Speech or statute? Appeals court weighs bond denial in Tina Peters case

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

The Colorado Court of Appeals is being asked to decide whether Tina Peters was denied bond because of her speech—or whether the issue is already foreclosed by appellate rules.

Was her bond denied because of her speech?

The Attorney General’s office argues the court does not need to answer that question. In its view, Peters’ petition is untimely, successive and barred under Colorado’s appellate rules.

The dispute now before the court centers on bond pending appeal. The defense says a district judge treated Peters’ public criticism of Mesa County’s voting system as a public danger. The state says the bond statute independently supports denial and that the petition should be dismissed on procedural grounds.

“Danger … by the word of the mouth”

In her Jan. 30 petition, Peters’ attorneys argue the district court denied bond “because the trial judge disagreed with words she used to criticize Mesa County’s computer voting system.”

The filing quotes the sentencing judge as saying Peters used her position to “provide her the pulpit from which she can preach these lies,” and that she engaged in “the undermining of confidence in our election systems.”

It also cites the judge’s statement that “prison is for those folks where we send people who are a danger to all of us, whether it be by the pen or the sword or the word of the mouth.”

The defense argues those statements show bond was denied based on protected speech.

“The trial court found that Mrs. Peters was a danger to the community because of words,” the Feb. 13 reply states.

The Attorney General’s office disputes that interpretation. In its Feb. 6 response, the state argues that regardless of the judge’s commentary, the statute requires denial unless the court finds the defendant unlikely to flee and unlikely to endanger others.

Flight risk or speech?

The state emphasizes that after conviction, “a court shall not set bail” unless it finds the person is unlikely to flee and unlikely to pose a danger. It asserts the district court adopted the prosecution’s flight-risk arguments, citing “frequent travel, even during home detention; access to private planes; and disregard of court orders.”

Peters’ attorneys argue the record does not support that conclusion. The reply states “the record reveals no finding by the trial court that Mrs. Peters was a ‘flight risk,’” and asserts prosecutors presented no evidence she attempted or planned to flee. For more than two years, they state, she showed up to every hearing, every day of trial and ultimately to sentencing.

What remains disputed is whether the denial turned on the bond statute, as the Attorney General maintains, or on the judge’s assessment of Peters’ public statements.

A procedural wall

The Attorney General’s response urges the court to reject the petition without reaching that question.

The court record reflects that this is not Peters’ first attempt to challenge her incarceration pending appeal. Shortly after sentencing in November 2024, she sought bond pending appeal, a request the trial court denied. 

Under Colorado Appellate Rule 4(b), a notice of appeal must be filed within 49 days of the order being challenged. The state calls that deadline “jurisdictional” and argues Peters “waited more than a year” to file this petition. It further contends there is “no authority that provides a second review” of a bond denial.

Peters’ attorneys argue she has “persistently pursued her right to bond on appeal” and ask the court to accept the filing for “good cause shown” under C.A.R. 26(b).

They also offer an alternative path if the court declines to accept the petition under C.A.R. 26(b). 

In the filing, Peters’ attorneys argue the court could treat the petition as a motion to reconsider its Dec. 8, 2024 order denying bond. They cite C.A.R. 27(b), which authorizes motions to reconsider procedural orders, and contend that appellate rules do not prohibit reconsideration of a bond denial—particularly where substantial time has passed and the court now has the full trial record before it.

The reply filed Feb. 13 also focuses on the passage of time. “After 499 days of incarceration, she still has not received a ruling on this crucial constitutional issue.”

A ruling that the petition is untimely would end the matter without reaching the speech argument.

Assault claims and confinement conditions

The Jan. 30 petition also argues there are changed circumstances. Peters’ attorneys state she has been “assaulted for the fifth time” at the La Vista Correctional Facility and placed in solitary confinement. They argue bond would “protect Mrs. Peters from further harm.”

In its response, the Attorney General’s office argues that prison conditions cannot justify bond and adds that appellate courts do not conduct fact-finding.

Broader appellate context

Peters also sought relief through a habeas petition she filed in federal court in Feb. 2025, contesting her denial of bond. But it was dismissed in December when the court determined it could not act while her state appeal was still pending.

As this bond dispute unfolds, the underlying appeal continues.

In a Feb. 12 supplemental brief, Peters’ attorneys argue prosecutors “failed to produce sufficient evidence” that another individual “might” have faced liability, and ask that the conviction for conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation be vacated.

As an alternative, they cite Senate Bill 21-271, which reduced certain penalties from a class 6 felony to a class 2 misdemeanor, and argue the change applies retroactively to non-final convictions.

The Feb. 13 reply also references a presidential pardon issued Dec. 5 and states counsel served the pardon on the Department of Corrections, which “refused to release Mrs. Peters.” A jurisdiction motion remains pending.

What the appeals court must decide

The ruling will decide whether the speech argument is addressed in this bond dispute—or folded into the court’s review of the convictions themselves.

With respect to the bond petition, two competing issues frame the dispute.

In its response, the Attorney General’s office urges dismissal, saying the petition is time-barred under appellate rules.

The defense sees it differently. Peters’ attorneys argue the court must address whether her speech was treated as a basis for denying bond.

How the court resolves the procedural argument will shape the posture in which the speech issue is considered.

Read the full recent court filings:

Previous RMV coverage:

A closet, a camera and a setup: Tina Peters assaulted in prison then thrown into solitary 

You don’t get to ride both horses: Appeals court presses both sides in Tina Peters case 

State fires back at Peters jurisdiction challenge, rejects pardon and supremacy claims 

Trump announces full pardon of Tina Peters in Truth Social post 

Colorado’s systems have failed Tina Peters again and again