Background
Robert Nicholas Mountz pleaded guilty under a global agreement resolving two criminal cases to second degree murder, aggravated robbery, and escape. In 2006, the district court imposed an aggregate eighty-year prison sentence and ordered $16,953.78 in restitution.
After unsuccessful postconviction motions in 2013, 2014, and 2017, Mountz filed another Crim. P. 35 motion in 2024. He alleged ineffective assistance by postconviction and appellate counsel, a constitutional violation concerning the record, and errors in the restitution component of his sentence. His restitution arguments challenged the inclusion of prejudgment interest and the accrual of interest while he was incarcerated.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. Mountz’s opening brief did not present any issue for the court to decide.
Mountz stated that the district court had correctly calculated restitution, thereby abandoning his restitution claim. He also did not argue the other claims raised in his postconviction motion, which the court deemed abandoned.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must present issues and arguments in the opening brief for appellate review.
- A claim raised below but not reasserted on appeal is deemed abandoned.
- When no issues remain for resolution, the appellate court will dismiss the appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that postconviction litigants must clearly preserve and brief their claims on appeal. Even where a motion raised multiple alleged errors, the appellate court will not independently develop or decide claims the appellant has abandoned.