People v. Campos, No. 22CA1978 (Colo. App. 2025), decided by the Colorado Court of Appeals on February 20, 2025, presents a significant appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency regarding proving prior convictions in a felony driving under the influence case. The opinion, authored by Judge Lum and joined by Judges Fox and Gomez, addresses the adequacy of the prosecution’s proof of prior offenses necessary to sustain a felony-level conviction.
In this case, defendant Jose Gonzalez Campos was convicted in the trial court of felony DWAI based on it being his fourth conviction. He was also found guilty of a misdemeanor traffic offense for defective taillights. Campos appealed the felony DWAI conviction on multiple grounds, chief among them being the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the existence of three prior qualifying alcohol-related driving convictions.
The underlying incident occurred on June 18, 2021, when a sheriff’s deputy stopped Defendant Campos for driving with defective rear taillights. During the stop, the deputy observed indications of intoxication, including swaying while upright, glassy and watery eyes, and slurred speech. These observations led the deputy to perform roadside sobriety tests and then an arrest for DWAI. The prosecution charged Campos with DWAI under Colorado Revised Statutes § 42-4-1301 and sought to elevate the offense to a felony by proving that this was Campos’s fourth or subsequent alcohol-related driving offense pursuant to § 42-4-1301.1(1)(d).
In Colorado, a DUI or DWAI can be charged as a felony if it proceeds three or more prior convictions for similar offenses. In a Colorado felony DUI or DWAI case, the prosecution must list the prior DUI-type convictions they are relying on in a felony complaint. During trial in the Campos case, the prosecution introduced records purporting to establish three prior convictions for DWAI or DUI. These convictions were critical to enhance the current charge from a misdemeanor to a felony. The jury returned a guilty verdict on both the felony DWAI and the defective taillight violation. The trial court entered judgment accordingly and imposed a sentence accordingly.
On appeal, Campos’ appellate attorneys contested the sufficiency of the evidence used to prove the prior offenses. The appellate court’s analysis focused on whether the prosecution had met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had three or more prior convictions for DWAI or DUI at the time of the June 2021 incident. Upon review, the Court of Appeals found that the prosecution failed to present adequate evidence regarding the nature, timing, and legal sufficiency of those prior convictions. For example, the records admitted into evidence did not include certified judgments of conviction, nor did they contain sufficient details to verify that the offenses were properly categorized as qualifying prior convictions under the statute.
As a result, the Court of Appeals concluded that while the jury could reasonably find Campos guilty of the underlying DWAI offense based on his conduct and evidence against him, it could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that this was his fourth or subsequent offense. Consequently, the felony conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter a judgment of conviction for misdemeanor DWAI and to resentence the defendant accordingly.
It is important to note that the opinion in People v. Campos is designated as “not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(e).” In the Colorado, an unpublished opinion is one that the court has determined does not meet the criteria for publication. According to Colorado Appellate Rule 35(e), unpublished opinions are typically issued when the case resolves issues governed by well-settled law and does not announce new legal principles or modify existing precedent. As such, these opinions are not included in the official Colorado Reporter and generally carry no precedential value.
Although unpublished opinions may not be cited as binding precedent, they can sometimes be referenced for persuasive purposes under limited circumstances, such as when no published authority exists on a specific procedural question or when distinguishing factual scenarios. However, their use is restricted, and trial courts are not bound to follow them.
While the Campos decision does not set precedent, it nevertheless provides a valuable example of the evidentiary standards required to prove felony DWAI under Colorado law. First, it reaffirms the necessity of scrutinizing the prosecution’s evidence of prior convictions when a Defendant is facing felony enhancement in DUI or DWAI prosecutions. It requires defense attorneys to carefully examine the evidence of prior offenses to determine whether the convictions are legally sufficient and properly authenticated.