Background
Michael Jordan Brown pleaded guilty in 2021 to second-degree burglary in exchange for a four-year deferred judgment and sentence, and also pleaded guilty to theft. The court imposed concurrent four-year terms of supervised deferred judgment on the burglary count and probation on the theft count. Although the prosecution filed Brown’s probation conditions, it did not file the written deferred-judgment stipulation at that time.
At an initial 2023 revocation hearing, the trial court declined to revoke Brown’s deferred judgment because the stipulation was absent from the court file. The next day, Brown and a deputy district attorney signed a purported copy of the 2021 stipulation, which was later filed. A second revocation complaint alleged, among other violations, that Brown missed a scheduled drug test in August 2023. The trial court admitted the copy and found that it established a condition requiring periodic drug testing.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation order. Competent evidence supported the trial court’s factual finding that the document signed and filed in 2023 was a copy of the deferred-judgment terms Brown had agreed to in 2021. Brown did not dispute that he missed the August 2023 drug test, which violated the condition requiring him to submit to periodic testing.
The court rejected Brown’s argument that the copy could not establish the governing conditions because it lacked his attorney’s signature and was not entered as a court order. Under section 18-1.3-102, those asserted requirements concern the court’s authority to impose a deferred judgment, not a later document reiterating terms already in effect. The record included an executed written plea agreement supporting the court’s authority to enter the deferred judgment, and the appellate court concluded that the trial court did not shift the prosecution’s burden of proof to Brown.
Key Takeaways
- A deferred judgment may be revoked when the prosecution proves a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
- A later-filed copy of deferred-judgment conditions can support revocation when competent evidence establishes that it reflects the original agreement.
- The appellate court did not address the trial court’s separate finding concerning missed probation appointments because the missed drug test independently supported revocation.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that a missing filing in the court record does not necessarily defeat a later revocation proceeding. The prosecution still must prove the operative conditions and a violation, but the trial court may credit competent evidence that a subsequently filed document accurately reflects the original deferred-judgment agreement.