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 Rebecca Rankin Freyre 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
- 27
- Overall grade
- 3.9 of 4
What the commission said
The State Commission on Judicial Performance finds that Judge Rebecca Rankin Freyre, 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 Freyre was appointed to the Colorado Court of Appeals in 2015 and has served with distinction for 11 years. She successfully stood for retention in 2018 and has now served a full eight-year term. The Commission finds her written opinions to be thoughtful, well-reasoned, and drafted with clarity that makes the information accessible to litigants, practitioners, and the public. We find her judicial demeanor at oral arguments to be respectful, engaging, and present. Judge Freyre served as the Deputy Chief Judge from January 2022 to January 2026. She currently chairs the PERA Board and sustains a broad range of civic and volunteer commitments to serve the legal profession and the public, including providing mentorship to law students and emerging judges. In summary, the Commission finds Judge Freyre to be an exemplary jurist and a valuable member of the Court of Appeals.
To conduct its evaluation, the Commission interviewed Judge Freyre, reviewed her self-evaluation, observed oral arguments, examined a selection of her legal opinions, and considered survey responses from attorneys and judges. Every survey respondent agreed that Judge Freyre meets applicable judicial performance standards. She received positive comments from respondents with respect to her strong writing skills, astute oral argument questions, strong legal analysis for reaching fair outcomes in gray areas, and her receptiveness and incorporation of feedback from her fellow judges.
Judge Freyre earned her undergraduate degree in Economics at Smith College and her law degree from the University of Denver College of Law. She began her career in law as a law clerk at a private criminal defense firm in Denver, Colorado before dedicating 25 years as a Deputy State Public Defender, working in the Appellate Division in Denver and the Trial Office in Arapahoe County before appointment to the bench in 2015.
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% (3) | 100% (24) |
| 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
In this individual and shareholder derivative suit, a division of the court of appeals decides two issues of first impression in Colorado. First, the division holds that a majority shareholder’s use of corporate profits for personal and other business reasons can be submitted to a fact finder and found to constitute “corporate distributions” available to all shareholders when no formal distribution is declared. Second, the division concludes that a minority shareholder has a proprietary interest in undeclared distributions sufficient to support an individual civil theft claim against the majority shareholder. The division also concludes that (1) appellant waived the expert witness issue; (2) the trial court properly decided the alter ego issue; (3) the trial court properly directed a verdict on the statute of limitations affirmative defenses; and (4) sufficient evidence supports damages. In the cross-appeal, the division concludes that (1) expert fees were properly capped; (2) a contingent fee multiplier for attorney fees is not justified; and (3) the trial court properly entered summary judgment for appellant on the declaratory judgment claim. The division remands the case for the trial court to determine and award appellee reasonable appellate attorney fees related to civil theft.
The division's summary
In this dependency and neglect proceeding, a division of the court of appeals considers tw o matters of first impression in Colorado. The division first holds that when a juvenile court orders child support under section 19-1-104(6), C.R.S. 2019, it must comply with article 6 of the Children’s Code, specifically section 19-6-106, C.R.S. 2019, a nd use the child support guidelines set forth in section 14-10-115, C.R.S. 2019, to compute child support. The division further holds that, consistent with the Social Security Act, the juvenile court may not order one parent to designate the other parent as the representative payee of his or her social security disability benefits. Accordingly, the child support judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
The division's summary
A division of the court of appeals considers a novel procedural issue and a novel substantive issue in this negligence action based on a failure to inspect for asbestos. The division first holds that under C.R.C.P. 55, a district court may sua sponte reconsider liability to determine whether a viable cause of action exists after the clerk’s entry of default but before the entry of a default judgment. The division further holds that amendments to the Department of Public Health and Environment Regulations do not impose an asbestos inspection duty on the homeowner of a single- family dwelling, contrary to the district court’s finding, or on the contractor. Because there was no asbestos inspection duty, we affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing the case.
