Not a CBA Member? Join Now!
Find A Lawyer Directory
Legal Directory

TCL > July 2002 Issue > Court Business

July 2002       Vol. 31, No. 7       Page  161
From the Courts
Court Business

Court Business

United States Bankruptcy Court
For the District of Colorado
In the Matter of Deficient Cases Tendered for Filing
General Procedure Order Number 2002-4


THIS MATTER arises sua sponte upon the need to improve the commencement and administration of new cases tendered for filing, to establish additional procedures for ensuring compliance with Title 11, United States Code, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and the Local Bankruptcy Rules, and to discourage the commencement of bankruptcy cases that are deficient and defective as to substantive requirements established therein.

WHEREAS 11 U.S.C. 521(1) requires that the debtor "shall file a list of creditors, and unless the court orders otherwise, a schedule of assets and liabilities . . . and a statement of the debtor’s financial affairs"; and

WHEREAS Fed.R.Bankr.P. 1007(a)(1) requires that in a voluntary case, the debtor "shall file with the petition a list containing the name and address of each creditor unless the petition is accompanied by a schedule of liabilities"; and

WHEREAS Fed.R.Bankr.P. 1007(c) requires that "the schedules and statements, other than the statement of intention, shall be filed with the petition in a voluntary case, or if the petition is accompanied by a list of all the debtor’s creditors and their addresses, within 15 days thereafter"; and

WHEREAS Local Bankruptcy Rule 102(b) and the Instructions Regarding Creditors Matrix (Mailing Matrix) attached thereto and referenced therein, as amended by General Procedure Order No. 2001-7 entered by the Court on August 1, 2001, requires that the list of the names and addresses of the creditors required by 11 U.S.C. 521(1) be saved in the format of an ASCII DOS text file type and filed with the Court on a 3½" diskette in lieu of printed paper; and

WHEREAS failure by the Debtor to file these statements, schedules and mailing matrix via diskette violates the requirements of Title 11, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Local Bankruptcy Rules, and impedes the ability of the Clerk to file and timely administer the case in accordance with Rule 2002(a)(1) and 2003, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure; it is therefore

ORDERED that upon receipt of a voluntary petition tendered for filing under Title 11 that is not accompanied by either (1) the statement of financial affairs and schedules or (2) the list of names and addresses of creditors in a properly formatted and readable mailing matrix diskette pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 521(1) and Fed.R.Bankr.P. 1007(a)(1), the Clerk shall

(1) not accept the petition for filing, and

(2) forthwith return said petition to the petitioner or attorney appearing on behalf of the petitioner with a notice setting forth the reasons why the petition was not accepted for filing; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall become effective June 17, 2002.

Dated: May 13, 2002.

By the Court:

Donald E. Cordova, Chief Judge
Sidney B. Brooks, Judge
A. Bruce Campbell, Judge
Elizabeth E. Brown, Judge


Colorado Judicial Department
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Directives

Notice of Availability

A full set of the Chief Justice Directives may be purchased from the Colorado Judicial Department for $15, which includes copying, handling, and postage costs. Checks should be made payable to Colorado Judicial Department and should be mailed to: Court Services Division, Office of the State Court Administrator, 1301 Pennsylvania St., #300, Denver, CO 80203. Individual Chief Justice Directives will be assessed a $5 charge, pursuant to Chief Justice Directive 96-01, concerning standard research fees. Chief Justice Directives also are available from the Colorado Supreme Court homepage at: www.courts.

Publication in The Colorado Lawyer

Chief Justice Directives will be published on a space available basis in this "Court Business" section of The Colorado Lawyer. Some attachments may be omitted. To obtain a copy of attachments, contact the Court Services Division, Office of the State Court Administrator, 1301 Pennsylvania St., #300, Denver, CO 80203.

Chief Justice Directive 02-02
Supreme Court Of Colorado
Office of the Chief Justice
Establishment of Statewide Probation Priorities


Directive establishing statewide probation priorities and their relationship to judicial district management practices; defining the authority of the Supreme Court to issue standards and guidelines for the administration of probation services; establishing authority and scope of contract probation services; and defining the role and responsibilities of the probation program review process, and the creation of the Probation Advisory Committee.

Probation services in Colorado promotes public safety through the delivery of four basic functions:

• Pre-sentence investigation services to the courts;

• Supervision and services to offenders based upon "risk of re-offending";

• Victim notification and assistance; and

• Development of community programs in response to specific offender, community and victim needs.

