A Colorado appeals court has overturned the nine-year prison sentence handed to Tina Peters, marking a significant development in a high-profile case involving election conspiracy theories from 2020. Peters, the first election official to be convicted of a felony tied to these theories, will now face re-sentencing after the appeals panel found her First Amendment rights had been infringed and the original court overstepped in its considerations.

In a comprehensive 78-page decision released Thursday, Judges Craig R. Welling, Ted C. Tow III, and Lino Lipinsky of the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that the trial court’s comments regarding Peters’s beliefs about election fraud exceeded the scope of relevant factors in her sentencing. The panel concluded that the original sentence was unduly severe.

“The offense committed by Peters was not her belief in election fraud—no matter how misguided the trial court perceived it to be—but her deceitful actions in attempting to substantiate such claims,” the opinion stated. “Her motives, while irrelevant to her defense, should not have influenced the severity of her sentence.”

Reacting to the ruling, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser issued a statement emphasizing that Peters remains a convicted felon with a serious breach of duty as Mesa County’s clerk. “Despite any changes to her sentence, the damage to democracy and the risks she posed remain indelible,” Weiser remarked.

Peters was found guilty in August on seven counts for her role in a security breach involving unauthorized access to voting machines during her tenure as a county clerk in Mesa County, Colorado. Her original sentencing in October followed an extensive hearing where she continued to assert her defiance and reiterated conspiracy theories. The 70-year-old was sentenced to nine years in state prison for these felony charges.

Peters was convicted in August of seven counts of engaging in a security breach related to unauthorized access to voting machines while she worked as a county clerk in Mesa County, Colorado. In October — after a marathon hearing in which Peters repeatedly expressed defiance and brought up conspiracy theories — the 70-year-old was sentenced to nine years in state prison for her felony offenses.

According to the appellate judges, it is “apparent that the court imposed the lengthy sentence it did because Peters continued to espouse the views that led her to commit these crimes.” They say in their opinion that the “tenor of the court’s comments makes clear that it felt the sentence length was necessary, at least in part, to prevent her from continuing to espouse views the court deemed ‘damaging.’”

While Peters did not testify at trial, the panel points out that she chose to make statements at her sentencing hearing that the lower court claimed were evidence of a “lack of remorse.” Her comments included spending “a great deal of time” talking about the alleged 2020 election fraud that she believes went down, according to Senior Assistant Attorney General Lisa Michaels.

“She used [the hearing] as a platform to make all these allegations, so of course it was relevant to what the court was doing at the sentencing hearing,” Michaels asserted during a January appellate hearing. “The court was entitled to consider what she said,” Michaels added.

The appeals panel ruled that it was “not inappropriate for the court to consider at sentencing whether Peters’s statements evidenced a lack of remorse,” per the Thursday opinion.

“The court failed to acknowledge that Peters is no longer the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder,” the opinion says. “She is no longer in a position to engage in the conduct that led to her conviction. So it cannot be said that the lengthy prison sentence was for specific deterrence. To the contrary, the sentence punished Peters for her persistence in espousing her beliefs regarding the integrity of the 2020 election.”

The appeals court ordered 21st Judicial District Judge Matthew Branch to resentence Peters. “The division reverses her sentence because it was based in part on improper consideration of her exercise of her right to free speech,” the opinion says. “The division remands the case to the trial court for resentencing.”

While the judges tossed out Peters’ prison term, the panel did affirm her convictions after Peters filed a motion “to determine whether this court has jurisdiction to adjudicate” her appeal following claims by President Donald Trump that he was going to be pardoning Peters.

“While this appeal was pending, President Donald J. Trump purported to pardon Peters for ‘those offenses she has or may have committed or taken part in related to election integrity and security,” the opinion recounts. “Thereafter, Peters filed a motion … asserting two arguments — a claim that the President’s pardon abrogates her state law offenses and a reiteration of her Supremacy Clause immunity argument.”

The court of appeals dismissed both arguments, with the judges shooting down a claim from Peters’ lawyers that the president had the authority to grant “pardons for offenses against the United States” in any state in the union.

“We join what appears to us to be every other appellate court that has addressed the issue and reject such an expansive reading of the phrase,” the opinion reads, noting how Peters contends “without citation to any legal or historical authority” that the words “United States” refer to individual sovereign states.

“Specifically, Peters points to the use of plural pronouns to refer to the United States in the Constitution to contend that the term must be referring to the states, not the federal government, which would take a singular pronoun,” the opinion explains. “We disagree.”

The judges believe that despite the arguments made by Peters’ lawyers, the words “several States,” “each State,” “that State,” and “any State” come up repeatedly in the U.S. Constitution.

“Had the Founders wanted to extend the presidential pardon power to state offenses, they could have used language identical or similar to ‘the several States’ later in the sentence,” their opinion concludes. “But they did not. Instead, they used only ‘the United States,’ which must mean something different than ‘the several States.’”

Peters’ attorneys have argued and asked for a pardon to be handed down by Trump throughout the appeals process. They sent a letter to Trump last year urging him to consider a workaround for pardoning Peters on her state charges. The Trump administration has said multiple times that it has been probing ways to get involved.

“The president’s pardon of Tina Peters is meaningless and won’t free her from prison,” said AG Weiser in his statement Thursday. “Presidential pardons do not extend to state crimes, and the president cannot wipe away Ms. Peters’ conviction with a stroke of a pen.”

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold issued a statement Thursday saying, “The Appeals Court affirmed Peters’ conviction, and I am appreciative of their rejection of Trump’s unlawful attempt to pardon her. Peters will continue to face accountability for coordinating a breach of her own election equipment. Her actions have been repeatedly used to spread conspiracy theories, amplify falsehoods, and fuel dangerous election lies. Peters should not receive any special treatment as the District Court considers re-sentencing.”

Peters was slated to be eligible for parole in November 2028, according to the Colorado Department of Corrections, but that timeline will now change. A date has not been set yet for her resentencing.