The Colorado Court of Appeals threw out the nine-year prison sentence of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters on Thursday, April 2, ruling that the trial judge had improperly factored her election fraud beliefs into the length of her punishment — a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech. The court simultaneously upheld all seven of her criminal convictions, rejected President Trump's attempted pardon as legally void, and sent the case back to the same district judge for resentencing.
Peters, 70, has been incarcerated for 549 days. The ruling does not free her, but it does require Mesa County District Judge Matthew Barrett to issue a new sentence — one that, per the appeals court, cannot be influenced by Peters' stated beliefs about the 2020 election.
What Peters Did
In 2021, Peters orchestrated a scheme to allow an unauthorized member of the public — a man with no official credentials — to enter a secure area of her office and copy the hard drives of Mesa County's voting machines. The equipment contained classified information. The copied data was later leaked online by election conspiracy theorists, who falsely claimed the files proved that Trump had won the 2020 election.
Peters was charged with ten counts. A Mesa County jury convicted her of seven: three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, one count each of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty, and failure to comply with the requirements of the Secretary of State. She was acquitted on the remaining three.
In August 2024, Judge Barrett sentenced her to nine years in state prison. At sentencing, Barrett called Peters a "charlatan" who had abused her elected position to "peddle snake oil." He told her: "I am convinced you would do it all over again if you could. You're as defiant as any defendant this court has ever seen."
What the Appeals Court Ruled
The three-judge appeals panel issued a 74-page opinion Thursday. The core finding: Barrett crossed a constitutional line when he let Peters' continued belief in election fraud theories influence how long she should be imprisoned.
"When the court's comments are viewed in their totality, it is apparent that the court imposed the lengthy sentence it did because Peters continued to espouse the views that led her to commit these crimes," wrote Court of Appeals Judge Ted C. Tow III. "The sentence punished Peters for her persistence in espousing her beliefs regarding the integrity of the 2020 election."
The appeals court was clear about the legal boundary: Peters' crime was not holding those beliefs — it was the "deceitful actions in her attempt to gather evidence" for them. Her motive, and her continued ideological conviction, were not relevant grounds to lengthen a sentence.
"Her offense was not her belief, however misguided the trial court deemed it to be, in the existence of such election fraud," the court wrote. "Just as her purported beliefs underlying her motive for her actions were not relevant to her defense, the trial court should not have considered those beliefs relevant when imposing sentence."
The court rejected nine other claims Peters raised about her trial. All convictions stand. Her request that the case be reassigned to a different judge was denied — the court found she needed to raise that issue first at the lower court level. Barrett will handle resentencing.
Trump's Pardon: Rejected
In December 2025, Trump announced he was pardoning Peters. Colorado officials immediately said he lacked authority to do so, since Peters was convicted under state law — not federal law — and the presidential pardon power under the U.S. Constitution extends only to "Offences against the United States."
The appeals court agreed, formally ruling Thursday that Trump's claimed pardon "carried no authority."
"The crux of Peters' argument is that the phrase 'Offences against the United States' includes an offense against any of the states in the union," the court wrote. "We join what appears to us to be every other appellate court that has addressed the issue and reject such an expansive reading of the phrase."
This aligns with established constitutional law: presidential pardons do not reach state criminal convictions. That remains true regardless of the political relationship between the president and the defendant.
The Political Pressure Campaign
Peters' case has been a flashpoint in the broader MAGA political movement's effort to reframe election security prosecutions as political persecution. Trump repeatedly demanded her release, calling her prosecution a "witch hunt." When Colorado officials declined to comply, his administration canceled more than $700 million in federal funds earmarked for the state, in what Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser described as a "revenge campaign."
Weiser said Thursday that Peters' original sentence was "fair and appropriate" and did not immediately commit to appealing the resentencing order.
"Whatever happens with her sentence, Tina Peters will always be a convicted felon who violated her duty as Mesa County clerk, put other lives at risk and threatened our democracy," Weiser said. "Nothing will remove that stain."
Mesa County District Attorney Dan Rubinstein, whose office prosecuted the case, said the ruling confirmed the trial was fair and the verdicts supported by evidence. He noted the appeals court identified "a narrow issue requiring reconsideration" and said Barrett could ultimately reimpose the same sentence length, so long as the rationale doesn't rest on Peters' beliefs.
"Both parties have already had a full and fair opportunity to present their positions on sentencing," Rubinstein said, "and once jurisdiction returns, I anticipate the trial court will issue a new sentencing order, potentially affirming the prior sentence length."
The Governor's Position
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis earlier signaled openness to reducing Peters' sentence through executive clemency — a power independent of the courts. He walked back those comments after Democrats in the legislature publicly objected, saying he would wait for the appeals court ruling before acting.
On Thursday, Polis called the original sentence "an obvious outlier" but stopped short of pledging clemency action, saying: "My job as governor is to focus on what is right, not what is popular, and today the court took action to ensure equal justice for all."
His position remains ambiguous. The appeals court ruling technically narrows the window for him to act on sentence-length grounds — since it sends the matter back to the courts — but clemency authority remains constitutionally separate.
Peters' Attorney Reacts
Peters' defense team was not satisfied with the outcome. Attorney Peter Ticktin said in a statement Thursday that, "other than tossing Peters' sentence, the ruling got it all wrong."
"Unfortunately, the Colorado Court of Appeals just kicked the can down the road rather than to do the honest responsible thing, and give her a new trial, after her kangaroo trial. She remains in prison after 549 days," Ticktin wrote. "Now, the Court of Appeals is sending Tina Peters back to the same district court for resentencing. This is terribly disappointing."
Peters' legal team had argued for a full acquittal or new trial. They did not get either. The convictions, the legal rejection of Trump's pardon, and the resentencing by the same judge are all outcomes that fall well short of what her supporters were seeking.
What Happens Next
The case returns to Judge Barrett, who must now issue a new sentence without factoring in Peters' election beliefs. He has wide latitude — and the DA's office has already signaled he could reimpose the original nine-year term if he grounds it properly in the conduct rather than the ideology.
Peters remains incarcerated during this process. There is no automatic release pending resentencing. Additional appeals to the Colorado Supreme Court are possible.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, whose office oversees election security for the state, said she was "glad to see the Court of Appeals reject Trump's attempted pardon" and called on the district court to ensure "Peters should not receive any special treatment."
The bottom line: Peters' conviction is intact. Her sentence may be adjusted — or it may not. The court drew a clear constitutional line between punishing what someone did and punishing what they believe. That distinction will now be tested again in the district court that sentenced her the first time.