The Colorado Supreme Court decided on Tuesday that prosecutors have the same ability as criminal defendants to freeze their deadline to appeal a trial judge’s ruling when they ask for reconsideration, even though the rules do not explicitly say so.

Denver prosecutors charged Quinn M. Jebe with offenses relating to drug distribution and sexual assault on a child. In July 2023, shortly before trial, the district attorney’s office announced the alleged victim was unable to testify. It asked for the case to be dismissed without prejudice, meaning prosecutors could later refile the charges.

Instead, District Court Judge Nikea T. Bland dismissed the case with prejudice, precluding the refiling of charges. The prosecution immediately asked for reconsideration and, 39 days later, Bland denied the motion. Twenty-three days after that, the prosecution moved to appeal the dismissal.

The Court of Appeals was then confronted with the question of whether it could even hear the district attorney’s appeal. Did the prosecution have to abide by the 49-day appeal deadline, starting from the date of the original dismissal order? Or did the motion for reconsideration push back the deadline?

“We first conclude that a prosecutorial motion for reconsideration of a final judgment does not extend the time for filing an appeal,” wrote Judge Neeti V. Pawar in the three-judge appellate panel’s opinion.

She elaborated that, as the rule is written, exceptions to the 49-day deadline apply to defendants. But the same caveats do not apply when the prosecution is appealing. Finally, the panel believed the prosecution’s “misinterpretation of the law” was not grounds to waive the deadline.

Turning to the Supreme Court, the district attorney’s office argued that the Court of Appeals’ “unnecessarily rigid” interpretation of the rule could undermine trial judges’ ability to correct their mistakes, possibly eliminating the need for an appeal in the first place.

During oral arguments, Justice William W. Hood III proposed a potential resolution that would allow the Denver District Attorney’s Office to prevail in Jebe’s case on one of the grounds the Court of Appeals rejected: That the prosecution’s failure to appeal in time was “excusable neglect” that should not be held against it.

“It seems to me, stepping back from all the nuances that we’ve been talking about, that maybe the appropriate outcome is just to say excusable neglect in this instance because there are reasonable arguments on both sides,” he said. “And then give it to the rule-making committee to sort out.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s majority decided outright that the rule permitting defendants to push back the appeal deadline also applies when the prosecution files a motion to reconsider the dismissal of charges.

The rule “is silent regarding the effect of motions to reconsider on the timing for prosecutorial appeals in criminal cases,” acknowledged Justice Brian D. Boatright in the June 23 opinion. But logistically, he continued, a trial judge would not be authorized to decide a prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration if an appeal were filed.

“On the other hand, if the trial court recognizes that it erred and could correct that error before (prosecutors) commence an appeal, then this would improve efficiency,” Boatright wrote.

Justice Richard L. Gabriel, writing for himself and Hood, did not believe the rule applies equally to prosecutors and defendants. He wrote that the rule’s authors seemed to deliberately choose the wording to prevent the prosecution from obtaining deadline extensions.

If the rule “is to include such a provision, then the proper procedure is to request that our Rules of Appellate Procedure Committee amend that rule,” Gabriel wrote. “I do not believe that we should effectively amend our procedural rules by way of case law, thereby bypassing our usual processes (including standing committee vetting and, often, public comment and hearing) for the adoption or amendment of such rules.”

However, because he believed a “reasonably careful attorney” could have interpreted other court decisions as extending the prosecution’s deadline to appeal under the circumstances, Gabriel agreed that reinstating the Denver District Attorney’s Office’s appeal was proper.

The case is People v. Jebe.