A Colorado appeals court has overturned Tina Peters’ nine‑year prison sentence and ordered her to be re‑sentenced, ruling that the trial judge improperly punished her for her beliefs about 2020 election fraud rather than just for her criminal conduct. Peters remains a convicted felon, but her punishment can now be recalculated under narrower, constitutional sentencing standards.
Why the court threw out her sentence
The three‑judge panel held that the trial court overstepped by focusing on Peters’ refusal to let go of her 2020‑fraud theories when imposing the nine‑year term. The judges wrote that her “offense was not her belief … in the existence of such election fraud; it was her deceitful actions in her attempt to gather evidence” by conducting a security breach. They emphasized that her exercise of free speech and continued belief in conspiracy theories should not have been used to justify a harsher sentence, especially because she is no longer in a position (as former Mesa County clerk) to repeat the same conduct.
The panel also said the lower court’s comments made clear that part of the sentence was meant to deter her from “spreading” views the judge found “damaging,” which turned the punishment into a penalty for speech, not conduct. For that reason, the appellate court reversed her sentence and sent the case back to Judge Matthew Branch for resentencing.
Her convictions still stand
Despite the sentence reversal, the court of appeals upheld Peters’ underlying convictions: seven felony counts of engaging in a security breach for her unauthorized access to and tampering with voting machines in Mesa County. The panel rejected her argument that then‑President Donald Trump’s claimed pardon for “election integrity and security” offenses wiped away her state‑law crimes, noting that presidential pardon power under the U.S. Constitution covers only federal offenses, not state ones.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and Secretary of State Jena Griswold both stressed that Peters remains a convicted felon who violated her duties as a top election official, endangered public trust, and helped amplify dangerous election lies—even though she will now be re‑sentenced under stricter First Amendment limits.
A new sentencing date has not yet been set, and Peters’ prior projected parole eligibility (November 2028) is effectively on hold pending the new sentence.
