The Denver-based federal appeals court granted the state’s unopposed request on Wednesday to dismiss former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters’ challenge to her confinement as moot.

Although Peters received a commutation of her prison sentence last month from Gov. Jared Polis and has since left prison, her federal proceedings addressed whether Peters could be freed on bond while she appealed the lawfulness of her state convictions and sentence.

Mesa County jurors convicted Peters in 2024 for her role in a security breach of her office’s voting equipment when she was the elected GOP clerk. She received a nine-year prison sentence.

From there, Peters’ state criminal case spun off into several distinct, but related, developments.

While she pursued a routine appeal through the state’s Court of Appeals, Peters also filed a seemingly unprecedented federal petition for “habeas corpus,” a legal tool used to challenge one’s confinement. Specifically, Peters sought to be released on bond while her appeal moved forward, a request that state courts previously denied.

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak ruled at the end of 2025 that Peters satisfied none of the criteria that would permit him to intervene in ongoing state proceedings and grant her release on bond. Peters’ lawyers appealed his decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

Meanwhile, Colorado’s Court of Appeals decided Peters’ direct appeal of her criminal convictions. A three-judge panel rejected her arguments, including her contention that a purported pardon by President Donald Trump applied to her state convictions and her claim that she was entitled to immunity under federal law.

However, the panel agreed that District Court Judge Matthew D. Barrett appeared to base Peters’ sentence on improper considerations about her beliefs in election fraud. It returned the case to Barrett to impose a new sentence.

Weeks after the appellate decision, Barrett addressed Peters’ motion to once again release her on bond while her appeal and her resentencing remained pending. On April 29, Barrett issued a new order denying Peters’ bond anew. He reasoned that she was unlikely to prevail in reversing her convictions and she remained a potential flight risk.

“Now that she is post-conviction and serving a prison term, the risk of flight, and incentive to flee, should she be released, increases dramatically,” Barrett wrote. “Of course, Defendant is free to contest her convictions, but the light continues to dim on the likelihood of success.”

Two weeks later, Polis announced that Peters would be eligible for parole as of June 1, despite heavy opposition from Democrats and some Republicans. She left prison on the scheduled day.

Finally, Peters agreed to end her federal habeas appeal around that same time. The development was not a product of Polis’ clemency, but rather Barrett’s April order denying bond again.

The state, in arguing for dismissal of the federal case, noted Peters’ habeas petition revolved around the original decision not to release her pending appeal.

“Here, this habeas matter no longer presents a live case or controversy because the state court order Appellant challenges has been superseded and is now void,” wrote Senior Assistant Attorney General Lisa K. Michaels on May 7.

Peters’ attorneys agreed with the state’s position, prompting a three-judge 10th Circuit panel to dismiss the appeal on June 17.

“Upon consideration, we agree with the parties that this case has become moot,” wrote Judges Harris L Hartz, Carolyn B. McHugh, and Senior Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr. in an unsigned order.

The case is Peters v. Stancil et al.