On Monday, March 16, 2026, Colorado Politics reported that the Colorado Court of Appeals rejected an appeal from Anthony Palermo, who argued that the judge in his case should not have presided over both a hearing regarding a potential conflict of interest with his lawyer and his subsequent sentencing. Palermo claimed the judge’s knowledge of his reaction to the conflict hearing may have tainted the sentencing decision.
Palermo had pleaded guilty to harassment and assault in Huerfano County in September 2023. Before his sentencing, he requested a new lawyer, alleging coercion by his public defender. Chief Judge John “Clay” McKisson conducted what is known as a “Bergerud hearing” on the day of sentencing, which stems from a 2010 Colorado Supreme Court decision. The purpose of this hearing is to assess potential conflicts between a defendant and their court-appointed lawyer, excluding the prosecution to protect attorney-client confidentiality.
McKisson concluded that Palermo was simply experiencing “some buyer’s remorse” after hearing from Palermo and his attorney and proceeded to sentence Palermo to 15 years in prison, one year less than the maximum.
Palermo appealed, arguing that a different judge should have overseen the conflict hearing and sentencing. Attorney Rachel C. Funez argued that keeping the information from the hearing from tainting the sentencing court’s view of the Defendant could have tainted the court’s sentencing decision. Assistant Attorney General Brenna A. Brackett countered that a judge learning information about a defendant during a conflict hearing does not necessarily prevent them from fairly sentencing the defendant.
The Court of Appeals panel, including Judge Pax L. Moultrie, acknowledged that some jurisdictions use different judges for conflict hearings, but noted the Supreme Court’s Bergerud decision does not mandate this practice.
Moultrie wrote in the March 12 opinion that “nothing in Bergerud prohibits this, and we don’t mean to suggest that a Bergerud hearing must be heard by the judge presiding over the case.”
The court stated that judges should recuse themselves if their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
Ultimately, the appellate panel rejected Palermo’s challenge because he failed to demonstrate any bias on McKisson’s part beyond his handling of the conflict hearing.
Source: Colorado Politics
