For the first time, the Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled that presenting false documentation to a government contractor handling pretrial supervision constitutes an attempt to influence a public servant.

ComCor Inc. is a Colorado Springs-based nonprofit that provides housing, rehabilitation and treatment to those in community corrections. The organization has operated since 1984 and it has provided pretrial supervision for the state through much of its history.

According to court documents, Matthew Manuel Barnett presented to ComCor an order to have his ankle monitor removed in December 2016. A few months later, the Fourth Judicial District Attorney’s Office contacted the employee who removed the device, and learned of the court order. Neither the judge in Barnett’s criminal case nor court staff had issued the document terminating his GPS monitoring.

El Paso County prosecutors charged him with attempting to influence a public servant and forgery, but Barnett attempted to dismiss both charges, arguing ComCor employees were not public servants acting in a governmental capacity.

A jury was unable to reach a verdict on the forgery charge, and found him guilty of attempting to influence a public servant. Barnett received a sentence of eight years.

Under state law, a public servant includes government employees as well as consultants “performing a governmental function.” A district court judge determined ComCor employees fit the description by consulting with the judicial system and providing testing and monitoring at the direction of the courts.

“It is true, as Barnett suggests, that no Colorado cases deal with a situation in which a person working for a private entity like ComCor has been construed to be a ‘public servant,’ ” wrote Judge Sueanna P. Johnson for the three-member appeals panel. However, “the real question is whether an entity’s employees engaged in the court-ordered supervision of individuals with GPS monitoring perform a ‘government function.’ “

The appellate judges agreed with the lower court that ComCor provided services on behalf of the court system, and therefore performed a governmental function.

The case is People v. Barnett.