DISTRICT COURT, ADAMS COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO
1100 Judicial Center Drive
Brighton, CO 80601
Phone Number: (303) 659-1161
Plaintiff:
The People of the State of Colorado
? COURT USE ONLY ?
Defendant:
RICK STANLEY
Case Number: 03CR2971
THE REISCH LAW FIRM, LLC
R. Scott Reisch, #26892
Stacey L. Ross, #20823
370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4970 Div.: Ctrm.:
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 291-0555
FAX Number: (720) 904-5797
E-mail: rscottreisch@worldnet.att.net
BULL & DAVIES, P.C.
Brett Davies, #34175
812 Santa Fe Drive
Denver, CO 80204
Telephone: (303) 996-9815
MOTION TO DISMISS AS A MATTER OF LAW
COMES NOW the defendant, Rick Stanley, by and through his attorneys, and hereby moves the Court
to dismiss the charge in this case.
AS GROUNDS THEREFORE, defendant states as follows:
1. In the above-captioned case, defendant is charged with attempting to influence a public servant,
in violation of C.R.S. § 18-8-306.
2. As revealed by the "Affidavit and Application for Arrest Warrant," the charge is based on a
"Notice and Order" to Judge Donald W. Marshall, which defendant sent to the Adams County District
Court on or about October 16, 2003.
3. The "Notice and Order" was filed as a pleading in the Adams County District Court, with a proper
caption and case number 03CV0533. The "Notice and Order" has previously been tendered to this Court
as Exhibit 2, at defendant's preliminary hearing.
4. Adams County District Court case number 03CV0533 is the number that was assigned to defendant's
appeal from his conviction in Thornton Municipal Court for possessing a dangerous weapon, in violation
of Thornton Municipal Code § 38-327(b)(1).
5. The appeal was assigned to Adams County District Court Judge Donald W. Marshall.
6. On August 26, 2003, Judge Marshall issued an Order affirming the judgment of conviction of the
Thornton Municipal Court. The Order was filed with the Clerk of the Adams County District Court on
the same day, and a copy of the opinion, along with a certificate of mailing of the ruling was sent to
the Clerk of the Thornton Municipal Court.
7. On October 15, 2003, defendant was scheduled to appear in Thornton Municipal Court to surrender on
his previously imposed sentence.
8. Defendant failed to appear in the Thornton Municipal Court on October 15, 2003.
9. Defendant allegedly filed the above-mentioned "Notice and Order" to Judge Marshall in the Adams County
District Court on October 16, 2003. In the "Notice and Order" defendant "demands that Judge Donald W. Marshall, Jr.,
overturn" his Thornton Municipal Court conviction on constitutional grounds. "Failure to do so will result in a
treason charge against Donald W. Marshall, Jr. for failure to uphold the oath of office to defend the Constitutions,
which this court has no record, and Donald W. Marshall, Jr., swore to as a 'condition' of his office. This
treason chare, will result in a Mutual Defense Pact Militia warrant for Donald W. Marshall Jr.'s arrest"
unless defendant's unconstitutional conviction is overturned, his bond is refunded and his property is returned.
Defendant filed an identical "Notice and Order" to Judge Rose of the Thornton Municipal Court on October 15, 2003.
10. Based on the filing of the Notice and Order, defendant was charged with illegally attempting to influence
Judges Marshall (03CR2971) and Rose (03CR2956).
11. Defendant moves to dismiss case no. 03CR2971, which lists Judge Marshall as the public servant who
defendant was attempting to influence. Defendant contends that the records of the Adams County District
Court establish as a matter of law that Judge Marshall lacked jurisdiction over defendant's appeal on the
date the "Notice and Order" was filed, and therefore, there was no matter pending before Judge Marshall or
the Adams County District Court. As a matter of law, defendant cannot be convicted of attempting to influence
Judge Marshall because there was no "decision, vote, opinion or action" to be "considered or performed" by
Judge Marshall, as required by § 18-8-306.
12. Defendant requests that this Court take judicial notice of its own files, which conclusively establish
that Judge Marshall and the Adams County District Court lacked continuing jurisdiction over the appeal (03CV0533)
from the Thornton Municipal Court. See C.R.E. 201(d) )"A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party
and supplied with the necessary information;" C.R.E. 201(f) ("Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the
proceeding;" One Hour Cleaners v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 914 P.2d 501, 504 (Colo. App. 1995) ("court
can take judicial notice of its own records and files" (citing Sakal v. Donnelly, 494 P.2d 1316 (Colo. App. 1972)).
13. The Court's files establish that defendant filed his notice of appeal on February 26, 2003. See Exhibit
A (register of actions).
