An Alamosa County judge’s single-sentence explanation denying a defendant’s request for a sentence reduction — that it was “not well taken” — was itself not well taken by Colorado’s second-highest court.

Prosecutors originally charged Desiree Lee Espinoza with multiple serious offenses, including attempted murder and assault. She pleaded guilty to kidnapping and received a 16-year prison sentence in 2018.

Espinoza then requested a reduction in her sentence. She provided materials documenting her rehabilitation while incarcerated, including letters from

Colorado Department of Corrections officials about her job performance, educational accomplishments and volunteering.

“It is rare for one DOC staff member to offer a recommendation for a DOC resident. Recommendations from multiple staff members are exceedingly rare,” wrote Espinoza’s attorney, Krista A. Schelhaas.

The district attorney’s office also supported a new sentence of nine years for Espinoza. But then-District Court Judge Martin A. Gonzales rejected any reduction, explaining his reasoning in a single sentence.

“The Court finds the motion is not well taken and should be denied without further hearing,” he wrote in March 2022.

Espinoza appealed, alleging Gonzales simply “rubber-stamped” the original sentence. The prosecution on appeal abandoned its endorsement of a lesser punishment, with Senior Assistant Attorney General Megan C. Rasbund now arguing the judge’s “not well taken” explanation was reasonable.

A three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals agreed with Espinoza. If trial judges do not explain the “basic reasons” for their sentencing decisions, they abuse their discretion, wrote Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown in the Nov. 2 opinion.

“The court did not, even in basic terms, explain why the motion was not well taken,” she continued. “Was it ‘not well taken’ because the court has a blanket opposition to reconsidering sentences? Or was it ‘not well taken’ because the original sentence remained appropriate notwithstanding the information submitted with the motion?”

Because Gonzales provided no elaboration, the panel ordered the reconsideration of Espinoza’s request. Gonzales is no longer on the bench, having retired last year. His performance evaluation prior to his 2016 retention noted lower-than-average scores in the areas of “compassion for litigants, treatment of unrepresented parties, and in being understandable.”