Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Nelson v. Colorado

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Nelson v. Colorado
Reference: 15-1256
Issue: Civil procedure
Term: 2016
Important Dates
Argued: January 9, 2017
Decided: April 19, 2017
Outcome
Colorado Supreme Court reversed and remanded
Vote
7-1 to reverse and remand
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan
Concurring
Samuel Alito
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas


Nelson v. Colorado is a case argued during the October 2016 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on January 9, 2017. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court. On April 19, 2017, in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for a six-justice majority, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court. Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment only, meaning that he agreed with the outcome of the case but for additional or different reasons from the opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion.

In the case, the court held that procedures required under Colorado's Exoneration Act for an exonerated defendant to recoup conviction-related funds seized by the state were in violation of the due process clause of the Amendment XIV, United States Constitution.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: After Shannon Nelson had her convictions reversed on appeal, she sought a refund for costs, fees, and restitution paid.
  • The issue: After a conviction is reversed on appeal, are Colorado's statutory requirements to obtain a refund of court costs associated with vacated convictions in violation of the due process clause of the Amendment XIV, United States Constitution?
  • The outcome: On April 19, 2017, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court.


    • In brief: After an appellate process and new trial, Shannon Nelson was acquitted on five charges related to statutory sexual assault. Between her initial conviction and her subsequent acquittal, the state Department of Corrections (DOC) withheld $702.10 from her inmate account to pay for costs, fees, and restitution that Nelson owed. After her acquittal, Nelson sought to get this money back. A trial court recognized that it did not have the authority to order the DOC to refund the money, but a Colorado court of appeals reversed, ordering that Nelson be refunded. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the appeals court, however, holding that Nelson must seek her refund under provisions of the Colorado Exoneration Act rather than as a matter of right and that "due process does not require a defendant to be compensated automatically for the time she spent incarcerated while seeking an appeal or new trial. Similarly, due process does not require an automatic refund of fines paid in connection with a conviction during that time."[1] Argument in the case was held on January 9, 2017.

    You can review the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion here.[1]

    Click on the tabs below to learn more about this Supreme Court case.

    Case

    Background

    This is a case about whether Colorado's statutory requirements to obtain a refund of court costs associated with vacated convictions are in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Amendment XIV, United States Constitution.

    In 2006, Shannon Nelson was convicted of five counts of sexual assault allegedly committed against her children. Nelson was sentenced to 20 years in prison and was ordered to pay court costs, fees, and restitution. These costs totaled $8,192.50. A Colorado court of appeals reversed Nelson's convictions and remanded the case for a new trial. A jury acquitted Nelson of the five charges during the second trial.[1]

    In the interim period between Nelson's initial conviction and acquittal, the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) withheld $702.10 from her inmate account to pay the restitution, costs, and fees that she owed as a result of her initial sentence. Eight months after her acquittal, Nelson filed a motion to have the $702.10 withheld by the Colorado DOC returned to her. She alleged in her filing that a failure to refund her these costs violated her rights of due process under both the Colorado state constitution and the U.S. Constitution. The trial court determined that it did not have the authority to order the DOC to refund Nelson the $702.10 withheld. Nelson appealed that decision and a Colorado court of appeals reversed, holding that an order for a criminal defendant to pay costs, fees, and restitution must be tied to a valid conviction and that, since Nelson had been acquitted, her prior conviction was invalid and the monies withheld by the DOC should be refunded. The state appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.[1]

    On appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment in favor of Nelson. The state supreme court rejected the state's argument that the monies for restitution must come from Colorado's Crime Victim Compensation Act because there was no authority for courts to order restitution via the Act. The state supreme court, however, held that the process for refunding individuals such as Nelson was covered by the state's Exoneration Act.[1]

    Colorado's Exoneration Act authorizes courts to issue refunds to defendants that have been exonerated. According to the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion, "to be considered actually innocent under the Act, the exonerated person must show either that her conviction was the result of a miscarriage of justice or that she is factually innocent ... Insufficiency of the evidence or a legal error unrelated to the person's actual innocence cannot support either exoneration or subsequent compensation under the Act."[1]

