The appeals court ordered a judge to re-evaluate the punishment for the former Mesa County clerk
The Colorado Court of Appeals overturned Tina Peters’ prison sentence Thursday morning and ordered a lower court to re-evaluate her punishment.
The ruling by a three-judge panel upheld her conviction.
Peters, 70, was found guilty in 2024 of orchestrating a security breach of her county’s election system in 2021 in a failed attempt to find evidence of electronic vote manipulation. Her actions were rooted in conspiracies about the 2020 election.
Peters was sentenced to nine years in prison.
In a 77-page opinion, the appeals court panel said it reversed her sentence “because it was based in part on improper consideration of her exercise of her right to free speech.”
The judges wrote that the lower court imposed Peters’ sentence in part because Peters continued to spread her beliefs about election fraud, which the sentencing judge, 21st Judicial District Judge Matthew Barrett, noted were particularly harmful because of the position she held.
“The tenor of the court’s comments makes clear that it felt the sentence length was necessary, at least in part, to prevent her from continuing to espouse views the court deemed ‘damaging,’” the judges wrote.
When handing down the sentence, Barrett called Peters a “charlatan” who “had found a way to profit off of lies and would continue to do so if she remained out of prison.”
But the court failed to acknowledge, the judges wrote in their opinion, that Peters is no longer the Mesa County clerk and “no longer in a position to engage in the conduct that led to her conviction.”
“So it cannot be said that the lengthy prison sentence was for specific deterrence. To the contrary, the sentence punished Peters for her persistence in espousing her beliefs regarding the integrity of the 2020 election.”
Attorney General Phil Weiser, in a statement, called Peters’ original sentence fair and appropriate.
“Ms. Peters is in prison because of her own criminal conduct to prove false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 elections, and she has not shown any remorse for her actions,” Weiser said. “Whatever happens with her sentence, Tina Peters will always be a convicted felon who violated her duty as Mesa County clerk, put other lives at risk, and threatened our democracy. Nothing will remove that stain.”
I mean, I kinda agree with this decision. It is punishing her for what she might say in the future before she says it… so even regardless of freedom of speech, it is getting into pre-crime stuff.
At the same time, I feel like trying to subvert democracy should carry a lengthy sentence.
She was saying it publicly at the time of hearing. And was basically saying “you can’t shut me up!” as the hearing was going on. The sentence is what finally shut her up as she was attempting to erode democracy. She was the example being made because of her loud, unrepentant public statements. It was the right call at the time. Just because the sentence was effective doesn’t mean we should go back and undo the effective sentence.
The sentence being determined in part by possible future speech is problematic. The judge could have based the sentence on something else. And some judge will need to do that now.
Exactly. The findings were correct, the sentence was correct, but the reasoning for the sentence was very problematic. A proper reasoning needs to be found that will survive supreme court appeal and provide precedent for any future similar behavior.
I don’t think it’s a problematic justification for someone who stated during the sentencing hearing that they would continue to be seditious.
Yes! We lock people up not only for what they’ve already done, but to also prevent them from continuing to commit crimes.
Its not punishing her for future pre-crime, it’s imposing a longer sentence within the sentancing guidlines in the law because she clearly hasn’t learned her lesson just like they do with every other defendent.
Another post on here today talks about how a man was sentenced to death in Texas after prosecutors introduced some of his poetry/rap lyrics talking about violence during sentencing, arguing that this speech proves he would offend again if not put to death.
What’s the difference here? This woman may not be a county clerk in the future but her working as a county clerk in the past still gives her speech on elections more ‘legitimacy and credibility’ with the general public in the future. She gets to pretend to be an authority on the subject with ‘insider knowledge’ due to her role yet the court is claiming that she’s just some regular Joe Schmo.