Same Colorado law, different outcomes: Probation in Denver, prison in Mesa County

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

In Colorado, the same felony statute led to two very different courtroom outcomes.

One walked away with probation.

Peters is now serving a prison sentence that stretches close to a decade.

The case against Peters unfolded under Colorado’s statute on attempting to influence a public servant—§ 18-8-306, the same law used in the prosecution of former Colorado state Sen. Sonya Jaquez Lewis.

In Denver District Court, jurors convicted Lewis on four felony counts tied to forged letters submitted during a Senate ethics investigation.

The Mesa County verdict came with far steeper consequences. Peters received a prison sentence totaling nine years.

Gov. Jared Polis referenced the Lewis sentencing this week while discussing clemency petitions tied to Peters, bringing the comparison between the two cases back into public view.

Last week, former State Senator Sonya Jaquez Lewis was sentenced to probation and community service after being convicted of four felonies including Attempt to Influence a Public Official. She made a horrible mistake, and she was wrong. I hope she learns from this and can rebuild…

— Jared Polis (@jaredpolis) March 4, 2026

Two different judges made the sentencing decisions that ultimately separated the outcomes.

The statute behind both cases

Both cases involved the same criminal charge, attempting to influence a public servant.

The law carries a wide sentencing range. A judge can impose probation or several years in prison depending on the circumstances of the case and how the sentence is structured.

That kind of discretion can lead to very different outcomes even when the same statute is involved. The Lewis and Peters cases illustrate exactly that.

The Lewis case

Lewis’ criminal case followed an ethics investigation inside the Colorado Senate involving forged letters submitted to the Senate ethics committee during the inquiry into her treatment of staff.

A Denver jury ultimately convicted Lewis of four felony counts tied to those letters, including one count of attempting to influence a public servant.

The Denver court sentenced Lewis to two years of supervised probation, along with 150 hours of community service and a $3,000 fine.

Those penalties run concurrently. They are served at the same time rather than stacked one after another. The four felony convictions ultimately carried one probation sentence.

During sentencing, Denver District Court Judge Anita Schutte focused on Lewis’ responsibility for the forged letters and the jury’s findings.

“I don’t find it credible that this was a simple mistake,” Schutte said, adding that Lewis’ continued explanation of the letters raised concerns about accountability.

The Peters case

The Mesa County case involving former clerk Tina Peters ended very differently.

Jurors ultimately found Peters guilty on several felony counts tied to the breach of Mesa County’s election system. Three of those convictions involved the same statute at the center of the Lewis case—attempting to influence a public servant.

When the case reached sentencing, the Mesa County court imposed multiple prison terms tied to different counts in the case.

The order shows that several sentences were structured consecutively rather than concurrently.

That distinction dramatically changed the final outcome.

Seen together, the two cases look very different.

Different motivations behind the cases

Beyond sentencing structure, the two cases also stemmed from very different underlying circumstances.

The Lewis case centered on forged letters submitted to the Colorado Senate Ethics Committee while that body was investigating complaints about her treatment of staff members. 

The Peters case arose from her decision to conduct a forensic image of Mesa County’s election system to be created shortly before a scheduled software update known as a “Trusted Build.” Peters has said the image was created to preserve election records and look into concerns raised by constituents about the county’s voting system.

That dispute—whether the action constituted criminal conduct or an attempt to preserve records—has shaped the legal and political debate around the case.

Judicial tone during sentencing

The sentencing hearings themselves also reflected different approaches from the two judges.

In the Lewis case, Judge Schutte addressed the conduct tied directly to the forged letters and the jury’s findings.

“I don’t find it credible that this was a simple mistake,” Schutte said, telling Lewis that her continued explanation of the letters suggested a failure to fully accept responsibility.

During the Mesa County sentencing hearing for Peters, Judge Matthew Barrett delivered a much broader rebuke that extended beyond the conduct proven at trial to sharply criticize the defendant’s character and public statements.

“You abused your position… and you’re a charlatan,” Barrett said during the hearing, accusing Peters of using her former office to “peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again.”

Barrett also said Peters “cannot help but lie as easy as it is for you to breathe” and argued that the damage caused by her actions could be “as bad, if not worse, than the physical violence that this court sees on an all too regular basis.”

Those remarks later became part of the legal debate surrounding Peters’ appeal. Defense filings argue the sentencing discussion referenced beliefs and speech beyond the conduct addressed by the jury verdict.

The debate beyond the courtroom

Colorado officials have rejected comparisons between the two cases.

Secretary of State Jena Griswold wrote that Peters’ actions involved election systems and public trust in democratic institutions and should not be equated with the conduct in the Lewis case.

Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein also defended the prison sentence imposed in the Peters case.

“The Colorado Legislature establishes sentencing ranges for crimes,” Rubinstein wrote in a statement. “No two crimes and no two defendants are the same.”

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser also opposed commuting Peters’ sentence.

As I have said before, and reiterate in my statement below, commuting Tina Peters' sentence would be a grave miscarriage of justice and is not appropriate given the seriousness of her crimes and lack of remorse. pic.twitter.com/fKu2l7gMYQ

— Phil Weiser (@pweiser) March 4, 2026

“Commuting Tina Peters’ sentence would be a grave miscarriage of justice,” Weiser wrote.

Why the comparison resurfaced

The issue returned to public attention after Gov. Polis referenced the Lewis case while discussing clemency petitions connected to Peters.

The governor recently extended the deadline for clemency applications as his office reviews several cases during the final months of his administration.

The Lewis prosecution began with complaints inside a Capitol office and ended with probation after a jury convicted her of multiple felonies.

The Peters prosecution involved the same felony statute but resulted in prison.

Whether those outcomes reflect meaningful legal differences or simply different sentencing decisions has now become part of Colorado’s broader debate over Peters’ clemency request.