Peo v Mountz

25CA0811 Peo v Mountz 10-15-2026
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 25CA0811
El Paso County District Court No. 04CR5739 & 04CR6236
Honorable William Bain, Judge
The People of the State of Colorado,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Robert Nicholas Mountz,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL DISMISSED
Division IV
Opinion by JUDGE LIPINSKY
Harris and Gomez, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced October 15, 2026
Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Brittany Limes Zehner, Senior Assistant
Attorney General and Assistant Solicitor General, Denver, Colorado, for
Plaintiff-Appellee
Kinniry Law Office, Janet Kinniry, Gardner, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant

1
¶ 1 Robert Nicholas Mountz appeals the district court’s denial of
his most recent Crim. P. 35 motion. We dismiss the appeal.
¶ 2 As part of a global plea agreement resolving two criminal
cases, Mountz pleaded guilty to second degree murder, aggravated
robbery, and escape. See People v. Mountz, slip op. at 1 (Colo. App.
No. 19CA2281, May 27, 2021) (not published pursuant to C.A.R.
35(e)). In 2006, the district court sentenced Mountz to an aggregate
eighty-year prison term and ordered him to pay $16,953.78 in
restitution. Id.
¶ 3 Mountz filed unsuccessful postconviction motions in 2013,
2014, and 2017. See id. at 1, 13; People v. Mountz, slip op. at 1, 11
(Colo. App. No. 19CA2282, May 27, 2021) (not published pursuant
to C.A.R. 35(e)).
¶ 4 In 2024, Mountz filed the motion at issue in this appeal,
claiming ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel and
appellate counsel, a “violation of the constitutional right to have a
record,” and legal errors in the restitution portion of his sentence.
As best as we can discern, Mountz presented two arguments
regarding restitution: (1) the sentencing court’s restitution order
improperly included prejudgment interest, and (2) under the 2019

2
amendments to section 18-1.3-603, ch. 303, sec. 1,
§ 18-1.3-603(4)(b.5)(I)(A), 2019 Colo. Sess. Laws 2778 (the 2019
amendments), interest on the restitution award illegally accrues
while he is incarcerated. The district court denied the motion in
two written orders. The postconviction court found that (1) the
sentencing court properly calculated prejudgment interest on the
restitution award from the date of the loss; and (2) interest can
accrue while Mountz is incarcerated because the 2019 amendments
only “appl[y] to orders entered on or after July 1, 2019,” citing id. at
2779.
¶ 5 However, Mountz’s opening brief does not present any issues
for our resolution. Mountz asserts that the district court correctly
calculated the amount of restitution, effectively abandoning his
restitution claim. He does not present arguments on any of the
other issues raised in his postconviction motion, thereby
abandoning them. See People v. Osorio, 170 P.3d 796, 801 (Colo.
App. 2007) (explaining that claims raised in a defendant’s
postconviction motion, but not reasserted on appeal, are deemed
abandoned).

3
¶ 6 Because Mountz presents no issues for this court to resolve,
we dismiss the appeal.
JUDGE HARRIS and JUDGE GOMEZ concur.