    The state supreme court addressed a separate argument that Nelson raised on appeal, that to deny her an automatic refund constituted a violation of her rights to due process under both the U.S. and state constitutions. The court held that Colorado's Exoneration Act provided sufficient process for Nelson to seek her refund and that "requiring a defendant to seek a refund of costs, fees, and restitution through the process created by the legislature, rather than upon a motion after a criminal trial, does not violate due process." The state supreme court held that the only statutory mechanism through which a court could order a refund was the Exoneration Act. Due to Nelson's failure to seek a refund through the procedural mechanisms mandated by the Act, the court reversed the decision to award Nelson a refund.[1]

    Petitioner's challenge

    Shannon Nelson, the petitioner, contends that meeting Colorado's procedural requirements in order to receive a refund of court costs, fees, and restitution pursuant to a reversal of her criminal convictions violates her rights to due process under the Due Process Clause of the Amendment XIV, United States Constitution.

    Certiorari granted

    On April 6, 2016, Shannon Nelson, the petitioner, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Nelson's certiorari request on September 29, 2016. Argument in the case was held on January 9, 2017.

    Arguments


    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "Colorado, like many states, imposes various monetary penalties when a person is convicted of a crime. But Colorado appears to be the only state that does not refund these penalties when a conviction is reversed. Rather, Colorado requires defendants to prove their innocence by clear and convincing evidence to get their money back. The Question Presented is whether this requirement is consistent with due process."[2]


    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[3]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[4]

    Outcome

    Decision

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court for a six-justice majority. Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment only, meaning that he agreed with the outcome of the case but for additional or different reasons from the opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion. In the case, the court held that procedures required under Colorado's Exoneration Act for an exonerated defendant to recoup conviction-related funds seized by the state were in violation of the due process clause of the Amendment XIV, United States Constitution.[5]

    Opinion

    After a review of the procedural history of the case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that the requirements for review in this case were governed by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Mathews v. Eldrige. As Justice Ginsburg noted,[5]

    “

    The familiar procedural due process inspection instructed by Mathews v. Eldridge ... governs these cases. Colorado argues that we should instead apply the standard from Medina v. California ... and inquire whether Nelson and Madden were exposed to a procedure offensive to a fundamental principle of justice. Medina 'provide[s] the appropriate framework for assessing the validity of state procedural rules' that 'are part of the criminal process.' Such rules concern, for example, the allocation of burdens of proof and the type of evidence qualifying as admissible. These cases, in contrast, concern the continuing deprivation of property after a conviction has been reversed or vacated, with no prospect of reprosecution. ... Because no further criminal process is implicated, Mathews 'provides the relevant inquiry.'[6]

    		”

    Once determining that Mathews governed this dispute, Justice Ginsburg held that each of the three considerations for review under Mathews - the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest due to the procedures used, and the government's interest - weighed against Colorado's provisions under the Exoneration Act. Here, Justice Ginsburg noted that Nelson had an interest in regaining monies she paid to Colorado, that Colorado's provisions under the Exoneration Act created an unacceptable risk that her property could be deprived erroneously, and that Colorado's asserted interest withholding the funds from Nelson was negligible. In holding that Colorado's procedures failed each consideration under Mathews, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court.[5]

    Concurring opinions

    Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment only. In Justice Alito's view, Colorado was correct that Medina v. California was the appropriate benchmark through which to evaluate Colorado's procedures. That said, Justice Alito argued that he would hold Colorado's procedures unconstitutional under Medina. In his view,[5]

    “

    In holding that these payments must be refunded, the Court relies on a feature of the criminal law, the presumption of innocence. And since the Court demands that refunds occur either automatically or at least without imposing anything more than 'minimal' procedures, ... it appears that they must generally occur as part of the criminal case. For these reasons, the refund obligation is surely 'part of the criminal process' and thus falls squarely within the scope of Medina. ... Under Medina, the Colorado scheme at issue violates due process. American law has long recognized that when an individual is obligated by a civil judgment to pay money to the opposing party and that judgment is later reversed, the money should generally be repaid. ... The central question courts have asked is whether 'the possessor will give offense to equity and good conscience if permitted to retain [the successful appellant’s money].' ...

