People v. Granados — Colorado appeals court rejects jurisdiction challenge based on intoxication defense

Case
The People of the State of Colorado v. Alberto Granados
Court
Colorado Court of Appeals
Judge
Welling; Kuhn; Meirink
Date Decided
September 24, 2026
Docket No.
25CA0818
Topics
criminal procedure; subject-matter jurisdiction; affirmative defenses; involuntary intoxication
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Alberto Granados was convicted after a jury trial of three sexual-assault counts, two felony-menacing counts, third-degree assault, and a crime-of-violence sentence enhancer. At trial, he raised a general denial and an involuntary-intoxication affirmative defense, asserting that Ambien had caused him to act without memory of the incident.

On direct appeal, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals rejected most of Granados’s claims but directed correction of the mittimus to merge two sexual-assault convictions. In 2025, Granados moved to challenge the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that evidence supporting involuntary intoxication meant the court lacked authority to accept guilty verdicts. The district court denied the motion and a subsequent request for relief.

The Court’s Holding

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that evidence supporting an involuntary-intoxication affirmative defense does not deprive a district court of subject-matter jurisdiction over a criminal case.

Colorado district courts have general and original jurisdiction over criminal cases, and jurisdiction here was properly invoked by the filing of a legally sufficient complaint and information. The involuntary-intoxication statute does not expressly limit jurisdiction; instead, it supplies a defense for the jury to evaluate. Granados’s argument improperly conflated the court’s authority to decide the case with a defense that could support a verdict in his favor.

Key Takeaways

  • An affirmative defense does not ordinarily affect a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
  • Involuntary intoxication concerns criminal responsibility and is for the factfinder to assess.
  • A criminal complaint and information that properly charge offenses invoke the district court’s jurisdiction.

Why It Matters

The decision distinguishes jurisdictional defects from claimed trial-level errors involving defenses and proof. A defendant’s presentation of affirmative-defense evidence does not make a resulting conviction jurisdictionally void.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top