Tina Peters convictions upheld, sentence thrown out and case sent back to Mesa County court

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

Tina Peters remains convicted—but the case that made her a national figure isn’t over.

A Colorado appeals court upheld every conviction against the former Mesa County clerk Thursday, while also throwing out her sentence and ordering resentencing after finding the trial judge improperly weighed her speech about election fraud.

The court laid it out over 78 pages—and shut down almost every major argument Peters brought forward.

Judges rejected her claim that a presidential pardon could wipe out state convictions. They also rejected her argument that she was acting under federal authority. The convictions stayed.

But the sentence didn’t.

The ruling leaves Peters’ criminal convictions fully intact while reopening one of the most contentious parts of the case—how she was sentenced and why.

At the center of the appeal were two arguments that, if successful, could have reshaped the case entirely.

Peters’ legal team argued that a presidential pardon issued by Donald J. Trump applied to her actions. The court rejected that claim, concluding the president’s pardon power applies only to federal offenses—not state convictions like those at issue in Mesa County.

The court made that point directly, noting the president “does not have the power… to pardon defendants convicted in state courts.”

Peters argued she should never have been prosecuted in the first place—that what she did was tied to federal election responsibilities.

The court didn’t buy it.

Judges said she wasn’t acting as a federal officer or agent, and that kind of immunity simply didn’t apply to her.

The panel stated that Peters “is not an individual who can claim Supremacy Clause immunity.”

With those claims out of the way, the court went back to the jury’s work. And left it alone.

The judges said the evidence was there. They pointed to the same core findings the jury did—efforts to influence public officials, misuse of her office and the scheme tied to unauthorized access to Mesa County’s election system during the 2021 software update.

That’s where the agreement ended.

The court found the trial judge improperly relied, at least in part, on Peters’ public statements and beliefs about election fraud when determining her punishment. Judges may consider a defendant’s conduct, character and lack of remorse, the court noted—but cannot increase a sentence based on protected speech.

The panel made that boundary explicit, writing that “a sentence based to any degree on activity or beliefs protected by the First Amendment is constitutionally invalid.”

The problem, the court said, was what happened at sentencing.

The judge didn’t just look at what Peters did. He also weighed what she said—and kept saying—about election fraud.

That crossed the line.

So now the case goes back to Mesa County.

A Mesa County district judge will have to resentence Peters—this time without factoring in her speech.

Attorney General Phil Weiser called the decision a validation of the case, focusing on what didn’t change—the convictions.

“Ms. Peters is in prison because of her own criminal conduct… and she has not shown any remorse for her actions,” Weiser said.

He also underscored the court’s rejection of a presidential pardon, noting that “presidential pardons do not extend to state crimes.”

Weiser added that the original sentence was “fair and appropriate,” though the appeals court directed a lower court to reconsider it.

Secretary of State Jena Griswold also weighed in, focusing on the conduct behind the case and the court’s rejection of a presidential pardon.

“Peters will continue to face accountability for coordinating a breach of her own election equipment. Her actions have been repeatedly used to spread conspiracy theories, amplify falsehoods, and fuel dangerous election lies,” Griswold said.

She added one more point—Peters should not receive special treatment as the case heads back for resentencing.

Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubenstein pointed back to the trial. In his view, the ruling reinforces how the case was handled from the start.

“The court concluded that the trial was fair, the defendant’s rights were fully protected, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts,” Rubenstein said.

He called the sentencing issue more limited, saying the appeals court identified a narrow issue for reconsideration—not a rejection of the sentence itself.

RMV reached out to Peters’ defense team for comment. As of publication, they had not responded.

Peters isn’t walking away from the case. The convictions stand. But how she’ll be punished is no longer decided.

At the same time, the court drew a line—presidents don’t control state convictions and protected speech can’t be used to make a sentence harsher.

As of today, Tina Peters has spent 546 days in custody.