DENVER — A panel of Colorado Court of Appeals judges appeared to seriously consider Wednesday whether discredited elections clerk Tina Peters’ nine-year prison sentence was unfair, while also expressing skepticism that her convictions should be overturned altogether.

During the hourlong hearing, the three judges focused on whether Mesa County District Court Judge Matthew Barrett’s condemnation of Peters’ unfounded voting-fraud claims during her 2024 sentencing wrongly influenced the punishment he handed out.

Mesa County jurors convicted Peters, 70, of four felony and three misdemeanor crimes after she orchestrated a deceptive plot to sneak an unauthorized member of the public into a secure area to examine voting equipment amid unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

She was found guilty of crimes related to her deception of public officials during that plot and the misuse of her position, not for offenses related to her views on voter fraud, the Court of Appeals panel noted during oral argument. But many of the sentencing judge’s comments focused on those unfounded election beliefs, they noted.

John Case, an attorney for Peters, argued that the judge’s stance during sentencing violated Peters’ First Amendment rights. Attorneys for the Colorado attorney general’s office countered that while Barrett addressed Peters’ false claims in court, he ultimately sentenced her only for the crimes she committed, not for her election views.

“He really did turn the page and say, ‘This is what we are here for,” Senior Assistant Attorney General Lisa Michaels told the panel.

“I’d say that is baloney,” Case later told the judges. “I was there. I heard how he imported the sentence. He was vicious.”

The judges also zeroed in on an error in Peters’ case in which one charge, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, was presented to the jury with language that described a misdemeanor-level crime, when, in fact, prosecutors intended for jurors to consider it as a felony-level crime.

After jurors convicted her on that count, the conviction was entered as a felony and Peters was sentenced to 15 months in prison on that charge. The Court of Appeals panel appeared to support Peters’ argument that the conviction on that charge should be re-entered as a misdemeanor and the sentence adjusted.

Michaels argued that the mistake — which included only one word — was an “oversight” of little significance and that the felony conviction should stand.

“I am baffled as to the position that is being taken that we can somehow overlook that and enter the felony,” Judge Craig Welling said of her argument.

The judges appeared more skeptical of Peters’ claim that her convictions should be tossed entirely, and noted that her conduct matched the crimes for which she was found guilty.

“She wanted to trick the secretary of state ...,” Judge Ted Tow said as he questioned Peters’ attorney.

Peters’ case has drawn significant attention from President Donald Trump, who has called for the former clerk’s release and, in December, claimed to pardon her — a power he does not have over state-level criminal charges.

Colorado officials have resisted the president’s efforts to free Peters, prompting Trump to mount what Attorney General Phil Weiser described as a “revenge campaign” against the state, including canceling more than $700 million in federal funds earmarked for Colorado.

Gov. Jared Polis this week suggested in a TV interview that he was considering commuting Peters’ prison sentence, which he called harsh. Other state officials have urged Polis to reject clemency.

“Releasing Tina Peters via pardon or commutation would validate her actions and embolden election denialism in Colorado and across the country,” Secretary of State Jena Griswold and two other election officials wrote in a letter to Polis on Tuesday.

Against that backdrop, Peters’ attorneys argued in court filings that her case should be thrown out because the presidential pardon can be applied to her state convictions.

“The U.S. Constitution provides that the president may pardon ‘Offences against the United States,'” Case wrote for Peters. “This case raises the question whether ‘Offences against the United States’ means only crimes defined by federal statutes, or if the president can also pardon state crimes that impinge on federal powers.”

Attorneys with the Colorado attorney general’s office dismissed that argument as “mistaken.”

“Throughout the entire history of this country, no president has purported to pardon state offenses nor claimed the power to do so,” the attorneys wrote in a court filing. “ ... In sum, the case law, the text of the pardon clause, the structure of the Constitution, and the historical evidence all point to the unmistakable conclusion that the president’s pardon power is limited to federal offenses.”

The issue of the presidential pardon was not discussed during Wednesday’s oral arguments.

Peters also appealed her convictions on the grounds that the evidence against her was insufficient, she was immune to state prosecution, the district court judge violated her due process rights and the nine-year sentence violated her First, Eighth and 14th amendment rights.

State attorneys have countered that she was not entitled to immunity, that the district court judge made appropriate decisions about evidence and jury instructions during her trial, and that her prison sentence was reasonable and proper.

Peters was sentenced to serve 3 1/2 years on two counts of attempting to influence a public official and another 3 1/2 years on a third count of attempting to influence a public official. She received an additional 15 months for conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation and another six months for violation of duty and failure to comply with the requirements of the secretary of state, according to a filing from the attorney general’s office.

Peters will be eligible for parole in December 2028, according to the Colorado Department of Corrections.

_____

©2026 MediaNews Group, Inc. Visit at denverpost.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.