Public safety concerns require that offender supervision resources be directed toward the highest risk offenders in the community. The State Court Administrator shall submit to the Supreme Court for approval standards and procedural guidelines for the administration of probation services, including any specialized programs mandated by the general assembly. Each district shall develop policies and procedures that assure the maximum efficiency and effectiveness of available probation resources. Such procedures shall emphasize compliance with established standards approved by the Supreme Court.

PART I. Investigation Services

Investigation services shall be governed by the four levels of priority established in Table 1 below.

Allocation of appropriated investigation staff resources shall be based upon the priority order of services. Resource limitation may prevent a district from providing all priority one services, as well as lesser priority investigations. Districts may develop a plan, subject to policies established in this directive, to (1) modify the priorities when such modifications are determined necessary by the Chief Judge and/or (2) utilize contract probation services to provide supplemental support to probation officers in conducting priority two and three investigations. Such plans shall be submitted to the State Court Administrator’s Office for review. The procedures for the use of contract probation services shall be as set forth in the Standards for Probation in Colorado, Standard 2.15

All evaluations or pre-sentence investigations, ordered under this Part I, shall include the application of screening and assessment instruments developed by the State Court Administrator’s Office.

A. District Court Investigations

District court investigation shall be provided in accordance with applicable law and Probation Standards, Section 5. Such standards provide for uniform assessment of offender risk, initial supervision planning and the evaluation of available sentencing options.

B. County Court Misdemeanor Investigations

Probation investigation resources are finite, limiting the availability of pre-sentence investigations in the county courts. In conjunction with the local probation department and other criminal justice agencies, the county courts may implement a screening and assessment procedure for priority 2 investigations, as set forth in Probation Standard 5-2.1. Such a process shall assist the court in determining referrals to the district probation department or to a contract probation provider. The initial screening and assessment procedure shall be administered by the sentencing court.

C. Domestic Violence Screening and Assessment

Domestic violence cases shall be initially screened, utilizing Probation Standard 5-2.2.

Domestic violence cases determined by the court to be a high risk for re-offending may be referred to the probation department for further evaluation or pre-sentence investigation.

D. Victim Impact Statements

Victim Impact Statements shall be included in pre-sentence reports pursuant to CRS 16-11-102. Probation departments shall consider the victim impact statement when developing an initial supervision plan recommended to the court. Initial supervision recommendation should incorporate measures to assure victim safety. Reference Probation Standards 4-6, 5-7, 5-8.

PART II. Supervision Services

Supervision of probationers shall be governed by the principle of "risk of re-offending." The level of supervision shall be established based upon the initial assessment and subsequent reassessments by the probation department. Probationers considered "high risk," irrespective of offense classification or court of sentence, shall receive priority services, and be supervised in accordance with Probation Standard 4-6. Given limited resources, non high-risk offenders, either felony or misdemeanor may be supervised by use of contract probation services, or other alternative means such as volunteer programs and administrative "banked" caseload approaches.

PART III. Supplemental Contract

Probation Services

As provided in CRS 19-2-204(4)(a) and 16-11-202(2) districts may enter into agreements with public or private entities for the provision of probation services. Such agreements may be utilized for investigation services and the supervision of lower risk probationers. Adult offenders shall pay supervision fees directly to the contract provider. Juvenile offender services under this Part III shall be paid by the local probation department based upon available allocation. Procedures and contracting provision are set forth in Probation Standard 2-15 to 2-15.6.

PART IV. Victim Notification and

Victim Services

Probation departments shall inform victims at critical stages of supervision as directed by CRS 24-4.1-303. Additionally, departments may expand victim services through the creation of victim services coordinators. Such activities shall be conducted in cooperation with other local victim services programs. Reference Probation Standards 2-8, 2-19 to 2-19.4

PART V. Community Initiatives:

Restorative Justice

Probation is urged to provide the public with opportunities for input regarding the criminal justice system, and to provide assistance, education and support for communities harmed by criminal actions.

A. Public Education: Probation departments are urged to provide ongoing education in restorative and community justice to probation staff and the community at large.

B. Community Services: Probation should establish services and sentencing options available to the court that specifically address restoring the community harmed by a criminal action. These services may require establishing working associations and cooperative lines of communication between agencies, non-profit organizations, criminal justice officials, and the public at large.