Anderson v. Applewood Water Ass'n, Inc
Opening paragraph
In this appeal from the trial court’s order denying a motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs, Mark R. Anderson, Charles L. Patrick, Alberta R. Patrick, Theodore G. Rossin, Andrea R. Mihajlov, Marcia R. Petrun, and Mark Petrun (Owners), sought to enjoin the defendant, Applewood Water Association, Inc., d/b/a Applewood Estates Homeowners Association (Association), from performing two acts. First, Owners sought to enjoin the Association from conducting special meetings of the board of directors (board) in violation of its bylaws, § 38-33.3-308(2.5), C.R.S. 2016, of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA), and § 7-128- 203(2), C.R.S. 2016, of the Colorado Revised Nonprofit Corporations Act (CRNCA). Second, Owners sought to enjoin the Association from submitting the “Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Applewood Estates” (Amended Declaration) for a full membership vote based on their belief that the Amended Declaration illegally conveyed their property rights in the bridle path easement to the Association and illegally expanded the scope of use of the easement without their consent. Because, as a matter of first impression, we conclude the trial court could enjoin the Association from holding special board meetings without providing the notice required under CCIOA and CRNCA, we reverse the trial court’s order as to that preliminary injunction request and remand for further factual findings under Rathke v. MacFarlane, 648 P.2d 648, 653-54 (Colo. 1982). Based on the information provided in supplemental briefs filed by both parties, we conclude the second injunction request is moot because a vote on the Amended Declaration has already occurred. Therefore, we dismiss that portion of the appeal.
The division's summary
In this criminal case, a division of the court of appeals holds that although no structural error requiring automatic reversal occurred when the trial court analogized reasonable doubt to a home’s significant foundation crack during voir dire, such analogies should be avoided. The division further concludes that neither the alleged prosecutorial misconduct nor the absence of a special interrogatory requires reversal or entry of a lower level conviction. The judgment is affirmed. The dissent would find structural error and reverse the defendant’s convictions.
Most recent
The division's summary
As a matter of first impression, a division of the court of appeals considers whether the unit of prosecution for violating a child custody order under section 18-3-304(2), C.R.S. 2025, is the number of custody orders violated or the number of children affected. Based on the plain language of the statute, the division concludes that the unit of prosecution is the number of children affected. The division further concludes that no evidentiary error occurred here and that sufficient evidence supports the violation of a child custody order and child abuse convictions. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. The case is remanded for the trial court to merge the separate knowing or reckless and negligent child abuse convictions into a single conviction and to amend the mittimus accordingly.
The division's summary
In this adult guardianship case, a division of the court of appeals considers, for the first time, whether the probate court possesses the legal authority to transfer a ward’s dwelling place to a foreign country against the ward’s wishes. The division concludes that the Colorado Uniform Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Act (CUGPPA) and the Colorado Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (CUAGPPJA) authorize a probate court to transfer guardianship proceedings to a foreign jurisdiction so long as the court receives a visitor’s report that complies with section 15-14-305, C.R.S. 2023 and complies with the procedures set forth in section 15-14.5-301. Because the court did not receive a statutorily compliant visitor’s report and did not follow the procedures outlined in 15-14.5-301, we reverse the order and remand for the court to obtain a complete court visitor’s report addressing the suitability of the proposed change of dwelling place and to conduct a hearing as required by sections 15-14-304 and-305. If the court determines that a transfer of the ward’s dwelling place is in his best interests, then the court must follow the procedures outlined in section 15-14.5-301.
The division's summary
A division of the court of appeals considers, for the first time, whether the admission of recorded jailhouse calls between the defendant and his mother, who did not testify at trial, violated the Confrontation Clause. The division holds that such statements are not testimonial and, therefore, that no constitutional violation occurred. The division further holds that no instructional error occurred, that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial, and that no cumulative error occurred. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
People v. Alexander Ryan Fregosi
The division's summary
A division of the court of appeals clarifies the relationship between sections 18-1.3-603 (1)(b) and (1)(c) following People v. Weeks, 2021 CO 75 and holds that a district court that defers a restitution determination for ninety-one days under subsection (1)(b) may further extend that deadline under subsection (1)(c) when a victim incurs ongoing therapy expenses. The division also conc ludes that sufficient evidence supports the district court’s decision not to review in camera or to disclose the Crime Vict im Compensation Board records.
People v. Shannon Christopher Young
The division's summary
In this felony DUI case, a division of the court of appeals considers, as a matter of first impression, whether the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an “extraordinary circumstance[],” under section 42-4-1301.1(2)(a.5)(I), C.R.S. 2023, sufficient to warrant a law enforcement officer to require a defendant to submit to a blood test in lieu of a breath test. The division concludes that it does and affirms the judgment.
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.