Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Crime Watch 02/15/25

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel
By SAM KLOMHAUS Sam.Klomhaus@gjsentinel.com
Feb 15, 2025 Updated Feb 15, 2025

A man who was sentenced to 40 years in prison for shooting his girlfriend to death in 2017 had his bid for that sentence to be reduced denied by the Colorado Court of Appeals Thursday.

Aleksandr Kolpakov pleaded guilty to first degree assault and manslaughter after the shooting death of 31-year-old Heather Anable.

Kolpakov and Anable co-hosted a YouTube channel called “The Skeptic Feminist.”

^{Aleksandr Kolpakov - Inmate Photo}  

According to court documents, Kolpakov shot Anable and injured her, and then shot her again as she crawled on the ground, killing her.

Details discussed in trial centered on Kolpakov’s state of mind that day and his defense believed he was reacting to a “bad trip” on mushrooms, which caused delusions and hallucinations.

Kolpakov told the court during sentencing his reasoning abilities had been taken away after consuming psilocybin mushrooms.

During the incident, neighbors who called 911 reported gunshots and strange encounters with Kolpakov.

The arrest affidavit stated, “While on scene, deputies were approached by a male who was talking nonsensically. He told deputies about rats, poison, a conspiracy and something to the effect of, ‘I had to put my sweet Heather down.’”

The affidavit later stated the man was Kolpakov.

Deputies found Anable dead at the scene on the sidewalk next to an apartment the two shared.

The sentencing range for Kolpakov’s charges was 16-44 years in the Department of Corrections.

Judge Richard Gurley opted for 40 years, 28 years for the first degree assault charge and 12 years for the manslaughter charge, to be served consecutively,

In his appeal, Kolpakov argued the sentences should be served concurrently because both convictions were supported by identical evidence. He also argued his attorney was ineffective.

Colorado state law requires concurrent sentences when the evidence supporting each charge is identical.

In an opinion announced Thursday, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled the charges did not have identical evidence.

Evidence that was presented at sentencing included a prosecutor summarizing a 911 call as having a “pretty large gap” between the first and second shots.

In addition, a pre-sentence report included a written narrative from Kolpakov in which he admitted to shooting his girlfriend twice, first injuring her and then killing her.

According to the opinion, the evidence presented “supports a reasonable inference that the first shot caused injury to Kolpakov’s girlfriend; a brief time passed, during which Kolpakov had time to reflect on his actions; and the subsequent shots produced the girlfriend’s death. Thus, we cannot conclude that identical evidence underlies the convictions such that concurrent sentencing was required.”

The appeals court also found that Kolpakov’s counsel was in fact effective.

Appeals court disapproves of acquittal of man charged with stalking
^{By SAM KLOMHAUS Sam.Klomhaus@gjsentinel.com
Feb 13, 2025 Updated Feb 14, 2025}

A man found not guilty of stalking his ex-girlfriend in 2022 was acquitted improperly by 21st Judicial District Chief Judge Brian Flynn, according to the Colorado Court of Appeals.

The acquittal revolved around whether statements to the alleged victim constituted free speech, according to an opinion published Feb. 6.

“The division holds that a stalking prosecution premised on acts constituting approaching or contacting the victim does not implicate the First Amendment because it is not premised on the content of the defendant’s speech,” the opinion stated.

Daniel Morris was arrested and charged with stalking an ex-girlfriend, who had told him to stop contacting her, according to court documents.

At trial, according to court documents, the victim said Morris drove his truck into the driveway of the studio where she worked, and got out and began banging on the door and yelling.

According to court documents, the banging went on for about four or five minutes then stopped. The victim, who had hidden in the bathroom and thought Morris had left, came out and the banging resumed.

“After the banging stopped a second time, she looked outside. When she did not see Morris’s truck, she returned to her workspace, which faced a window. Morris, however, was apparently hiding beneath the windowsill immediately in front of the victim’s workspace and startled her by appearing in the window while she was at her desk. He repeatedly asked her to talk to him. She told him multiple times to go away and that he needed to leave,” the opinion stated.

According to court documents, the victim called the police, but before Morris could be contacted he showed up at her home.

“Although Morris did not utter threatening words, the victim said his behavior frightened her,” the opinion stated.

Flynn acquitted Morris at trial of the contact portion of the stalking charge, saying Morris’s words constituted protected speech. Morris had been saying things like “Will you talk to me?” to the victim.

The jury later found Morris not guilty after the court limited its consideration to “whether Morris knowingly and repeatedly approached the victim in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress.”

The appeals court disagreed with Flynn’s rulings, saying Morris’s prosecution had been based on his actions, not his speech.

“Although the evidence elicited at trial included words that Morris spoke while engaging in the charged conduct, the instruction the court gave made clear that the stalking charge against Morris was not predicated on the content of his communications,” the opinion stated. “It was based solely on Morris’s actions, not his words.”

Morris can’t be tried again for the stalking charge, according to District Attorney Dan Rubinstein.

”All we can do is spend a lot of time and money to make sure that the judge knows he was wrong in his ruling, and hope it does not happen again,” Rubinstein said in an email. “That is very difficult for a stalking victim to understand.”

Court rejects appeal from man sentenced to prison for trespassing
^{By SAM KLOMHAUS Sam.Klomhaus@gjsentinel.com
Feb 14, 2025 Updated Feb 14, 2025}

A man sentenced to 32 months in the Department of Correction for trespassing had his appeal rejected by the Colorado Court of Appeals earlier this month despite a law change reducing first degree trespassing of an unoccupied building from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Patrick Kramer, 46, pleaded guilty to first degree criminal trespass in March 2021 after taking up residence in an unoccupied house, according to court documents.

Kramer was sentenced to two years probation. However, he was then sentenced to 32 months in the Department of Corrections after several parole violations, according to court documents.

“This isn’t an insignificant crime,” Judge Matthew Barrett told Kramer at the time. “I understand it’s a trespass class five. It’s not the most aggravated set of circumstances, but this was someone’s house. This was your fourth felony, and you were given all that mitigating consideration when I put you on probation in the first place. And then I put you on probation again and then again.”

The appeal stated the court had not taken into consideration law changes related to the offense of first degree criminal trespass, which was changed from a felony to a misdemeanor for unoccupied buildings during the 2021 legislative session.

In a decision announced Feb. 6, the appeals court stated Barrett was correct in sentencing Kramer because the law had not yet been changed when Kramer committed the offense.

According to the opinion, Barrett noted Kramer had a history of criminal behavior and had failed at being supervised when handing down the sentence.

“Kramer contends that the district court erred by not explicitly considering legislative changes that reclassified first degree criminal trespass of an unoccupied dwelling to a misdemeanor when resentencing him to the DOC,” the opinion stated. “We disagree.”

According to court documents, the change applies to offenses committed on or after March 1, 2022.

“Here, there is no misapplication of the law, because the court sentenced Kramer within the presumptive range applicable to the offense as of the day Kramer committed it,” the opinion stated.

Kramer remains in custody of the Department of Corrections.