The Colorado Court of Appeals has upheld the denial of postconviction motions filed by Daniel Eric Jelosek, who sought to withdraw his guilty pleas related to stalking and criminal trespass. The court ruled that Jelosek's motions were time-barred, meaning they were filed too late under Colorado law. This decision affects Jelosek, who has been seeking relief from his convictions since they were finalized in 2017.

The case, known as People v. Jelosek, was decided on October 29, 2026, under docket number 24CA2098. The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal timelines for filing appeals and motions, which is a critical aspect of the judicial process.

Background

Daniel Eric Jelosek was charged in two separate cases in Larimer County, Colorado. In 2017, he pleaded guilty to stalking and second-degree criminal trespass in case number 17CR1173. As part of a plea agreement, the court imposed a two-year deferred judgment on the stalking charge and a concurrent two-year probation for the trespassing charge.

However, just two months later, Jelosek faced new charges for stalking the same victim, along with two counts of violating a protection order, in case number 17CR2289. Following plea agreements in both cases, Jelosek was sentenced to a total of two years in the custody of the Department of Corrections and a concurrent six-month jail sentence on December 7, 2017.

After his sentencing, Jelosek did not pursue a direct appeal. Instead, he filed pro se Crim. P. 35(c) motions on December 7, 2020, seeking to challenge his convictions. However, these motions were denied as time-barred, and Jelosek did not appeal that decision. Nearly four years later, he filed new motions in 2024, which were also denied for similar reasons.

The Ruling

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision to deny Jelosek's 2024 motions. The court found that Jelosek's claims were time-barred under Colorado law, which requires that such motions be filed within three years of the conviction becoming final. The court noted, "Unless an exception under section 16-5-402(2) applies, Crim. P. 35(c) claims are subject to the time limitations set forth in section 16-5-402(1)."

The judges ruled that Jelosek's arguments for a late filing, which included claims of cognitive impairments due to health issues, were not sufficient. The court stated, "We conclude that the postconviction court didn’t err in summarily denying Jelosek’s motions." They pointed out that Jelosek had previously filed timely motions in December 2020, which contradicted his claims of being unable to file due to cognitive issues.

Impact

This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal deadlines when seeking postconviction relief. It serves as a reminder that defendants must act promptly to challenge their convictions or risk losing their right to do so. The court's decision also highlights the need for defendants to provide compelling evidence when claiming that they were unable to meet filing deadlines due to health or cognitive issues.

The ruling may impact other defendants in similar situations who are considering filing postconviction motions. It sets a precedent that courts will closely scrutinize claims of cognitive impairment and other reasons for late filings, particularly if the record contradicts such claims.

What's Next

Jelosek may seek further legal options, including the possibility of appealing to a higher court. However, details on whether he plans to pursue this option were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that could affect this ruling.