The state’s Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of a Cañon City man for retaliating against the judge who imposed a protection order on him.

After a 2019 hearing in which Gary Sanders Jr. was ordered to stay at least 100 yards away from his wife, Sanders left the courtroom with a deputy and said, “Maybe when I get out, I’ll just go pay the judge a visit.”

Court records showed that Sanders was already charged with numerous felony and misdemeanor offenses at the time, stemming from a fight between Sanders and Fremont County deputies after he made threats to passersby. For his comment to the sheriff’s deputy, prosecutors charged Sanders with retaliation for directing a “credible threat” against the judge in his case.

Under Colorado law, a credible threat means conduct that would cause a person to fear for his or her safety, or that of a family member.

Sanders chose to have District Court Judge Stephen A. Groome decide his case, and Groome ultimately found Sanders guilty, imposing a six-year sentence. Groome was not the same judge who was the target of Sanders’ threat; it was Fremont County Court Judge Alexandra O Robak who handled Sanders’ protection order case.

On appeal, Sanders argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of making a credible threat because there were multiple interpretations to his statement that he might “pay the judge a visit.” He also cast doubt on the recollection of the deputy, who was the lone witness to the remark.

“There is no evidence to suggest that such alleged statement is either credible nor intended to be communicated to Judge Robak,” wrote attorney Sara Tafoya to the appellate court.

A three-judge panel ruled against Sanders, adding that communicating the threat to a sheriff’s deputy, who was obligated to report it, was no different than saying it to the judge’s face.

“Importantly, Sanders made the statement soon after a hearing at which the judge entered a permanent order protecting his wife from him,” wrote Judge Rebecca R. Freyre in a May 26 opinion. She described how Sanders had also been belligerent toward the judge throughout the protection order hearing. In context, it was reasonable to conclude that Sanders had intended his remark as a threat, the panel decided.

The case is People v. Sanders.