Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble,Gettr,Truth Social, Twitter
The Colorado Court of Appeals has reopened briefing in People v. Peters after the State acknowledged it relied on an incorrect version of the criminal impersonation statute during appellate proceedings in a Notice of Erratum filed on January 23, 2026.
The Attorney General’s Office stated that the charged conduct occurred in May 2021, before amendments to the statute took effect on March 1, 2022, and that the statute in force at the time classified the relevant offense solely as a class 6 felony. The filing stated that the indictment and jury instructions used the pre-amendment statutory language and that the error was previously overlooked during briefing and oral argument.
On Thursday, the Court of Appeals issued an order determining that the filing was not a traditional erratum but instead functioned as a supplemental answer brief raising a material issue. The court accepted the filing as such and ordered a new round of briefing, allowing Peters to file a supplemental response. Read that order here:
On Friday, Peters filed a new Petition for Review of the Trial Court’s Denial of Bond Pending Appeal pursuant to the amended Colorado Appellate Rule 9(a). The petition seeks appellate review of the bond denial entered on October 3, 2024, and requests reinstatement of the previously imposed $25,000 bond. The filing also asks that any further proceedings on bond be assigned to a different trial judge.
The bond petition cites circumstances arising after oral argument in the appeal, referring to a physical altercation at the facility earlier this month. The filing alleges Peters was assaulted on January 18, 2026, at LaVista Women’s Correctional Facility. In support of the petition, Peters submitted a sworn declaration describing the incident, her injuries, and subsequent housing conditions. Read that affidavit here:
Included in the filings was a copy of the order dismissing Peters' federal writ of habeas corpus from December. The federal court held that it was required to abstain under the Younger doctrine while state appellate proceedings remain ongoing.
The court did not reach the merits of the bond issue in that process, and the appeal in the state court is ongoing as above. Learn more at tinapeters.us.
Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
