Even though the Colorado Supreme Court ruled five years ago that sentences of prison plus probation are illegal, the justices decided on Monday that judges were permitted to fix those sentences by imposing basically the same punishment.

In its 2019 decision of Allman v. People, the Supreme Court ruled that state law treats probation as an alternative to incarceration and judges must choose one or the other in a single case. Further, a person who is released from prison on parole would be under the simultaneous supervision of their parole officer and a probation officer, with potentially conflicting conditions.

By the time Allman was decided, Bradford Wayne Snedeker had served the prison portion of his prison-plus-probation sentence. When resentencing him in compliance with Allman, however, a trial judge gave him a new sentence of probation only — meaning Snedeker, at the end of the day, was still receiving prison plus probation in his case.

The Supreme Court saw no issue with that ultimate outcome.

“That Snedeker was previously sentenced to prison plus probation is irrelevant because that sentence is void and has no effect,” wrote Justice Brian D. Boatright in the March 3 opinion. “This remains true even if a defendant’s lived experience includes a prison sentence, followed by a new sentence of probation.”

In 2021, Snedeker appeared in Boulder County for resentencing on his prior securities fraud convictions. At the time, he had been serving a sentence outlawed by Allman. Snedeker already completed the prison portion and was in the process of serving 20 years of probation.

Chief Judge Ingrid S. Bakke resentenced Snedeker, imposing 20 years of probation again with credit for his prison time. Snedeker appealed his sentence as the functional equivalent of an illegal prison-plus-probation punishment.

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals disagreed, noting Snedeker received a new sentence that was shorter than the original and did not technically have a prison component.

“Under these circumstances, the entire original sentence is void,” wrote Judge Jerry N. Jones, “and the proper remedy isn’t ‘lopping off’ the probation sentence — the proper remedy is resentencing and imposing a legal sentence.”

To the Supreme Court, defense attorney Kimberly Alderman Penix acknowledged that Snedeker’s argument would logically mean a defendant in his shoes would either be resentenced to additional time in prison in lieu of probation — a likely worse outcome — or receive a windfall by having his sentence terminated entirely after the prison portion is complete.

Still, Penix believed it was unfair for a defendant to functionally serve a punishment the Supreme Court had deemed illegal.

“The defendant is still experiencing the thing that he’s not supposed to experience under Allman,” she said.

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that nothing prevents judges from imposing a probation-only sentence when fixing an illegal prison-plus-probation punishment.

Boatright, who also authored the Allman ruling, conceded Snedeker could have received a less-desirable sentence as a result of Allman. However, Bakke avoided that result by deducting the years Snedeker served in prison from his new, probation-only punishment.

The Supreme Court also decided that Allman does not prevent judges from imposing a prison sentence in one case and a probation sentence in another for the same defendant. That outcome was logical, Boatright explained, because “the offenses could be quite different, and a court could reasonably reach two different sentencing determinations.”

Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter did not participate in the appeal. As a Boulder County judge prior to joining the Supreme Court, she briefly handled Snedeker’s case in 2015.

The case is Snedeker v. People.