What are the legal issues and charges underlying Tina Peters' appeals since 2024?

1. Criminal convictions and the core charges she’s appealing — “unauthorized access” and related felonies

Peters was convicted in 2024 on seven counts in Mesa County, including four felonies tied to the 2021 security breach in which an unauthorized person copied hard drives from county Dominion voting machines; the jury convictions and the subsequent nine-year sentence are the primary bases for her appeals and habeas filings ^{[2] [1]}. Reporting and court documents say the felony counts include attempting to influence a public servant, identity theft, criminal impersonation, and conspiracy among others — the state framed these as crimes arising from facilitating unauthorized access to election systems ^{[8] [2]}.

2. Colorado Court of Appeals work on narrower procedural rulings — contempt vacated, other appeals pending

Peters has pursued state appellate challenges beyond the guilt phase. The Colorado Court of Appeals vacated a district-court punitive contempt finding against her in a December 19, 2024 opinion, indicating successful targeted appellate arguments on procedural grounds even as other appeals continued ^[9]. Available sources do not lay out every issue she raised on state appeal, but they show that her legal team pursued multiple appellate avenues in 2024–2025 ^{[9] [10]}.

3. Federal litigation: 10th Circuit appeal of earlier federal dismissal and habeas corpus petition

Separate from her state criminal appeal, Peters appealed a federal-district court dismissal to the 10th Circuit in January 2024 — that appeal sought reversal of a judge’s dismissal of claims related to her ability to challenge the criminal investigation or raise constitutional defenses in federal court ^{[3] [2]}. More consequentially for her incarceration status, her lawyers filed a federal habeas corpus petition arguing, among other claims, that her First Amendment rights were violated by denial of bail pending appeal; federal magistrates have held hearings but courts and respondents (including the Colorado Attorney General) have argued jurisdictional and exhaustion issues ^{[5] [6] [1]}.

4. Bond pending appeal and First Amendment arguments

A recurring legal theme is Peters’ request for bond while appeals proceed. Her federal habeas petition and associated pleadings argue that the denial of bond was retaliatory or punitive in violation of her First Amendment rights because she has been barred from certain speech and activities; the Colorado Attorney General has formally opposed those First Amendment claims and urged dismissal of the habeas petition, and appellate courts previously denied bond requests ^{[1] [5] [6]}. National outlets and Peters’ lawyers frame bond as a constitutional and health issue; state prosecutors and courts emphasize public-safety and state-law procedures in opposing release ^{[10] [6]}.

5. Federal interest, custody-transfer push, and political overlay

In 2025 the U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in her habeas action and federal authorities — including the Bureau of Prisons at the Trump administration’s request — have sought Peters’ transfer to federal custody; supporters argue a transfer would be safer and could facilitate relief, while Colorado officials including the Mesa County prosecutor and the state attorney general oppose the transfer as an improper federal intrusion into a state prosecution ^{[11] [7] [12] [13]}. Media coverage shows competing narratives: Peters’ allies portray federal intervention as protective and corrective, while state officials call it an attempt to circumvent Colorado’s criminal process ^{[14] [15]}.

6. What the records substantively show and what they do not

Court opinions and reporting substantiate the 2024 convictions, sentence length, the specific felony counts charged, the habeas filing and hearings, the 10th Circuit appeal of a federal dismissal, and the Bureau of Prisons’ transfer request ^{[2] [1] [3] [5] [7]}. Available sources do not mention all details of every legal argument on appeal (for example, precise constitutional theories beyond the First Amendment bond claim are not fully cataloged in these excerpts), so summaries above focus on issues repeatedly reported in the record ^{[6] [5]}.

7. Why this matters: legal stakes and political implications

Legally, the appeals and habeas litigation test procedural boundaries — when federal courts may intervene in a state conviction, standards for bond pending appeal, and how contempt and other sanctions are reviewed on appeal ^{[9] [6]}. Politically, the case has become a touchstone for larger disputes about election misinformation, executive branch intervention, and whether federal actors may or should facilitate relief for someone convicted in state court — a dispute expressly raised by both the DOJ interest and state officials urging the governor not to permit a custody transfer ^{[11] [12] [15]}.

Conclusion: the bulk of Peters’ post-2024 litigation centers on appeals of state convictions and collateral federal habeas relief (including First Amendment-based bond claims), plus related procedural wins and fights over custody transfer; sources document the criminal charges, convictions, sentence, habeas filings, DOJ interest, and a contested federal custody request while leaving some appellate argument details unreported in the provided excerpts ^{[2] [5] [7]}.