Judge Barrett denies Tina Peters bond, calls future appeals “frivolous”

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

Tina Peters will not be released from custody.

Judge Matthew Barrett denied her renewed motion for bond pending appeal Tuesday morning—two days after refusing to step aside from her case. The nine-page order keeps Peters in prison while her legal team prepares to take the bond question to the Colorado Court of Appeals, the same panel that threw out her sentence earlier this month.

Barrett did not hold a hearing. He found he could not conclude Peters is unlikely to flee, called her future appeals “frivolous” and said they would be pursued “for the purpose of delay.”

“Finality is critical to the resolution of the judicial process,” Barrett wrote, “and it would be contrary to the law to ignore the reality that Defendant would use all means possible, justified or not, to avoid resentencing.”

Peters has been in custody 575 days.

The flight-risk gate

Before a court can even consider bond pending appeal, Colorado law requires two findings—that the defendant is unlikely to flee and that the appeal is not frivolous or pursued for delay. Without both, the analysis ends.

Barrett stopped there.

Barrett pointed out in a parenthetical that the defense had the standard backwards—the statute asks whether the defendant is “unlikely to flee,” not whether she is “likely to flee.” He then applied essentially the same reasoning to reach the same conclusion.

He cited Peters’ access to private air travel, a bond violation during the original case when she left the state without permission and what he described as “the degree of her lack of accountability.” 

Barrett’s April 29 order denying bond pending appeal, page 6. Barrett wrote he “cannot conclude Defendant is unlikely to flee.”

Barrett went further. He cited her prior conviction for obstructing governmental operations, calling the conduct “troubling, to put it mildly.”

The Court of Appeals overturned the obstructing conviction for insufficient evidence in People v. Peters, 23CA1073. Barrett’s order does not mention the reversal. He cited the conviction as a factor weighing against bond, including in a footnote where he described the underlying conduct—Peters attempting to prevent law enforcement from seizing an item under a search warrant.

Footnote 3 cites a conviction the Court of Appeals reversed for insufficient evidence, page 8. 

Barrett also cited an incident before trial in which Peters was observed with a camera crew near a ballot drop box while a protection order was in place. He acknowledged that a warrant was drafted but “it appears it was not provided to a court for review.” No charges were filed.

“Frivolous” and “for the purpose of delay”

Barrett’s sharpest language targeted Peters’ appellate record.

“I can say with fair confidence that many of her arguments for appellate relief are meritless,” he wrote. He characterized the defense strategy as repackaging arguments already rejected in multiple courts.

“Many of the efforts involved arguments that were originally presented to this Court and then repackaged and presented to another court,” Barrett wrote. “The results are always the same.”

The defense’s April 26 reply outlined four grounds for a petition to the Colorado Supreme Court—juror misconduct, the right to present a complete defense, Supremacy Clause immunity and the validity of a presidential pardon.

Barrett’s order does not address any of them.

One of those arguments drew sustained questioning from the bench during oral argument in January. Judge Tow pressed the prosecution on whether Peters was denied the right to tell the jury her intent was to protect the election process, not to receive a personal benefit.

“Don’t they have a constitutional right to present a complete defense?” Tow asked.

Tow added that a trial court could prevent cumulative evidence but could not curtail the presentation of relevant evidence. The defense attached the unofficial transcript of that exchange as an exhibit to the bond reply Barrett ruled on today.

Barrett called future appeals “frivolous” and described resentencing as “inevitable,” page 7.

Barrett described Peters’ underlying conduct as “deceitful,” writing that she “enlisted others to assist her” and “did so while she held a position of trust given to her by the citizens.”

What the order left out

Several arguments from the defense reply went unanswered.

The defense argued Colorado operates four minimum-security prison facilities for men and none for women, raising an equal-protection challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment. The order does not mention the argument.

The defense also argued that the People’s response came with no affidavits, no witness statements and no admissible evidence—and that the statute requires an evidentiary hearing before bond can be denied. Barrett disagreed, citing a 2007 appellate ruling that allows a court to deny bond on the papers alone if the request is without merit.

Peters described her conditions at La Vista Correctional Facility in a sworn declaration—housed with violent offenders at 70 years old, serving time for a nonviolent offense. The order does not address confinement conditions.

Barrett’s order also does not address the sentencing structure that prompted the Court of Appeals to vacate Peters’ sentence. Peters received consecutive prison terms totaling more than eight years. Under the same statute—attempt to influence a public servant—former state Sen. Sonya Jaquez Lewis was convicted on four felony counts and walked out of a Denver courtroom with probation.

Gov. Polis raised the comparison publicly. The defense has cited it in multiple filings. Barrett has not addressed the disparity in any order.

Reputation and the resentencing ahead

Barrett found Peters’ “reputation is poor,” citing media coverage she herself submitted as evidence that reporting on her case was overwhelmingly critical. He called the factor “not dispositive”—meaning it did not control his decision, but he considered it.

In a separate footnote, Barrett acknowledged that resentencing will require him to “essentially” start over with guidance from the Court of Appeals. But he added that “the case is postured much differently than it was in October 2024″—a signal about how he views the resentencing ahead.

Footnote 1 of Barrett’s bond order addresses the resentencing ahead, page 6. 

The Court of Appeals vacated Peters’ original sentence on April 2, finding the trial court “obviously erred by imposing sentence at least partially based on Peters’s protected speech.” 

The appellate court upheld all seven convictions. The appellate court denied a petition for rehearing on April 23 and stayed the mandate until May 22. Peters’ attorneys have said they plan to petition the Colorado Supreme Court.

The door Barrett opened

Barrett’s denial opens a path the defense has been building toward. Under Colorado Appellate Rule 9(a), Peters can now appeal the bond ruling to the Court of Appeals. The panel that vacated her sentence—Judges Welling, Tow and Lipinsky—would handle the appeal.

The defense argued in its April 26 reply that both sides agree on the procedural framework. The People’s own response acknowledged that once the trial court rules, the defendant may appeal to the Court of Appeals under C.A.R. 9(a).

The First Amendment question at the center of her bond fight has never been resolved in any court.

Editor’s Note: RMV has reached out to defense counsel for comment and will update this story if a response is received.