PART VI. Probation Performance Review

Performance reviews, developed by the Division of Probation Services, will address the performance of essential probation functions and practices (pre-sentence investigation/intake process; case planning; case management; specialized programs and issues). At least one essential function, specialized program or issue will be reviewed annually across all districts. The reviews will build upon one another, establishing a database that will enable the Division of Probation Services and local probation departments to assess cases from the pre-sentence investigation through termination. The purposes of the review are: (1) to aid each probation department in assessing performance and program operation in accordance with the prescribed priorities, standards, guidelines and the case classification and assessment system; (2) to provide assistance to each probation department in meeting the objectives of probation within the available resources; (3) to aid each probation department in assessing their own performance and assessing contracting activities with respect to the utilization of supplemental probation services; (4) to assist each probation department in complying with state probation standards, statutes, Chief Justice Directives, Judicial Branch and Judicial District policies, and any specialized programs mandated by the general assembly; and (5) to facilitate the development of best practices through the analysis of the performance review data and dissemination of this information on a state-wide basis.

PART VII. Probation Advisory Committee

In order to coordinate the probation function within the Judicial Branch, and to facilitate communications between the judges, probation staff and staff of the State Court Administrator’s Office the Probation Advisory Committee is created. The Probation Advisory Committee shall consist of 25 members appointed for a two-year term by the Chief Justice. The purposes of the Committee are: (1) to coordinate the activities of standing probation committees; (2) to initiate and review probation standards, policies and program development; (3) to serve as an advisory body to the State Court Administrator Office relating to probation policy; and, (4) to have its members serve as liaisons to their respective organizations. Membership shall include: one justice of the Supreme Court, four district court judges, one of whom shall be a chief judge serving as chair, two county court judges, four chief probation officers, four probation supervisors, two probation officers, one clerical position, one victim assistance coordinator, one ADDS Coordinator, one district administrator, one clerk of court, two public at large members, and the Director of the Division of Probation Services. The chair shall convene the committee a minimum of four times per year, and may establish sub-committees to perform the tasks deemed appropriate to carry out the responsibilities of the committee.

This directive rescinds CJD 99-04.

DONE this 16th day of May 2002, effective July 1, 2002.

Mary J. Mullarkey, Chief Justice



Investigation Services Priority

Functions Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4
Adult Services
Presentence Investigations Felony 2-6 Misdemeanors Traf., Petty 1 Felony 1, Petty 2
Deferred Sentence & Judgment Investigations Felony 2-6 Misdemeanor, Traffic, Petty
Pre-Plea Investigations Felony, Misd., Traffic, Petty
P.R. Bond Investigations Felony, Misd., Traffic, Petty
Domestic Violence Felony 2-6,
Screening & Assessment Misdemeanor
Juvenile Services
Social Summaries Delinquency Dependency & Neglect
Preliminary Investigations Delinquency (F) Delinquency (M)
Pre-Plea Investigations Delinquency
Detention Investigations Delinquency
Transfer Investigations Delinquency

Colorado Division of Administrative Hearings
Chief Judge’s Directives

The Colorado Division of Administrative Hearings ("Division") is Colorado’s central panel of administrative law judges ("ALJs"). The Division provides administrative adjudication services to more than twenty-five different state agencies. The Division’s ALJs hear and decide cases involving workers’ compensation, professional and occupational licenses, public benefits and Medicaid, state government personnel disputes, education of disabled students, dismissal of tenured teachers, campaign finance laws, highway signs and highway access, lottery, bingo, raffles, and many other subject matters.

Chief Judge’s Directives ("CJDs") will be published on a space-available basis. See, e.g., 30 The Colorado Lawyer 53 (Aug. 2001). The Division’s CJDs also can be found online at:


Chief Judge’s Directive
No. 12. Settings of Hearings and Mediations
Before the Central Registry of Child Protection

The Division of Administrative Hearings schedules mediation conferences in cases being heard for the Central Registry of Child Protection upon the request of a person whose name is listed or is proposed for listing on the Central Registry. Typically, hearings are set within 90 days from the date of the setting conference (Rule 4, Rules of Procedure for the Division of Administrative Hearings). However, because of the large volume of mediations and hearings in Central Registry cases, this time limit cannot always be achieved when both a mediation and a merits hearing must be scheduled.

(a) Pursuant to Rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure for the Division of Administrative Hearings, when a mediation is requested in a Central Registry case the hearing on the merits may be set within 120 days of the date of the setting conference, if both parties agree to a hearing date that is more than 90 days from the setting conference.

(b) Under the circumstances described in the above paragraph the setting clerk is authorized to set cases up to 120 days from the setting conference, without prior request by a party or approval of a judge.

POSTED: May 29, 2002.

© 2002 The Colorado Lawyer and Colorado Bar Association. All Rights Reserved. Material from The Colorado Lawyer provided via this World Wide Web server is protected by the copyright laws of the United States and may not be reproduced in any way or medium without permission. This material also is subject to the disclaimers at