14. On August 26, 2003, the Adams County District Court filed an opinion affirming the judgment of the Thornton
Municipal Court. See Exhibits B (register of actions) and C (copy of Judge Marshall's decision affirming
defendant's conviction in Thornton Municipal Court). The certificate of mailing attached to Judge Marshall's
decision confirms that a copy of the decision affirming defendant's conviction was mailed to the Thornton
Municipal Court on August 26, 2003.
15. At that point, defendant's only available avenue for seeking further review of Judge Marshall's decision
was to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court. See Colo. Muni. Court Rules of
Procedure 237(b) ("Appeals from courts of record shall be in accordance with Rule 37 of the Colorado Rules of
Criminal Procedure."); Crim. P. 37(a) (authorizing appeals to District Court if filed within thirty days); Crim.
P. 37(h) ("Unless there is further review by the Supreme Court upon writ of certiorari pursuant to the rules of
such court, after final disposition of the appeal, the judgment on appeal entered by the district court shall be
certified . . . as directed by the district court."); C.R.S. § 13-6-310(4) ("Further appeal to the supreme court
from a determination of the district court in a matter appealed to such court . . . may be made only upon writ of
certiorari issued in the discretion of the supreme court and pursuant to such rules as that court may promulgate.").
16. The time for filing a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court expired on August 26, 2003.
See C.A.R. 52(a) ("A petition for writ of certiorari to review a judgment of a district court on appeal from a
county court, shall be filed not later than thirty days after the rendition of the final judgment in said court.");
Colo. Muni. Court Rules of Procedure 237(b) ("Appeals from courts of record shall be in accordance with Rule 37 of
the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure."); Crim. P. 37 (governing appeals from county to district court).
Defendant did not file a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.
16. Once the appeal time for petitioning for certiorari expired, Judge Marshall and the Adams County District
Court lost all jurisdiction over defendant's appeal or any aspect of defendant's case in Thornton Municipal Court.
See People v. Bonilla-Garcia, 51 P.3d 1035, 1037 (Colo. App. 2001) (holding that appellate court lost jurisdiction
to enter order pertaining to the appeal after it had already affirmed defendant's conviction and the time for filing
a petition for certiorari had expired). Jurisdiction over defendant's case had been transferred back to the Thornton
Municipal Court, which, in fact, had asserted renewed jurisdiction by scheduling a court date for defendant to be
remanded on his previously imposed sentence. Additionally, the appellate court and the trial court cannot exercise
dual jurisdiction because it could result in chaotic judicial administration. People v. District Court, 638 P.2d 65,
66-67 (Colo. 1981). In criminal cases, as well as civil, the judgment is final when it terminates the litigation on
the merits and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. Berman v. United
States, 302 U.S. 211, 212 (1937).
17. Thus, regardless of whether defendant intended to influence Judge Marshall into reconsidering his opinion
affirming defendant's conviction, Judge Marshall lacked jurisdiction to enter any orders pertaining to defendant's
appeal. See id.; see also People in re D.B., 855 P.2d 27, 28 (Colo. App. 1993) (appellate court lacks "authority
to enlarge upon jurisdiction that has been granted to it by statute.").
18. In short, because Judge Marshall and the Adams County District Court lacked jurisdiction over defendant's appeal,
there was no "decision, vote, opinion, or action" concerning defendant's case "which is to be considered or
performed" by Judge Marshall or any of the judges on the Adams County District Court. In short, the allegations
are invalid on their face.
19. In order to convict defendant in this case, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended
to "alter or affect" Judge Marshall's "decision, vote, opinion, or action concerning any matter which is to be
considered or performed by him or the agency or body of which he is a member." C.R.S. § 18-8-306.
20. As a matter of law, the prosecution cannot prove that Judge Marshall or the Adams County District Court had
jurisdiction over defendant's case or had any "decision, vote, opinion, or action" pending which could have been
influenced by the "Notice and Order" that defendant filed with the Adams County District Court.
21. Based on the undisputed records of the Adams County District Court, defendant's appeal was no longer pending
before Judge Marshall and the Adams County District Court, and therefore, there was no "decision, vote, opinion
or action" that could have been issued by Judge Marshall or the Adams County District Court.
WHEREFORE, defendant requests that this motion be granted and that case 03CR2971 be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted this ______ day of March, 2004.
__________________________________
R. Scott Reisch
Stacey L. Ross
Brett Davies
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that on the ____ day of March, 2004, I ? deposited in the U.S. Mail, or ? sent
via facsimile to the following number: ___________ or ? hand delivered the foregoing Motion to Dismiss
as a Matter of Law to the following:
Mark Warner
Deputy District Attorney
District Attorney's Office
450 S. 4th Ave.
Brighton, CO 80601
