DISTRICT COURT, ADAMS COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO
1100 Judicial Center Drive
Brighton, CO 80601
Phone Number: (303) 659-1161
Appeal from the Thornton Municipal Court,
Case No. 02CR6386, The Hon. Mary J. Dulacki
Plaintiff - Appellee:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO ex rel. THE CITY OF THORNTON
? COURT USE ONLY ?
Defendant - Appellant:
RICHARD E. STANLEY
Case Number:
THE REISCH LAW FIRM, LLC
R. Scott Reisch
Stacey L. Ross
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
Atty. Reg. No.: 26892
Atty. Reg. No.: 20823
MOTION FOR STAY OF SENTENCE PENDING APPEAL
COMES NOW the defendant - appellant, Richard E. Stanley (hereinafter "defendant"), by and through
his attorneys, the Reisch Law Firm, LLC, and hereby moves the Court to enter an Order Staying his
Sentence Pending Appeal.
AS GROUNDS THEREFORE, defendant states as follows:
1. On January 29, 2003, Defendant was found guilty in Thornton Municipal Court of possessing a
dangerous weapon. Defendant was sentenced to ninety days in jail. Defendant timely appealed and his
sentence was stayed pending resolution of the appeal. His conviction was affirmed on August 26, 2003,
by the Adams County District Court (Case No. 03CV533).
2. On October 15, 2003, defendant was ordered to appear in Thornton Municipal Court to be remanded to
jail. Defendant failed to appear and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
3. Defendant was taken into custody on October 18, 2003. He remains incarcerated in the Adams County
Jail.
4. On or about November 10, 2003, defendant filed a motion for post-conviction relief, alleging among
other things, that his conviction was obtained in violation of his constitutional right to counsel. On
December 18, 2003, the Thornton Municipal Court denied defendant's motion as untimely, notwithstanding
the fact that defendant was precluded from filing the motion earlier because his direct appeal was still
pending.
5. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal in the Thornton Municipal Court and has now docketed the
appeal in the Adams County District Court (the present case before the court).
6. Although defendant has already forwarded the costs of the transcript to the municipal court, the
municipal court has forty days to forward the record on appeal to the Adams County District Court, pursuant
to Colo. R. Crim. P. 37(c). Meanwhile, defendant remains incarcerated and will have completed his sentence
before even having an opportunity to bring the merits of his appellate argument before the Adams County
District Court.
7. The Thornton Municipal Court clearly erred in denying as untimely defendant's motion for post-conviction
relief. Pursuant to Rule 235(c) of the Colorado Municipal Court Rules of Procedure, a post-conviction motion
alleging that a conviction was obtained in violation of the Constitution must be filed within six months of
the date of conviction "unless the applicant can show good cause for the delay." Here, the length of time the
Adams County District Court required to resolve defendant's direct appeal clearly amounted to "good cause"
for defendant's delay in filing his post-conviction motion.
8. Furthermore, Colorado case law interpreting the state-wide counterpart to Rule 235(c) - Rule 35(c) of the
Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure - has held that the time limits imposed by statute on post-conviction
motions do not run during the pendency of any direct appeal from the conviction. See People v. Hampton, 876
P.2d 1236 (Colo. 1994) (en banc). Although brought to the judge's attention, the Thornton Municipal Court
ruled that Hampton does not control the interpretation of municipal rules, nor should its reasoning apply.
9. Finally, the Thornton Municipal Court rejected defendant's request to reach the merits of his post-conviction
motion. Therefore, even if defendant is able to persuade the Adams County District Court that the municipal
court erred in denying his motion as untimely, Adams County will likely remand the matter back to the municipal
court for consideration of the merits of the motion.
10. Meanwhile, defendant remains incarcerated, unable to have any court determine whether he was convicted in
violation of his constitutional rights. Defendant contends that he was so convicted, based on the fact that
the municipal court did not adequately advise him of his right to counsel or obtain a valid and voluntary
waiver of that right before proceeding to trial.
11. Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an order staying his sentence pending
resolution of this appeal. The district court is required to enter an automatic stay pursuant to Rule 37(f) of
the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure.
WHEREFORE, defendant requests that this motion be granted and that the Court enter an Order staying the balance
of his sentence pending the resolution of this appeal.
DATED this ______ day of December, 2003.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________
R. Scott Reisch
Stacey L. Ross
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that on the ____ day of December, 2003, I ? deposited in the U.S. Mail, or ? sent via
facsimile to the following number: ___________ or ? hand delivered the foregoing MOTION FOR STAY PENDING
APPEAL to the following:
Jacob A. Starkovich
Thornton City Attorney
9500 Civic Center Drive
Thornton, CO 80229-4326
Clerk of the Thornton Municipal Court
9500 Civic Center Drive
Thornton, CO 80229
