Colorado’s second-highest court recently upheld the convictions and sentences of two men who made threats against judges, rejecting allegations made on appeal about bias and procedural improprieties.

In the first case out of Denver, then-District Court Judge Morris B. Hoffman sentenced Eric Brandt, who has a history of agitating against law enforcement, to 12 years in prison after Brandt pleaded guilty to attempted retaliation against three judges.

Specifically, Brandt:

? Called the chambers of Denver County Court Judge Andre L. Rudolph, saying Rudolph “should be violently murdered and have his brains blown through his head,” and hoped that “someone actually does it”

? Told Jefferson County Court Judge Corinne Magid that her actions were “why I advocate for the killing of random cops and judges”

? Declared on a YouTube video that Adams County District Court Judge Tomee Crespin and her clerk “should be afraid for their lives because people need to start killing them”

Each criminal count carried a maximum of six years in prison. Hoffman instead gave Brandt four years for each. In doing so, Hoffman delivered a lengthy monologue about the “social contract,” his own views as an “unreconstructed libertarian” and his apparent desire to see Brandt fight one of his victims.

“I get no joy sending people to the penitentiary, none,” Hoffman said. “Only a psychopath would get joy out of (inflicting) the kind of pain that I’m about to inflict on you, and I get no joy from it. And only psychopaths would get joy from inflicting the kind of pain on Judge Rudolph and these other judges that you inflicted.”

Hoffman continued that, prior to the sentencing hearing, “I thought, here’s what I should do: I should give Mr. Brandt probation on the condition that he and Judge Rudolph go three rounds in the ring, and I let Judge Rudolph pound you into the – into the canvas.”

Hoffman concluded the need for retribution was the most compelling justification for Brandt’s sentence length.

On appeal, Brandt contended Hoffman had sentenced him based on Hoffman’s personal antagonistic views toward him. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office conceded Hoffman’s commentary may have been “inartful,” but the sentence was imposed fairly.

Case: People v. Brandt

Decided: November 16, 2023

Jurisdiction: Denver

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: David Furman (author)

Terry Fox

Neeti V. Pawar

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals sided with the government, finding Hoffman relied reasonably on the “disturbing nature of Brandt’s crimes.”

“(W)hile we agree that some of the trial court’s comments were concerning, we are not convinced that these statements, when read in context, reflect that the court’s sentences were improperly motivated by hostility, caprice, or prejudice,” wrote Judge David Furman in the panel’s Nov. 16 opinion.

The case is People v. Brandt.

In the second case out of Adams County, a jury convicted Gregory Carl Wind on three counts related to threatening and retaliating against a judge and a prosecutor.

Wind, who also calls himself “Emperor Messiah King Prophet©” and describes himself as a “non-citizen foreign national sovereign political power holder”:

? Told J. Robert Lowenbach, the judge presiding over Wind’s previous criminal case, that he was a “dead f—–g b—h” and a “f—–g dead man,” and that Lowenbach needed to “get the f–k off my cases, c–t”

? Graffitied his jail cell with the messages “Judge John Robert Lowenbach is a dead man” and “District Attorney James Houtsma is a dead man”

? Sent a letter to the courthouse warning that Lowenbach, Houtsma and “the 12 jurors” should not “go to sleep at night someone will take your life,” and they “won’t be safe at home a fire might start”

Wind received a sentence of 12 years in prison. A separate three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals rejected Wind’s claims that his trial was improperly delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and his jurors needed to unanimously agree which threat merited a conviction.

Case: People v. Wind

Decided: October 12, 2023

Jurisdiction: Adams County

Ruling: 3-0

Judges: David H. Yun (author)

Rebecca R. Freyre

Daniel M. Taubman

Judge David H. Yun observed in the Oct. 12 opinion that Colorado law criminalizes a person’s “repeated conduct” and is not limited to single threatening acts.

“And the prosecutor explained her theory in her opening statement that Wind ‘by his repeated threats violated three statutes,'” Yun wrote, upholding Wind’s convictions.

The case is People v. Wind.