A recent ruling by the Colorado Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision denying Zachary Justin Fournier's appeal regarding his conviction related to a domestic violence incident. This ruling impacts Fournier, who has been fighting to overturn aspects of his sentence since his original conviction in 2014. The court's decision clarifies the legal standing surrounding his sentencing and the inclusion of certain charges.

The case began in March 2013 when Fournier faced multiple charges stemming from a domestic violence incident, including first-degree assault and several counts of violent crime. After a jury trial in January 2014, Fournier was acquitted of the most serious charge but found guilty of lesser charges, including second-degree assault. He received a lengthy sentence of thirty-two years due to being classified as a habitual criminal.

Fournier's legal battles continued after his conviction. In 2015, he filed a postconviction motion under Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c), which allows for claims of constitutional violations or other significant legal errors to be raised after a conviction. The postconviction court initially denied most of his claims but was later directed by the appeals court to further consider his case with the involvement of the Public Defender's office.

After the Public Defender's office took over, they filed an amended motion, but the postconviction court ultimately denied Fournier's claims again. This decision was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2024. In May 2024, Fournier attempted to challenge the constitutionality of his sentence, but the court deemed that motion procedurally barred.

In his latest appeal, Fournier challenged the legality of the crime of violence counts included in his sentencing. The court noted that while the postconviction court recognized that these counts were erroneously included on his mittimus (the official record of his sentence), it found that this error did not affect the legality of his overall sentence. The court stated, "The inclusion of the crime of violence counts on the mittimus was error and the court properly modified the mittimus to correct the mistake."

Judge Lipinsky, writing for the court, emphasized that Fournier's sentence was based on the second-degree assault conviction, which involved the use of a deadly weapon. This classification raised the maximum sentence due to the nature of the crime, and Fournier's status as a habitual criminal further increased his sentence. The court ruled that the crime of violence counts did not play a role in the sentencing decision, stating, "The separately charged crime of violence counts — now removed from the mittimus — played no role in his sentence, which rested on the extraordinary risk maximum under the habitual criminal statute."

Fournier's continued challenges to the legality of his sentence were deemed untimely and successive, meaning he could not raise these claims again after having already done so in previous motions. The court ruled that any new arguments raised on appeal were not considered, as they were not presented in earlier proceedings. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the original sentencing structure.

This ruling has significant implications for Fournier and potentially for others in similar situations. It reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural timelines when challenging convictions and highlights how courts handle postconviction motions. The ruling clarifies that even if clerical errors occur, they do not necessarily invalidate a sentence if the underlying conviction remains valid and lawful.

Looking ahead, Fournier may have limited options for further appeal. The court's ruling is final unless he can present new evidence or arguments that were not previously considered. There are no indications in the court filing of any related cases pending that could impact Fournier's situation. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in navigating the legal system after a conviction.