Peters’ sentencing appeal placed the Colorado Court of Appeals at the center of a fight over what a judge can consider in prison terms for state crimes tied to election-equipment breaches. A three-judge panel on Wednesday appeared skeptical that remarks Peters’ attorneys cast as protected speech could be used as part of the sentencing rationale for her nine-year term.
The hearing turned on how the trial judge handled Peters’ rhetoric about election fraud, the panel’s questioning of the state’s lawyer suggested, and whether Barrett’s comments improperly influenced the sentence. In particular, the panel pressed the state on what Barrett meant when he discussed Peters’ insistence on promoting debunked claims about the 2020 election, which prosecutors said were tied to how she pursued a breach of election systems.
Appeals Judge Craig Welling told the state’s attorney that “The court cannot punish her for her First Amendment rights,” underscoring the panel’s concern about the constitutional line. The exchanges were significant to Peters’ broader political profile: President Donald Trump has embraced Peters as part of an election-conspiracy narrative, and Trump threatened Colorado with “harsh measures” if it did not release her after issuing a pardon last month.
Peters’ legal team also raised the practical timing of its arguments, with attorney Peter Ticktin saying, according to the account of the hearing, that they did not have time to argue about the pardon during the 30 minutes allotted by the court. Ticktin also said he believes Gov. Jared Polis will grant clemency, describing Peters’ sentence as “harsh,” a position Polis has said he would consider.
The judges scrutinized Barrett’s sentencing remarks, which included labeling Peters a “charlatan” and describing her as posing a danger to the community for spreading voting-related lies and undermining the democratic process. In court, the discussion also touched on whether Barrett’s comments amounted to punishing Peters for the content of her election speech rather than for the specific crimes of conviction.
During Wednesday’s arguments, Senior Assistant Attorney General Lisa Michaels defended Barrett’s approach, saying Barrett made clear in the sentencing that he was imposing punishment for the crimes Peters was convicted of at trial. Michaels said Barrett was responding to a lengthy presentation Peters had just concluded during sentencing and described what she said as part of a slideshow and pages of material presented to the judge.
Michaels also told the panel that Barrett indicated he was tying the sentencing to relevance created by Peters’ presentation, saying “She made it relevant,” and “She had a slideshow. She had pages and pages going on about this.” But the panel’s concerns extended beyond the First Amendment issue. The judges appeared alarmed by an argument about whether Barrett handled elements of a criminal impersonation conviction improperly, and how language for a misdemeanor version may have been presented to the jury as part of that element.
Peters was convicted of state crimes for orchestrating a data breach of Mesa County’s election equipment after, prosecutors said, she became fixated on voting problems tied to false claims that fraud led to Trump losing the 2020 presidential election. She is serving a nine-year sentence at a state prison in Pueblo after being convicted in 2024 in her Republican-leaning home county. Prosecutors said the breach involved Peters using another person’s security badge to let former surfer Conan Hayes watch a software update of her county’s election management system, with prosecutors alleging he made copies of the hard drive before and after the upgrade.
Prosecutors said partially redacted security passwords later appeared online and prompted an investigation. Hayes was not charged with wrongdoing. Peters did not deny the deception, according to the hearing account, and said she acted to ensure election records were not erased, while her attorneys also maintained she had a duty under federal law to preserve election information—an argument that drew skepticism from the panel.
Peters’ case has also continued to develop in federal court, including a last-month effort to seek release while she appeals her conviction. Her lawyers say she is entitled to at least a new sentencing hearing because Barrett based part of her sentence on a contempt conviction in a related case that the appeals court threw out last year. They are also asking the appeals court to recognize Trump’s pardon and immediately set her free.
It was not immediately clear when the panel will issue a decision. If the appeals court finds problems with how the sentence was imposed, it can send the case back for resentencing, while Peters’ supporters have continued to seek her release. The courtroom on Wednesday drew supporters who waited for hours for a spot, and some said “yes, yes” when Judge Lino Lipinsky turned discussion to whether Barrett may have made a mistake by bringing up Peters’ election-conspiracy activism during sentencing.
The appeal comes as Peters remains a prominent figure for parts of the election-conspiracy movement and as Trump has pressed her cause publicly. Trump has also attacked Colorado officials, including Polis and the Republican district attorney who brought the charges, Dan Rubinstein, for keeping her in prison, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons previously tried but failed to move her to a federal prison. In addition, the case has intersected with escalating threats from allies: Jake Lang, who was charged with assaulting a police officer during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and later pardoned by Trump, announced on social media that “January 6er Patriots” and U.S. Marshals would storm a Colorado prison to release Peters unless she is freed by the end of the month. Peters’ team and her posted statements, as described in the report, denounced any use of force and said she is not affiliated with demonstrations or events at the prison.