984).
Because a pending motion to withdraw does not alone establish a denial of counsel, and because the narrow circumstances described in Cronic do not otherwise apply to the facts of this case, the division concludes that this claim must be evaluated as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland. But ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be raised in postconviction proceedings, not on direct appeal. Accordingly, the division dismisses the appeal. Read the opinion.
The People of the State of Colorado, Appellee, In the Matter of Cason Sanders, a Youth in Transition, Appellant. 2026 COA 80. A division of the court of appeals decides two issues of first impression regarding judicial proceedings under the foster youth in transition (FYIT) program, § 19-7-307, C.R.S. 2026. First, the division holds that a party wishing to appeal a magistrate’s order in a FYIT proceeding must first file a petition for review with the juvenile court under section 19-1-108(5.5), C.R.S. 2026. Second, the division holds that a juvenile court may not determine a youth’s eligibility for the FYIT program in a FYIT proceeding. Instead, that determination must be made by the county department of human or social services, subject to the administrative appeal process. Read the opinion.
Scott Huset and Impact Industrial Services, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EIS Ultimate Holding, LP, a Delaware limited partnership; EIS Operating Enterprises, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Earth Services & Abatement, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Defendants-Appellants. 2026 COA 81. Section 8-2-113, C.R.S. 2026, governs covenants not to compete between an employer and an employee. The statute generally provides, subject to certain exceptions, that “a covenant not to compete that restricts the right of an individual to receive compensation for performance of labor is void.” § 8-2-113(2)(a).
In 2022 the General Assembly adopted H.B. 22-1317. It added section 8-2-113(8)(a), which now states that “[a]n employer shall not enter into, present to a worker or prospective worker as a term of employment, or attempt to enforce any covenant that is void under this section.” H.B. 22-1317 stated, “This act applies to
covenants not to compete entered into or renewed on or after the applicable effective date of this act.” Ch. 441, sec. 2(2), 2022 Colo. Sess. Laws 3099. Section 8-2-113(8)(b), which was also created by H.B. 22- 1317, states that “[a]n employer that violates subsection (8)(a) of this section is liable for actual damages and a penalty of five thousand dollars per worker or prospective worker harmed by the conduct.”
For the first time in a published Colorado opinion, a division of the court of appeals addresses whether the bar against attempting “to enforce any covenant that is void under this section” applies to an effort to enforce a restrictive covenant that was entered into before the adoption of section 8-2-113(8)(a) and (b) and was void under the statute as it existed before and after the 2022 amendments. The division concludes that the clause of section 8-2- 113(8)(a) prohibiting an “attempt to enforce any covenant that is void under this section” and the remedies contained in section 8-2- 113(8)(b) apply to a covenant not to compete that was void when
adopted if the employer attempts to enforce the void covenant after the act’s effective date. Read the opinion.