Back to all stories
Summary
Drawing shows an interior view of a courtroom at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York where, on the left, several Taiwanese defendants from the international gang United Bamboo sit during the trial; Houston-based defense attorney Jan W. Fox stands at center and cross
Photo: Papin, Joseph | Public domain | Wikimedia Commons

Colorado Appeals Court Orders Tina Peters Resentenced, Says Trump Pardon Cannot Reach State Crimes

A Colorado state appeals court has ordered a new sentencing hearing for former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, ruling that the nearly nine-year prison term she received in her 2020 election interference case was partly based on unconstitutional punishment of her protected speech about alleged election fraud. The court upheld all of Peters’ convictions—including attempting to influence a public servant, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty, and failure to comply with the secretary of state’s requirements—rejecting her claims of immunity. It also held that President Donald Trump’s purported pardon of Peters has no legal effect because the presidential pardon power applies only to federal offenses, not state crimes, and confirmed she is not shielded from prosecution. The panel found the trial judge properly criticized Peters’ self‑interested motives but crossed the line by explicitly penalizing her beliefs and statements about 2020 election fraud instead of focusing solely on her “deceitful actions” to obtain voting‑system data. The case is remanded for resentencing by the same judge, while Gov. Jared Polis has previously floated possible clemency, underscoring how election-denial cases are colliding with constitutional limits on both presidential power and judicial sentencing discretion.

Courts and 2020 Election Interference Donald Trump

📌 Key Facts

  • The Colorado Court of Appeals ordered resentencing for Tina Peters, finding her roughly nine-year sentence improperly punished her protected speech about alleged 2020 election fraud.
  • The court affirmed Peters’ convictions for attempting to influence a public servant, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty, and failure to comply with secretary of state requirements.
  • The panel ruled that President Donald Trump’s attempted pardon of Peters has no effect because the presidential pardon power extends only to federal crimes, and it held Peters was not immune from prosecution.
  • Judges said Peters’ offense was her deceitful actions to gather purported election-fraud evidence, not her beliefs, and that several of the trial judge’s comments could only be read as punishing her views.
  • The appeals court remanded the case for a new sentencing before the same trial judge and declined her request for reassignment.

📊 Relevant Data

The typical sentence for attempting to influence a public servant, a Class 4 felony in Colorado, is 2 to 6 years in prison, with 3 years of mandatory parole and fines up to $500,000.

Charged with Attempt to Influence a Public Servant in Colorado? — criminaldefensefortcollins.com

In a June 2023 poll, 61% of Republicans believed Joe Biden won the 2020 election due to voter fraud, compared to 6% of Democrats and 30% of all Americans.

Almost a third of Americans still believe the 2020 election result was fraudulent — NBC News

Veterans make up nearly 1 in 5 (about 18%) of defendants charged in the January 6 Capitol riot cases, compared to about 6-7% of the U.S. adult population.

Nearly 1 In 5 Defendants In Capitol Riot Cases Served In The Military — NPR

The presidential pardon power is limited to federal offenses and has never been successfully used to pardon state crimes, as confirmed in historical reviews of the power.

Presidential pardons: A constitutional and historical review — National Constitution Center

đź“° Source Timeline (1)

Follow how coverage of this story developed over time