    This history supports the Court’s rejection of the Colorado Exoneration Act’s procedures. The Act places a heavy burden of proof on defendants, provides no opportunity for a refund for defendants (like Nelson) whose misdemeanor convictions are reversed, and excludes defendants whose convictions are reversed for reasons unrelated to innocence. ... These stringent requirements all but guarantee that most defendants whose convictions are reversed have no realistic opportunity to prove they are deserving of refunds. Colorado has abandoned historical procedures that were more generous to successful appellants and incorporated a court’s case-specific equitable judgment. Instead, Colorado has adopted a system that is harsh, inflexible, and prevents most defendants whose convictions are reversed from demonstrating entitlement to a refund. Indeed, the Colorado General Assembly made financial projections based on the assumption that only one person every five years would qualify for a financial award under the Exoneration Act. ... Accordingly, the Exoneration Act does not satisfy due process requirements.[6]

    		”

    Dissenting opinions

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. In his view, both the court's opinion and Justice Alito's concurrence missed the threshold inquiry presented by the case. He wrote,[5]

    “

    The majority and concurring opinions debate whether the procedural due process framework of Mathews v. Eldridge, ... or that of Medina v. California, ... governs the question before us. But both opinions bypass the most important question in these cases: whether petitioners can show a substantive entitlement to a return of the money they paid pursuant to criminal convictions that were later reversed or vacated. ... As the parties have agreed, the existence of Colorado’s obligation to provide particular procedures depends on whether petitioners have a substantive entitlement to the money. Colorado concedes that 'if [petitioners] have a present entitlement' to the money—that is, if 'it is their property'—'then due process requires [the State to accord] them some procedure to get it back.' ... And Colorado acknowledges that the procedural hurdles it could impose before returning the money 'would be fairly minimal,' ... because petitioners would need to prove only that their convictions had been reversed and that they had paid a certain sum of money ... Similarly, petitioners concede that if defendants in their position do not have a substantive right to recover the money—that is, if the money belongs to the State—then Colorado need not 'provide any procedure to give it back.' ... If defendants in their position have no entitlement to the money they paid pursuant to their reversed convictions, there would be nothing to adjudicate. In light of these concessions, I can see no justification for the Court’s decision to address the procedures for adjudicating a substantive entitlement while failing to determine whether a substantive entitlement exists in the first place.[6]

    		”


    The opinion

    Filings

    The court granted Nelson's certiorari request on September 29, 2016.

    Merits filings

    Parties' filings

    Shannon Nelson, the petitioner, filed a merits brief on November 14, 2016.

    The state of Colorado, the respondent, filed a merits brief on December 14, 2016.

    Nelson filed a reply brief on the merits on December 22, 2016.

    Amicus curiae filings

    The following groups filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the petitioner, Shannon Nelson.

    • Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

    Certiorari filings

    Parties' filings

    • Shannon Nelson, the petitioner, filed a petition for certiorari on April 6, 2016.
    • The state of Colorado, the respondent, filed a brief in opposition to certiorari on August 9, 2016, after an order extending time to file was granted by the court.

    Amicus curiae filings

    The following group filed an amicus curiae brief in support of granting certiorari.

    • Brief of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Supreme Court of Colorado, People of the State of Colorado v. Shannon Nelson, December 21, 2015
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Nelson v. Colorado, September 29, 2016
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Nelson v. Colorado, argued January 9, 2017
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Nelson v. Colorado, argued January 9, 2017
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Supreme Court of the United States, Shannon Nelson v. Colorado, decided April 19, 2017
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nelson_v._Colorado&oldid=8891506"