(1) After entry of an order pursuant to section 16-4-109 or 16-4-201, the defendant or the state may seek review of said order by filing a petition for review in the appellate court. If an order has been entered pursuant to section 16-4-104, 16-4-109, or 16-4-201, the petition shall be the exclusive method of appellate review.
(2) The petition shall be in writing, shall be served as provided by court rule for service of motions, and shall have appended thereto a transcript of the hearing held pursuant to section 16-4-109 or 16-4-203. The opposing party may file a response thereto within seven days or as provided by court rule.
(3) After review, the appellate court may:
(a) Remand the petition for further hearing if it determines that the record does not disclose the findings upon which the court entered the order; or
(b) Order the trial court to modify the terms and conditions of bail or appeal bond; or
(c) Order the trial court to modify the terms and conditions of bail or appeal bond and remand for further hearing on additional conditions of bail or appeal bond; or
(d) Dismiss the petition.
(4) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to deny any party the rights secured by section 21 of article II of the Colorado constitution.
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 211, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-4-204. L. 2012: (2) amended, (SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 848, § 69, effective July 1. L. 2016: (1) and (2) amended, (SB 16-189), ch. 210, p. 759, § 26, effective June 6.
ANNOTATION
Annotator's note. Since § 16-4-204 is similar to repealed § 39-2-17, CRS 53, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.
Pursuant to this section, an appellate court may hear an appeal of an order entered pursuant to § 16-4-109. In 2013, the provisions of § 16-4-107 were moved with minor changes to § 16-4-109, but a conforming amendment was not made to this section to include the new § 16-4-109. This created a question of ambiguity as to whether this section still applies to the subject matter that was originally in § 16-4-107 but is now contained in § 16-4-109. The ambiguity does not limit an appellate court from appeals related to the subject matter of the original § 16-4-107 with respect to the reduction or increase in the amount of bail. People v. Jones, 2015 CO 20, 346 P.3d 44.
This section authorizes an appeal of a court order modifying a bail bond using the criteria in § 16-4-105 since the authority for the order is found in § 16-4-109. This section authorizes an appeal of a court order related to determination, modification, and continuation of bail bonds. Although § 16-4-105 provided the evidentiary basis for changing a defendant's bond, a court's authority to modify the bond is found in § 16-4-109, which serves as a basis for hearing the appeal. People v. Jones, 2015 CO 20, 346 P.3d 44.
This section provides the exclusive method of appeal for trial court rulings on appeal bonds under § 16-4-201.5. People v. Lewis, 2024 CO 57, 555 P.3d 576.
Appeals sought under this section are subject to C.A.R. 4(b)'s 49-day deadline. People v. Jenkins, 2025 COA 90, 583 P.3d 444.
An appealing party should file a "petition for review" as contemplated by § 16-4-204 within 49 days of the trial court's ruling on the request for an appeal bond. People v. Jenkins, 2025 COA 90, 583 P.3d 444.
In addition to satisfying the requirements of § 16-4-204, the appealing party should include in the petition the information required by C.A.R. 3(g) for a notice of appeal in a criminal case. People v. Jenkins, 2025 COA 90, 583 P.3d 444.
In the rare case in which the appealing party is unable to prepare a complete petition for review within 49 days -- for example, when the hearing transcript required by § 16-4-204 (2) is not yet available -- the party should timely file a notice of appeal and an accompanying motion for an extension of time to file the petition for review, keeping in mind that appellate review of an appeal bond decision is expedited. People v. Jenkins, 2025 COA 90, 583 P.3d 444.
Review of excessive bail. Where the bond fixed by the trial court in a criminal case is so grossly excessive as to amount to a denial of the right of accused to be admitted to bail in a reasonable amount, the supreme court will direct that the accused be admitted to bail in reasonable amount. Altobella v. District Court, 153 Colo. 143, 385 P.2d 663 (1963).
If the bail is deemed excessive, relief may be sought by suitable proceedings, but not through appeal after conviction of the crime charged. Corbett v. People, 153 Colo. 457, 387 P.2d 409 (1963).
Review of refusal to admit prisoner to bail. Where a petitioner is adjudged guilty of contempt of court for refusal to answer questions before the grand jury and is sentenced to four months in jail, refusal of the trial court to stay execution or admit the petitioner to bail pending review by the supreme court is an abuse of discretion. Smaldone v. People, 153 Colo. 208, 385 P.2d 127 (1963).
A claim of error that court refused to admit defendant to bail may be raised by appropriate proceedings, but not by appeal after conviction of the crime charged. Corbett v. People, 153 Colo. 457, 387 P.2d 409 (1963).
Applied in People v. Velasquez, 641 P.2d 943 (Colo. 1982).