People v. Joslin, 022218 COCA, 16CA1643
|Opinion Judge:||FURMAN JUDGE|
|Party Name:||The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Joslin, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Marissa R. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee Matthew Joslin, Pro Se|
|Judge Panel:||JUDGE FOX and JUDGE ASHBY concur.|
|Case Date:||February 22, 2018|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Colorado, Sixth Division|
Mesa County District Court Nos. 09CR1694 & 13CR1449 Honorable Richard T. Gurley, Judge
Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Marissa R. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Matthew Joslin, Pro Se
¶ 1 In two separate cases, Matthew Joslin, defendant, accepted the benefit of a plea bargain. In 2009, he was charged with six sex offenses but pleaded guilty to only two. He was sentenced to probation and ordered to pay over $8000 in fees. He was not ordered to pay restitution. In 2013, Joslin faced thirty new charges, twenty-one of which were class 3 felonies, but he pleaded guilty to only four. He was sentenced to ninety-two years to life in the custody of the Department of Corrections and ordered to pay over $14, 000 in fees and $1520 in restitution.
¶ 2 When Joslin did not pay the restitution within a year, he was charged interest on that unpaid restitution pursuant to section 18-1.3-603(4)(b), C.R.S. 2014. He then filed two nearly identical Crim. P. 35(c) motions, alleging that in each case he was never told that he would be charged interest on unpaid restitution. He claimed that he would never have pleaded guilty if he had known he would have to pay interest. The district court denied the motions without a hearing.
¶ 3 On appeal, Joslin essentially contends that he is entitled to postconviction relief because either the district court or his counsel (or both) was required to tell him that he would be required to pay interest on unpaid restitution - and neither did. Central to addressing Joslin's contentions is the premise that defendants must be advised of the direct, but not collateral, consequences of a plea. People v. Campbell, 174 P.3d 860, 864 (Colo.App. 2007); see also Crim. P. 11(b)(4); People v. Birdsong, 958 P.2d 1124, 1128 (Colo. 1998). We conclude that interest on unpaid restitution is a collateral consequence of a plea and that neither the district court nor Joslin's counsel had a...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP