Colorado’s second-highest court reminded trial judges on Thursday that they must advise criminal defendants of their right to appear in person before imposing a sentence virtually.

A Boulder County jury convicted Levi Valles in November 2022 of multiple offenses, but Valles experienced a severe medical emergency prior to sentencing. Consequently, he was unable to appear for more than a year.

Eventually, then-District Court Judge Patrick D. Butler asked if Valles could appear for his sentencing through the videoconferencing platform Webex. Valles’ lawyer responded they could “figure out a way to make it happen.”

Valles appeared virtually from his hospital room in December 2023, saying he was unable to get out of bed. Butler imposed a sentence of time served.

On appeal, however, Valles contended he should receive a new sentencing hearing because Colorado’s criminal rules require judges, before proceeding remotely, to advise defendants of their right to appear in person at sentencing hearings. Butler had not done so in Valles’ case.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel acknowledged defendants have a constitutional right to be present at all “critical” stages of their prosecution, which the panel assumed to mean an in-person presence. The criminal rules, in turn, direct judges to inform a defendant of that right.

“As Valles correctly points out, the district court didn’t provide him any of the advisements required,” wrote Judge Grant T. Sullivan in the July 17 opinion. “While the court’s advisements need not follow any strict formula, the rule’s use of ‘shall’ confirms that relaying the substance of the advisements is mandatory.”

Although Butler made an error by proceeding virtually without notifying Valles of his rights, the panel decided a new sentencing hearing was unwarranted. First, there was no lesser sentence possible than the one Butler imposed. Second, Valles and his lawyer both participated willingly in the virtual sentencing without objection.

The case is People v. Valles.