The Colorado Supreme Court clarified on Monday that trial judges cannot restrict defense attorneys from investigating postconviction claims their clients raise when at least one of the claims has merit.

Convicted defendants may seek postconviction relief for specific reasons, including that their sentence is illegal, new evidence has come to light or their conviction violated the U.S. Constitution. Under the rules, a trial judge can deny a postconviction petition outright if the defendant is clearly not entitled to relief.

However, if a judge does not deny the motion, they “shall cause a complete copy of said motion” to be sent to the prosecution and, if the defendant has requested counsel, also send a complete copy to the public defender’s office. The public defender may then investigate or supplement the claims that have “arguable merit.”

The Supreme Court agreed those are the two possible outcomes, with no “halfway option” — meaning judges cannot unilaterally cull the claims they believe to be lacking, thereby limiting the appointed defense attorney’s ability to investigate those.

“Any hybrid motion containing both arguably meritorious claims and claims that lack arguable merit is a motion a court may not deny,” wrote Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. in the Nov. 4 opinion.

In the case before the Supreme Court, Francine Erica Segura filed a petition following her conviction with numerous claims that she received ineffective assistance from counsel. Then-Denver District Court Judge Kenneth M. Laff rejected most claims outright, but appointed a lawyer to represent Segura on one allegation that appeared to have merit. Laff subsequently denied postconviction relief following a hearing.

The Court of Appeals determined Laff did not follow the proper procedure and Segura’s appointed attorney should have been able to address the entirety of Segura’s original claims.

The “restriction of postconviction counsel’s ability to provide full, professionally competent assistance,” wrote Judge Elizabeth L. Harris, “served to undermine the fundamental fairness of the proceeding itself.”

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office, however, argued the Supreme Court should interpret the rule to allow trial judges to weed out the non-meritorious claims and only steer appointed counsel toward litigating the viable ones.

During oral arguments, multiple justices suggested that approach made sense in theory, but it is not what the rule says.

“I am sort of stuck on the actual language,” said Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter.

Samour, in the court’s opinion, acknowledged the government’s argument that it seems illogical for judges to send entire petitions to defense attorneys containing claims that are nonstarters, so long as one potentially viable set of allegations exists. But he pointed out that the rule gives flexibility to defense lawyers to flesh out which items are or are not meritorious based on their own investigation.

“In this regard, we’re mindful that defense counsel typically has access to more information than the court in a criminal case,” Samour wrote.

Further, he continued, the rule could save trial judges time by allowing them to move to the next step as soon as they reach a defendant’s meritorious claim, rather than analyzing each allegation for potential viability.

“Take this case for example. Once the trial court concluded that Segura’s motion set forth at least one claim with arguable merit, there was no need to review the remaining claims,” Samour wrote.

The court ordered Segura’s appointed attorney to be permitted to review the 10 remaining claims in her original motion.

The case is People v. Segura.