The office
The Colorado Court of Appeals is the state's intermediate appellate court. As of July 1, 2008, the Court consists of 22 judges who are retained by the public to serve eight-year terms. The Court sits in three-member divisions to decide cases.
From Colorado Judicial Branch.
The questionYes or no
Shall Judge Karl L. Schock of the Colorado Court of Appeals be retained in office?
The performance commission's review
- The commission found
- Meets Performance Standards
- Its vote
- 9-0
- Surveys answered
- 28
- Overall grade
- 3.6 of 4
What the commission said
The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Karl L. Schock, by vote of 9-0 with one commissioner absent, and one commission vacancy, MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. Colorado’s statutory judicial performance standards are integrity, legal knowledge, communication skills, judicial temperament, and service to the legal profession and the public.
Judge Schock was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2022 and has served for four years. The Commission finds that he has the qualities of an excellent Court of Appeals judge. His written opinions are clear and easy to understand. At oral argument, he is respectful, curious, and well-prepared on both the facts and the law. He also serves on committees that work on model criminal jury instructions and probation services, which helps improve the courts.
To reach its decision, the Commission interviewed Judge Schock; reviewed his self-evaluation; watched several oral arguments; and read many of his opinions, concurrences, and dissents. It also reviewed survey responses from attorneys and judges. Every person surveyed agreed that Judge Schock meets Colorado’s judicial performance standards. Many praised his clear writing. Some noted that his separate concurrences and dissents show care in his work. Others said his questions at oral argument made them feel he took their legal issues seriously.
Judge Schock earned his undergraduate degree from Northern Arizona University and his law degree from the University of Colorado in 2006. He then clerked for Judge Michael Murphy on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. After clerking, he joined the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck until 2015 when he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Appellate Division before being appointed to the bench in 2022.
The survey
The share of each group surveyed who said the judge meets performance standards.
The survey's figures
| Meets performance standards | Attorneys | Judges |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 100% (7) | 100% (20) |
| No | 0% (0) | 0% (0) |
| No opinion | 0% (0) | 0% (0) |
A share of those in the group who answered, and in brackets how many.
Opinions
The judge's published opinions as CourtListener holds them, through Dec. 24, 2025.
Most cited
The division's summary
Addressing four challenges to the 2022 Colorado model jury instruction on reasonable doubt, a division of the court of appeals concludes that the instruction does not unconstitutionally lower the burden of proof, violate the presumption of innocence, or shift the burden of proof to the defendant. More specifically, a district court does not err by (1) failing to instruct the jury that reasonable doubt may arise from “the lack of evidence”; (2) omitting the phrase “hesitate to act” from the reasonable doubt definition; (3) defining proof beyond a reasonable doubt as proof that leaves the jury “firmly convinced” of the defendant’s guilt; and (4) instructing the jury that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden if the jury thinks “there is a real possibility” that the defendant is not guilty.
The division's summary
A division of the court of appeals holds that a permanent protection order issued in an ongoing dissolution of marriage case constitutes a final, appealable order. The division concludes that a motion for a protection order effectively commences a discrete action for separate and independent relief. Because a permanent protection order finally disposes of those proceedings, it is final and appealable, even if the dissolution proceeding remains pending. Reviewing the permanent protection order on the merits, the division concludes that the evidence was sufficient to support it.
The division's summary
A division of the court of appeals holds that first degree assault (causing serious bodily injury by means of a deadly weapon), § 18-3-202(1)(a), C.R.S. 2025, remains a per se grave or serious offense after Wells-Yates v. People, 2019 CO 90M. The defendant’s twenty-one-year sentence for that offense thus does not raise an inference of gross disproportionality. The division also holds that the defendant’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel were insufficient to warrant a hearing under Crim. P. 35(c).
The division's summary
Consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, section 213(2), a division of the court of appeals holds that, absent unambiguous contractual language to the contrary, a completely integrated contract discharges prior agreements only to the extent they are within its scope. In determining whether a prior contract is within the scope of an integrated contract, a court must consider all relevant evidence and the interpretation of both contracts.
The division's summary
A division of the court of appeals clarifies that caseworker expert testimony in dependency and neglect proceedings is subject to CRE 702 and the analysis outlined in People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo. 2001), including the requirement of specific findings as to admissibility. Thus, when a parent objects to the admissibility of caseworker expert testimony under CRE 702, the juvenile court must, before admitting such testimony, make specific findings regarding (1) the reliability of the principles upon which the testimony is based; (2) the qualifications of the witnesses; (3) the usefulness of the testimony; and (4) the CRE 403 balancing test. Because the juvenile court did not do so in this case and its error was not harmless, the division reverses the dependency or neglect adjudication and remands the case for a new adjudicatory trial.
Most recent
The division's summary
A division of the court of appeals addresses the admissibility of prior alleged acts of child abuse and mistreatment under CRE 404(b) to prove that the defendant committed an act of child abuse for which the mechanism of injury was unknown. The division holds that the prior acts in this case were not admissible to show that the defendant caused the child’s injuries because the prosecution failed to establish any similarity, in nature or severity, between those other acts and what occurred in this case. The division also concludes that the erroneous admission of this evidence was not harmless where the evidence played a significant role in the prosecution’s case, the evidence was especially prejudicial due to the nature of the other acts, and there was no direct evidence of what happened to the child in this case.
Parental Responsibilities Concerning C.E.S.K.
The division's summary
Applying case law involving the pre-decree death of one spouse in a dissolution of marriage proceeding, a division of the court of appeals holds that, in an allocation of parental responsibilities proceeding exclusively between two fit parents, the death of one parent before the entry of permanent orders divests the district court of jurisdiction and requires dismissal of the case. The division further concludes that, having lost jurisdiction upon the death of the parent, a district court may not create a new case or controversy by subsequently allowing another party to intervene.
As printed in the document it was read from. The review from the Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation's evaluation and its survey report (read Oct. 12). Opinions from CourtListener, the Free Law Project's archive of court opinions.