The Colorado Supreme Court signaled recently that it may intervene in a pair of cases – one involving a divorce between a Colorado resident and a Nebraska resident, and the other challenging a defendant’s 14-month confinement before trial.

In the first case, Jeffry H. Green and Barbara Green filed for divorce on the same day in April 2022. However, Jeffry Green filed his motion in Douglas County, Neb., where he lived, and Barbara Green filed hers in Denver, where she lived.

Last month, Denver District Court Judge Christine C. Antoun decided Jeffry Green’s contacts with Colorado were “continuous and systematic enough” that the case was subject Colorado’s jurisdiction, rather than Nebraska’s.

Jeffrey Green appealed directly to the Supreme Court, arguing he was an out-of-state resident whose minimal ties to Colorado should not require him to defend himself in Colorado’s courts.

“Considering his substantial contacts with Nebraska,” his attorneys wrote, “real estate deals and occasional visits to Colorado to visit family do not suffice to make him ‘at home’ here. Husband can hardly be said to be at home both in Colorado and Nebraska.”

On July 6, the Supreme Court ordered Barbara Green to respond to her husband’s arguments.

The case is In re the Marriage of Green.

The Supreme Court also moved toward consideration of a criminal appeal out of Jefferson County. Brian Donald Hollaway has been in custody since November 2020 for a pair of criminal cases. The most serious charge he faced was violating bail bond conditions, which is a low-level felony.

Shortly after his arrest, a judge found Hollaway was incompetent to proceed and ordered treatment for him. One year later, in February 2023, Hollaway became competent to stand trial.

However, Hollaway’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss the cases under a provision of Colorado law that mandates dismissal if a defendant is incarcerated or otherwise confined before trial for at least 50% of the maximum sentence he would have served for his most serious offense.

In Hollaway’s case, he faced 18 months’ incarceration if convicted of the felony. By the time he became competent to stand trial, he had been in custody for 14 months – far longer than the nine months that would trigger dismissal.

District Court Judge Lily W. Oeffler declined to toss the charges. She indicated it was possible Hollaway would actually serve three years in prison if found guilty, based on a potential sentence enhancement that would apply.

Hollaway appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing Oeffler misapplied the law. On June 23, the court ordered the government to respond to Hollaway’s claims.

However, the controversy may now be moot. Court records show that days after the Supreme Court indicated it could intervene, Hollaway entered a guilty plea in a different case. Simultaneously, the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office dismissed the charges that were the subject of Hollaway’s appeal.

A spokesperson for District Attorney Alexis King confirmed the prosecution will likely argue that dismissal of the cases has rendered the appeal moot.

The case is People v. Hollaway.