Colorado’s second-highest court concluded last month that a judge’s error in allowing a juvenile defendant to be prosecuted as an adult cannot be corrected on appeal because the defendant later pleaded guilty.

The case arose under unusual circumstances, after police connected James Edward Papol in 2018 to the 30-year-old unsolved murder of Mary Lynne Vialpando in Colorado Springs. Papol was arrested in his mid-40s, but committed the crime when he was 15.

A judge in El Paso County relied on the 1988 version of state law to conclude that it was appropriate to prosecute Papol as an adult rather than a juvenile. He then pleaded guilty and received a 60-year prison sentence.

A three-judge Court of Appeals panel determined that the version of the law in effect at the time of Papol’s prosecution meant his case should have been filed in juvenile court. However, because Papol ultimately pleaded guilty, the trial judge’s error did not mean his conviction must be overturned.

“Our holding is not intended to minimize the importance of the procedural mechanisms the General Assembly has enacted to protect juveniles being charged,” wrote Judge Sueanna P. Johnson in the April 30 opinion. But a procedural violation alone meant that “Papol waived his claim when he voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered into his plea agreement.”

Papol’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment.

Defense attorney Jonathan Reppucci said the panel’s decision limited the rights of juvenile defendants who are erroneously prosecuted as adults and choose to plead guilty.

“The decision certainly has a ring of unfairness to it in that Papol was erroneously denied an important procedural protection that the General Assembly purposefully designed to ensure that all juvenile defendants are afforded individualized consideration before being subjected to the horrors of the adult system,” Reppucci said.

He added that the federal system allows defendants to conditionally plead guilty, which enables appeals courts to let a defendant withdraw a plea if there was an error.

In the underlying case, prosecutors charged Papol with first-degree murder. The prosecution initiated proceedings in both juvenile court and district court, but quickly dismissed the juvenile case.

If Papol’s case was governed by the law at the time of the murder, prosecutors were allowed to directly file charges in district court and treat Papol as an adult. In 1988, direct filing was available for defendants who were 14 or older.

However, by the time of Papol’s prosecution in 2018, the legislature had increased the age to 16. Juvenile defendants in district court can now also request a “reverse transfer” hearing, which would require a judge to determine whether the procedures applicable to juvenile cases should apply after all.

The prosecution and the defense disputed which version of the law applied to Papol’s circumstances. District Court Judge Robin Chittum rejected the defense’s request for a reverse transfer hearing and also rejected the argument that the charges should be dismissed because he belonged in juvenile court.

Papol then pleaded guilty to a lesser murder charge.

The Court of Appeals panel declined to overturn Papol’s conviction but reached that conclusion by a different path.

Johnson wrote that Papol’s prosecution was governed procedurally under the law that existed in 2018, even though his age in 1988 was the relevant number. Therefore, because Papol was 15 at the time of the murder, and 15-year-olds were not eligible for direct filing of charges in 2018, his case belonged in juvenile court.

However, the panel disagreed that Chittum lacked the ability to handle his case in the district court, even if she was incorrect about where it belonged.

“A juvenile’s request for, and a juvenile court’s grant of, a transfer hearing — though important safeguards to protect juveniles — are procedural mechanisms, not jurisdictional prerequisites, for a juvenile’s case to be transferred to a district court,” wrote Johnson.

She elaborated that the law in 2018 still allowed juveniles to be tried as adults in district court, albeit with procedures that were not followed in Papol’s case. Because Chittum was authorized to hear the case, Papol could relinquish his procedural rights with a guilty plea.

“As a result, upon entry of his valid plea agreement, Papol waived the claim that his criminal case was incorrectly filed in district court,” Johnson concluded.

Defense attorney Eric A. Samler said the unusual cold-case nature of Papol’s prosecution meant that the appellate panel’s decision might not affect juvenile cases more broadly.

“In other words, I think the facts of the case dictated the outcome and I don’t think the district courts will ignore the juvenile code even if those requirements are ‘procedural,'” he said.

The case is People v. Papol.