Douglas County District Court No. 05CR426 Honorable Paul A.
J. Weiser, Attorney General, Melissa D. Allen, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for
Adam Melnick, Pro Se
1 Defendant, Hunter Adam Melnick, appeals the trial
court's denial of his Crim. P. 35(c) motion. We affirm in
part, reverse in part, and remand for a hearing on
Melnick's challenges to his parole revocation.
2 In 2006, Melnick pleaded guilty to sexual assault and two
misdemeanors - third degree assault and menacing. He received
an aggregate sentence of thirty months in jail on the
misdemeanors and a consecutive ten years to life on Sex
Offender Intensive Supervision Probation (SOISP) on the
3 In 2009, after finding that Melnick violated the conditions
of his probation, the trial court revoked Melnick's SOISP
sentence and resentenced him to three years to life in the
custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC). A division of
this court affirmed the order revoking the SOISP sentence and
the imposition of the DOC sentence. See People v.
Melnick, (Colo.App. No. 09CA2713, Dec. 15, 2011) (not
published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)).
4 At some point, Melnick was granted parole. In November
2017, his parole officer filed a complaint to revoke his
parole based on violations of its conditions. After a
hearing, Melnick's parole was revoked, and he was
remanded to the custody of the DOC for 540 days. The
Appellate Board of the Colorado State Board of Parole (parole
board) denied his appeal of that decision.
5 Melnick then filed a Crim. P. 35(c) motion, including
several amendments, in which he asserted numerous claims
relating to his parole revocation. The postconviction court
denied the motion without a hearing, finding that the
challenges Melnick raised in his appeal to the parole board
were not properly brought pursuant to Crim. P. 35(c). The
court further found that Melnick's remaining claims
lacked a factual and legal basis. Melnick appeals the denial
of his Rule 35(c) motion.
Failure to Timely Consider Parole After Revocation
6 Melnick first contends that the parole board improperly
refused to consider him for parole within 180 days after his
parole was revoked, as required by section 17-2-201(14),
C.R.S. 2018. We note that his opening brief is missing a page
that, it would appear, contains the argument relevant to this
7 Nevertheless, Melnick's contention is a challenge to
the parole board's decision not to grant him parole - or,
more specifically, not to grant him a parole hearing. Nothing
in the text of Rule 35 encompasses this type of claim, and
Colorado appellate courts have consistently declined to
review such claims under that rule. See In re Question
Concerning State Judicial Review of Parole Denial, 199
Colo. 463, 464-65, 610 P.2d 1340, 1341 (1980) (holding that
"a person denied parole can seek judicial review only as
provided by C.R.C.P. 106(a)(2)"); People v.
Huerta, 87 P.3d 266, 267 (Colo.App. 2004) (holding that
because the defendant's challenge was not to the legality
of his sentence, but rather to an act ...