Colorado Court of Appeals Judge: Grant Sullivan

What the commission said

The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Grant Sullivan, by vote of 9-0 with one commissioner absent, and one commission vacancy, MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The judicial performance standards include integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, administrative performance, and service to the legal profession and the public.

Judge Sullivan began service on the Colorado Court of Appeals in January of 2024. The Commission found the judge’s written opinions to be consistently well-reasoned, fair, and thoughtfully articulated, demonstrating a strong command of the law and clear judicial reasoning. Although Judge Sullivan joined the Court of Appeals in January 2024, the Commission notes a strong and confident transition into the role of appellate judge. The judge has proactively established systems to manage workload efficiently and collaborates regularly with judicial colleagues, reflecting a dedication to continuous improvement and excellence in service.

As part of this evaluation, the Commission conducted a thorough review of Judge Sullivan’s performance. This included an in-depth interview with the judge, a review of selected legal opinions, courtroom observations, analysis of the judicial performance survey report, and a review of the judge’s self-evaluation. Judge Sullivan was observed to be clear, open, and highly effective in communication, and consistently maintained courtroom decorum. While appropriately assertive in managing proceedings, the judge’s tone and demeanor remained balanced, reflecting impartiality and professionalism. These qualities contribute meaningfully to the public’s confidence in the judiciary. Judge Sullivan’s self-evaluation and interview reflected a deep commitment to timely, transparent, and respectful engagement with all parties, an approach that aligns with courtroom observations and stakeholder feedback. Judge Sullivan practiced law as a trial and appellate litigator with the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, specializing in constitutional law, voting rights, election law, tax, administrative law, and appeals. He previously practiced law with the Denver office of a national firm and served as a Supreme Court Fellow with the National Association of Attorneys General. He clerked on both the Colorado Court of Appeals and the Colorado Supreme Court. Judge Sullivan earned his Juris Doctorate from the University of Colorado Law School and his Bachelor of Business Administration degree from the University of Texas at Austin. In addition to his duties as a judge on the Court of Appeals, Judge Sullivan participates in the Court of Appeals’ “Courts in the Community” program and serves on numerous court committees (including the Judicial Department’s Reclassification Review Board, an Appellate Rules Subcommittee, and a planning committee for the annual Colorado Judicial Conference). He also volunteers as a guest coach and judge for the CU Mock Trial and Moot Court programs and volunteers with the Food Bank of the Rockies.

The survey

The share of each group surveyed who said the judge meets performance standards.

• Attorneys75%
• Judges100%

Opinions

The judge's published opinions as CourtListener holds them, through Dec. 24, 2025.

Most cited

1. People v. Valles

   2025 COA 67, July 17, 2025, cited 2 times

   The division's summary

   Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(e) permits the trial court to conduct certain nonjury proceedings via an interactive audiovisual device or interactive audio device. As a matter of first impression, a division of the court of appeals holds that, before proceeding with a virtual hearing, the court must advise the criminal defendant of certain rights as outlined in Crim. P. 43(e)(4). These include, among others, that the defendant has the right to appear in person. Crim. P. 43(e)(4)(I).

2. People v. Jenkins

   2025 COA 90, Nov. 26, 2025, cited once

   The division's summary

   Addressing an unresolved issue of Colorado law, a division of the court of appeals considers whether a petition for appellate review of the terms and conditions of a criminal defendant’s appeal bond under section 16-4-204, C.R.S. 2025, is subject to any filing deadline. The division holds that C.A.R. 4(b)’s forty-nine-day deadline for seeking appellate review in a criminal case applies to appeal bond petitions filed under section 16-4-204. The division further concludes that, although the defendant submitted his petition late, he has shown good cause for filing it beyond the deadline. The division therefore accepts the defendant’s petition as timely filed.

Most recent

1. People v. Jenkins

   2025 COA 90, Nov. 26, 2025, cited once

2. People v. Valles

   2025 COA 67, July 17, 2025, cited 2 times